DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0344171 to Varghese et al. (Varghese) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2014/0107998 to Vukkadala et al. (Vukkadala) and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0264076 to Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto).
Claims 1, 9 and 17
With regard to identifying, …, a profile of the out-of-plane deformation of the substrate; Varghese teaches performing front side metrology to parse out topography on a wafer (Fig. 3, step 301; par. 32).
With regard to characterizing a respective one of a plurality of elemental deformation shapes of the substrate; Varghese teaches a process to parse out and filter various orders of topography including 1st order bow correction information (pars. 32, 33).
With regard to identifying, based on at least a subset of the plurality of polynomial coefficients, one or more characteristics of a stress-compensation layer (SCL) for the substrate; Varghese teaches using correction information to determine stress/thickness of the film and deposition of film to the second side of the substrate (pars. 32, 33).
With regard to causing the SCL to be deposited on the substrate; Varghese teaches deposition of the stress compensation film (Fig. 3, step 302; par. 33).
With regard to performing the non-uniform stress-mitigation irradiation of the SCL using the identified settings, wherein the non-uniform stress-mitigation irradiation is performed using at least first settings for a first region of the SCL and second settings for a second region of the SCL; Varghese teaches performing an ion implant to the film (Fig. 3, step 306; pars. 34, 35).
Varghese does not teach using optical inspection data to identify the out-of-plane deformation and performing a polynomial decomposition of the identified profile to determine a plurality of polynomial coefficients.
Vukkadala teaches an optical image system to obtain a wafer shape image (par. 60). Vukkadala teaches processing polynomials with varying coefficients to determine sample wafer shapes including Zernike polynomials (pars 9, 33, 34, 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stress modulation, as taught by Varghese, to include optical measurement and processing a Zernike polynomial, as taught by Vukkadala, because more predictions of distortions would have been more accurate and efficient (Vukkadala, pars. 9, 54).
Varghese does not teach performing a plurality of statistical simulations to identify settings for a non-uniform stress-mitigation irradiation of the SCL, wherein performing the plurality of statistical simulations comprises sampling from one or more statistical distributions associated with previously performed stress-mitigation irradiations.
Yamamoto teaches simulation of process parameters and using process parameters and physical data for the simulation (pars. 91-93, 89, 131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stress modulation, as taught by Varghese, to include simulation of process parameters, as taught by Yamamoto, because then the amount of electricity and gas used would have been reduced (Yamamoto, pars. 112).
With regard to a memory; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the memory, as recited in claim 9, or a computing device as recited in claim 17, Varghese teaches a processor and memory (Fig. 5B, processor 552, memory 554; par. 42).
With regard to one or more processing chambers to process a substrate, as recited in claim 17, Varghese teaches a processing chamber (Fig. 5A, process chamber; par. 38).
Claims 2 and 10
Varghese teaches that the plurality of elemental deformation shapes of the substrate comprises a paraboloid deformation of the substrate and a saddle deformation of the substrate (pars. 25, 27, bowing).
Claims 3 and 11
Varghese does not teach that the polynomial decomposition of the identified profile comprises decomposition of the identified profile over Zernike polynomials. Vukkadala teaches Zernike polynomials (par. 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stress modulation, as taught by Varghese, to include optical measurement and processing a Zernike polynomial, as taught by Vukkadala, because more predictions of distortions would have been more accurate and efficient (Vukkadala, pars. 9, 54).
Claims 4, 12 and 18
Varghese teaches that the one or more characteristics of the SCL comprise one or more of: a material of the SCL, or a thickness of the SCL (par. 32, thickness).
Claims 5, 13 and 19
Varghese teaches that the identified settings comprise one or more of:
a type of particles of a stress-mitigation beam used for the non-uniform stress-mitigation irradiation of the SCL,
an energy of the particles of the stress-mitigation beam, or
an angle of incidence of the particles of the stress-mitigation beam on the SCL (par. 38, medium or high current ion implanter corresponds to an energy of the particles).
Claims 7, 15 and 20
Varghese teaches that the non-uniform stress-mitigation irradiation of the SCL comprises an ion implantation, and wherein the one or more statistical distributions comprise at least one of:
a distribution of depths of the ion implantation for one or more types of ions and/or one or more energies of the ions, or
a distribution of a number of generated vacancies for one or more types of ions and/or one or more energies of the ions (par. 31, depth).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese in view of Vukkadala and Yamamoto.
Claims 8 and 16
Varghese, Vukkadala and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of claim 7 upon which claim 8 depends and claim 15 upon which claim 16 depends. Varghese, Vukkadala and Yamamoto do not teach that one or more of the distribution of depths or the distribution of the number of generated vacancies depend on an angle of incidence of the ions on the SCL. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known that depth of implantation is related to the angle of incidence of the ions and to control the depth by varying the angle of incidence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stress modulation, as taught by Varghese, to include distribution of depths that depend on an angle of incidence, because then the distribution of depths would have been controlled in a well known manner to more closely compensate for deformation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 4 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/431,860 in view of Yamamoto.
The claims of the present application correspond to the claims of the ‘860 Application as shown in the following chart.
Claims in the current application
18/431,860 corresponding claim
1
3
2
4
3
3
4
3
5
3
9
16
The claims of the ‘860 application include all the limitations of the current application except for performing a plurality of statistical simulations to identify settings for a non-uniform stress-mitigation irradiation of the SCL, wherein performing the plurality of statistical simulations comprises sampling from one or more statistical distributions associated with previously performed stress-mitigation irradiations.
Yamamoto teaches simulation of process parameters and using process parameters and physical data for the simulation (pars. 91-93, 89, 131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claims of the present application, to include simulation of process parameters, as taught by Yamamoto, because then the amount of electricity and gas used would have been reduced (Yamamoto, pars. 112).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 9-13 and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/431,909 in view of Yamamoto.
The claims of the present application correspond to the claims of the ‘909 application as shown in the following chart.
Claims in the current application
18/431,909 corresponding claims
1
1
2
1
3
2
4
7
5
8
9
11
10
11
11
12
12
17
13
17
17
20
The claims of the ‘909 application include all the limitations of the current application except for performing a plurality of statistical simulations to identify settings for a non-uniform stress-mitigation irradiation of the SCL, wherein performing the plurality of statistical simulations comprises sampling from one or more statistical distributions associated with previously performed stress-mitigation irradiations.
Yamamoto teaches simulation of process parameters and using process parameters and physical data for the simulation (pars. 91-93, 89, 131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the claims of the present application, to include simulation of process parameters, as taught by Yamamoto, because then the amount of electricity and gas used would have been reduced (Yamamoto, pars. 112).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights