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 .
This is response to Application 18/498,315 filed on 10/31/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the office action.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a mathematical concept without significantly or more.
As per claim 1:
Step 1: claim 1 is directed to “a method” which is considered as “a process”. Thus, claim 1 falls into four categories statutory of invention (Step: YES).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 is broadest interpretation to describe a mathematical concept, such as:
The step “obtaining a simulation input data set and a measurement data set” which consider data information may be used for mathematical calculation (see as further in claim 3, wherein the simulation input data set comprises input cases sampled according to at least one of a Monte Carlo sampling method, a Latin hypercube sampling method, or a quasi-Monte Carlo sampling method).
The step “obtaining a simulation output data set generated based on performing a simulation based on the simulation input data set” which a result of a mathematical calculation (see as further claim 2, such as wherein the simulation comprises technology computer aided design (TCAD) simulation, and the generating of the simulation output data set comprises generating the simulation output data set based on performing the TCAD simulation based on the simulation input data set).
The step “extracting reference noise information associated with the measurement data set from the measurement data set” and the step “extracting distribution information associated with each simulation case included in the simulation output data set based on synthesizing the reference noise information and the simulation output data set” which are gathering value of variable (i.e., noise information and distribution information) for mathematical process.
The step “generating a noise simulation data set based on sampling data based on the distribution information” and the step “generating a synthesized data set based on synthesizing the simulation input data set, the noise simulation data set, and the measurement data set” which describe mathematical calculating process.
As above analysis, claim 1 is directed to a mathematical process which is a judicial exception (step 2a, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Claim 1 does/do not recited (1) additional element in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those addition elements individual or combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim itself does not include additional element either from claim language, specification, and drawings. The claim list the step of mathematical concept and maybe solving the mathematical problem by using pencil and paper, or by a generic computer.
The step “obtaining a simulation output data set generated based on performing a simulation based on the simulation input data set” and further limit in claim 2, recited “the simulation comprises technology computer aid design (TCAD) simulation” which is nothing more than using a generic computer to performing mathematical calculation (TCAD simulation).
Hence, there is no additional element in the claim beyond the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong two analysis: NO).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim preamble recited “augmenting training data for a semiconductor process modeling” which is also directed to a mathematical concept, such as “training data” and “modeling” and also claim limitations/steps as above have nothing related or referred to “a semiconductor process modeling”. Hence, there does not include additional elements or insufficient extra-solution activity which do not provide an inventive concepted (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claim 1 is not eligibility subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 16: is similar breadth with all the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 16 is a system claim, included “a processor” and “a memory” which is nothing more than a generic computer.
Hence, claim 16 is rejected as similar claim 1 analysis.
Thus, claim 16 is not eligibility subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 12:
Step 1: claim 12 is directed to “a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium to store instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform training data augmentation for semiconductor process modeling” which is considered as “a process”. Thus, claim 1 falls into four categories statutory of invention (Step: YES).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 12 is broadest interpretation to describe a mathematical concept, such as:
The step “obtaining simulation recipe information” which appears “a mathematical variable”.
The step “generating a first simulation input data set based on sampling values corresponding to input variable information included in the simulation recipe information” which is calculate/compute of mathematical variable.
The step “generating a first simulation output data set based on performing simulation based on the first simulation input data set” is a result of mathematical calculation.
The last step “generating a first synthesized data set based on synthesizing the first simulation input data set and the first simulation output data set” which describes mathematical calculating process.
As above analysis, claim 12 is directed to a mathematical process which is a judicial exception (step 2a, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Claim 12 does/do not recited (1) additional element in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those addition elements individual or combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim itself does not include additional element either from claim language, specification, and drawings. The claim list the step of mathematical concept and maybe solving the mathematical problem by using pencil and paper, or by a generic computer.
The claim preamble includes “a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium to store instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform training data augmentation for semiconductor process modeling” which appears solving the mathematical problem by a generic computer.
Hence, there is no additional element in the claim beyond the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong two analysis: NO).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim preamble recited “augmenting training data for a semiconductor process modeling” which is also directed to a mathematical concept, such as “training data” and “modeling” and also claim limitations/steps as above have nothing related or referred to “a semiconductor process modeling” even through claim language including “recipe information”, but nothing more than “data information” of mathematical variable. Hence, there does not include additional elements or insufficient extra-solution activity which do not provide an inventive concepted (Step 2B: NO).
Thus, claim 12 is not eligibility subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-20 are also rejected because are depended directly or indirectly from claims 1, 12, and 16, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1 and 16: recited the limitation “reference noise information”, “distribution information”, “noise simulation data”, and “a synthesized data set” which appear list different pieces of data information, but unclear what related/referred to “reference noise information” and “distribution information” and what is/are type/kind of noise need to simulate and how to use these data information to synthesize. The steps list in claims 1 and 16 do not related to any particular semiconductor device/elements or a process related to particular semiconductor device/elements. Hence, claims 1 and 16 are indefinite.
Claims 2-11 and 17-20 are also rejected because are depended directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 16, respectively.
Claim Interpretation
As per claim 12: recited “recipe information” to be broadest interpretation from application specification “parameterized parameter”. To consider as a whole, claim 12 list steps of data training, getting input and output from machine learning to train a data set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Freed et al., (U.S. Pub. 2022/0101198).
As per claim 12: Freed discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium configured to store instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform training data augmentation for semiconductor process modeling, wherein the training data augmentation for the semiconductor process modeling (‘198, fig. 2, computing device 200, par. [0058] – [0059] and fig. 4, machine learning model 420) comprises:
obtaining simulation recipe information (i.e., parameterized variable) (‘198, par. [0008] [0020], parameterized variable);
generating a first simulation input data set based on sampling values corresponding to input variable information included in the simulation recipe information (‘198, par. [0042], simulation input associated with parameterized variable, also see fig. 4, simulation input 402, par. [0064]);
generating a first simulation output data set based on performing simulation based on the first simulation input data set (‘194, par. [0043] and fig. 4, simulation result/output 404, par. [0064]); and
generating a first synthesized data set based on synthesizing the first simulation input data set and the first simulation output data set (‘198, fig. 4, dataset 430 and par. [0065] – [0066]).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freed et al., (U.S. Pub. 2022/0101198) in view of Muller et al., (U.S. Pub. 2021/0294945).
As per claim 13: Freed does not teach a plurality of values sampled based on using a quasi-Monte Carlo sampling method.
Muller teaches Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo integration are simple recipes for solving complicated integration problem (‘945, the abstract). The technique of predicting the neural control variate to estimate a linear operator, such as an integral, may be applied to Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo integration (‘945, par. [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine Muller and Feed to use Muller’s Monte Carlo and quasi-Monte Carlo methods for high-dimensional integration, neural networks (Freed’s machine learning) are especially helpful in high-dimensional approximation (‘945, par. [0080]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claims 1, 14, and 16: the training data augmentation for the semiconductor process modeling further comprises:
obtaining a second simulation input data set and a measurement data set;
obtaining a second simulation output data set based on performing simulation based on the second simulation input data set;
extracting reference noise information associated with the measurement data set from the measurement data set;
extracting distribution information associated with each simulation case included in the second simulation output data set based on synthesizing the reference noise information and the second simulation output data set;
generating a noise simulation data set based on sampling data based on the distribution information;
generating a second synthesized data set based on synthesizing the second simulation input data set, the noise simulation data set, and the measurement data set; and
generating a third synthesized data set based on synthesizing the first synthesized data set and the second synthesized data set.
As per claim 15: wherein the simulation recipe information comprises information associated with types of gases used in a high aspect ratio (HAR) etching process on a wafer, and the input variable information comprises information indicating an injection amount of any one gas of the gases used in the HAR etching process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGHIA M DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5973. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00 AM - 5:00 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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
NGHIA M. DOAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2851
/NGHIA M DOAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights