DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on October 5, 2023.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 does not show a flow chart with the details described in the original disclosure regarding the types of boxes and the flow of steps (see specification at [0112]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “b) determining, from the correlation, the value representative of the state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at such temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value” should read “b) determining, from the correlation, the value representative of the state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at the temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “The method of claim 1, wherein receiving data comprises,” should read “The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the data comprises[[,]]:” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis and correct for minor informalities.
Claim language “a’) obtaining the plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises at least one resist structure …” should read “a’) obtaining the plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises the at least one resist structure …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “a”) applying the heat treatment to the plurality of entities, wherein a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied …” should read “a”) applying the heat treatment to the plurality of entities, wherein [[a]]the temperature at which the heat treatment is applied …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “… corresponding to the selected portion of the reference entity, of the each of the plurality of entities” should read “… corresponding to the selected portion of the reference entity, of [[the]] each of the plurality of entities” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “… corresponding to the selected portion of the reference entity, of the each of the plurality of entities” should read “… corresponding to the selected portion of the reference entity, of [[the]] each of the plurality of entities” in order to correct for minor informalities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “A method for determining a dependency of [[a]]the value representative of [[a]]the state transition temperature of [[a]]the resist structure on [[an]]the underlayer material, on a property of the resist structure or of the underlayer material, the method comprising: obtaining the value representative of the state transition temperature for each of at least two sets of entities, by performing the method according to any of the previous claims on each of the at least two sets of entities, wherein each set comprises the plurality of entities, wherein, within each set of entities, each entity comprises the at least one resist structure formed of [[a]]the resist material and having the predetermined dimensions, on the underlayer material, wherein, amongst different sets of entities, the property is different” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language “means for applying a heat treatment to a plurality of entities … wherein a measure representative of a spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has a first value before heat treatment” should read “means for applying a heat treatment to a plurality of entities … wherein a measure representative of a spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has a first value before the heat treatment” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Claim language “means for determining, from the correlation, a value representative of a state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at such temperature …” should read “means for determining, from the correlation, a value representative of a state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at the temperature …” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this particular case, claim 17 recites:
“means for applying a heat treatment to a plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises at least one resist structure, formed of a resist material and having predetermined dimensions, on a substrate, wherein a measure representative of a spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has a first value before heat treatment, wherein a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied is different for each entity of the plurality of entities”, which is interpreted as being performed by an oven as indicated in the original specification (see [0068]).
“means for determining a second value for the measure representative of the spatial feature after the heat treatment for the at least one resist structure of each of the plurality of entities, so as to obtain a correlation between the second value and the temperature at which the heat treatment is applied”, which is interpreted as being performed by a scanning electron microscope or an optical detector, as indicated in the original specification (see [0069]).
“means for determining, from the correlation, a value representative of a state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at such temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value”, which is interpreted as being performed by a data processing apparatus, as indicated in the original specification (see [0070]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
the limitation “b) determining, from the correlation, the value representative of the state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at such temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to evaluate information and obtain a result (i.e., the value representative of the state transition temperature; see Figs. 3-12 and 14-15, see also specification at [0024]-[0026]). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated) and the particular technological environment or field of use, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing a mental evaluation and/or applying mathematical concepts to compare data and obtain a result.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“A method for determining a value representative of a state transition temperature of a resist structure, formed of a resist material and having predetermined dimensions, on an underlayer material” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and
“a) receiving data representing a correlation between a second value for a measure representative of a spatial feature of at least one resist structure of each of a plurality of entities after applying a heat treatment, and a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied, wherein each entity comprising the at least one resist structure, formed of the resist material and having the predetermined dimensions before the heat treatment, on the underlayer material, and wherein the measure has a first value before the heat treatment” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated, e.g., see specification at [0017]) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) while also appending a transformation at a high level of generality and contributing only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., transformation used for data gathering or as a field-of-use limitation) (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., determining a value representative of a state transition temperature of a resist structure), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering by selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b));
append a transformation at a high level of generality and contributing only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which as indicated in the MPEP: “A transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application)” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible
Similarly, independent claim 17 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (Claims 3, 6, 8 and 10-14), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source) and/or field of use (Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-16), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-17 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Choi (US 20050026078 A1, IDS reference) discloses/teaches:
A method for determining a value of a resist structure (Fig. 1C), formed of a resist material (Fig. 1A, item 30 – “resist compound layer”) and having predetermined dimensions, on an underlayer material (Fig. 1A, items 10 and 20; Abstract: a method for forming a fine pattern in a semiconductor substrate by a thermal process using a resist composition layer is presented, with the amount of flow of the photoresist pattern during the thermal process being calculated (see [0055]-[0056])), the method comprising:
a) receiving data representing a correlation (Fig. 2) between a second value for a measure representative of a spatial feature of at least one resist structure of each of a plurality of entities after applying a heat treatment, and a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied, wherein each entity comprising the at least one resist structure, formed of the resist material and having the predetermined dimensions before the heat treatment, on the underlayer material, and wherein the measure has a first value before the heat treatment ([0034]-[0046], [0055]-[0056]: a fine pattern is formed on a substrate by heating a photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1B, item 30a showing the resist structures having a first value for a measure representative of a spatial feature before heating) at a temperature higher than the transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known, to obtain a modified photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1C, item 30b showing the resist structures having a second value for the measure representative of the spatial feature, the second value different from the first value); the amount of flow of the photoresist pattern during the thermal process being calculated; the reference describes applying temperatures higher than the transition temperature, not using the correlation to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
Cho (Cho, In Wook, Hyunsu Kim, Jee-Hye You, and Hye-Keun Oh. “Line edge roughness reduction using resist reflow process for 22 nm node extreme ultraviolet lithography.” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 49, no. 3R (2010): 036502, IDS reference) discloses:
“The developed resist is baked above the glass transition temperature and with then flow … A 136 [Symbol font/0xB0]C glass transition temperature of the resist is used and the typical viscosity and adhesion factor of a commercial resist are used for RRP calculation” (p. 3, col. 1, section “2.3 Resist reflow process”: effects of resist reflow process (RRP) temperature on line edge roughness and linewidth roughness are studied by applying a thermal process above a particular glass transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known; the reference does not disclose using a correlation (as defined in the claim) to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest:
“A method for determining a value representative of a state transition temperature of a resist structure, the method comprising:
b) determining, from the correlation, the value representative of the state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at such temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value” (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discusses applying temperatures above the state transition temperature, which implies that this value is already known)
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 17.
Choi (US 20050026078 A1, IDS reference) discloses/teaches:
A device comprising:
means for applying a heat treatment to a plurality of entities, wherein each entity comprises at least one resist structure (Fig. 1C), formed of a resist material (Fig. 1A, item 30 – “resist compound layer”) and having predetermined dimensions, on a substrate (Fig. 1A, items 10 and 20), wherein a measure representative of a spatial feature of the at least one resist structure has a first value before heat treatment ([0034]-[0046], [0055]-[0056]: a fine pattern is formed on a substrate by heating (which examiner interprets to be applied in an oven, see [0041]) a photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1B, item 30a showing the resist structures having a first value for a measure representative of a spatial feature before heating) at a temperature higher than the transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known, to obtain a modified photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1C, item)), wherein a temperature at which the heat treatment is applied is different for each entity of the plurality of entities (see Table 1 and examples), and
means for determining a second value for the measure representative of the spatial feature after the heat treatment for the at least one resist structure of each of the plurality of entities, so as to obtain a correlation (Fig. 2) between the second value and the temperature at which the heat treatment is applied ([0034]-[0046], [0055]-[0056]: a fine pattern is formed on a substrate by heating a photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1B, item 30a showing the resist structures having a first value for a measure representative of a spatial feature before heating) at a temperature higher than the transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known, to obtain a modified photoresist pattern (see Fig. 1C, item 30b showing the resist structures having a second value for the measure representative of the spatial feature, the second value different from the first value); the amount of flow of the photoresist pattern during the thermal process being calculated; the reference describes applying temperatures higher than the transition temperature, not using the correlation to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
Cho (Cho, In Wook, Hyunsu Kim, Jee-Hye You, and Hye-Keun Oh. “Line edge roughness reduction using resist reflow process for 22 nm node extreme ultraviolet lithography.” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 49, no. 3R (2010): 036502, IDS reference) discloses:
“The developed resist is baked above the glass transition temperature and with then flow … A 136 [Symbol font/0xB0]C glass transition temperature of the resist is used and the typical viscosity and adhesion factor of a commercial resist are used for RRP calculation” (p. 3, col. 1, section “2.3 Resist reflow process”: effects of resist reflow process (RRP) temperature on line edge roughness and linewidth roughness are studied by applying a thermal process above a particular glass transition temperature, which implies the state transition temperature to be known; the reference does not disclose using a correlation (as defined in the claim) to determine the value representative of the state transition temperature).
The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, fails to teach or suggest:
“means for determining, from the correlation, a value representative of a state transition temperature, for which, when the heat treatment would be performed at such temperature, the second value differs by a predetermined amount from the first value” (the examiner submits that the prior art of record discusses applying temperatures above the state transition temperature, which implies that this value is already known)
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claims 2-16.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amemiya; Isao et al., US 20120135353 A1, FUNCTIONALLY GRADIENT INORGANIC RESIST, SUBSTRATE WITH FUNCTIONALLY GRADIENT INORGANIC RESIST, CYLINDRICAL BASE MATERIAL WITH FUNCTIONALLY GRADIENT INORGANIC RESIST, METHOD FOR FORMING FUNCTIONALLY GRADIENT INORGANIC RESIST AND METHOD FOR FORMING FINE PATTERN, AND INORGANIC RESIST AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME
Reference discloses an inorganic resist that changes its state by applying heat.
Q.P. Cao, C. Wang, K.J. Bu, S.Y. Liu, X.D. Wang, D.X. Zhang, J.Z. Jiang, The influence of glass transition temperature on the critical size for deformation mode transition in metallic glassy films, Scripta Materialia, Volume 77, 2014, Pages 64-67, ISSN 1359-6462, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2014.01.025
Reference discloses using different Poisson’s ratio and glass transition temperatures to investigate the critical size for deformation mode.
Stowers; Jason K. et al., US 20110293888 A1, PATTERNED INORGANIC LAYERS, RADIATION BASED PATTERNING COMPOSITIONS AND CORRESPONDING METHODS
Reference discloses patterning designs with selected radiation to form very low line-width roughness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights