DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 23, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 15-21, and 28-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,079,687 in view of Inani et al. [US 7,494,893]. The subject matter of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, and 15-21, and 28-33 of the application are anticipated by or broader than the subject matter of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 16 of the Patent.
The Patent does not claim a determined process window and physically configuring or physically modifying an electronic device manufacturing process based on the process window and/or outputting a signal representing, or based on, the process window to a tool or system for enabling physical configuration or physical modification of the device manufacturing process.
Inani teaches a determined process window and physically configuring or physically modifying an electronic device manufacturing process based on the process window and/or outputting a signal representing, or based on, the process window to a tool or system for enabling physical configuration or physical modification of the device manufacturing process (see col. 9 line 40 - col. 10 line 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to provide the subject matter taught by Inani in the claimed features of the ‘687 Patent in order to ensure the process or tool is operating with defined parameters to successfully manufacture an operable device.
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.
Claims 19 and 29 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.
Claims 19 and 29 recite the limitation "the obtaining the probability density function of the parameter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examining, claims 19 and 29 are understood to depend from claim 18 and 28, respectively, which initially recite the feature for each claim set.
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 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 15-19, 21, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method, the method comprising:
obtaining (i) measurements of a parameter of the feature, (ii) data related to a process variable of a patterning process used to generate the feature, (iii) a functional behavior of the parameter defined as a function of the process variable based on the measurements of the parameter and the data related to the process variable, (iv) measurements of a failure rate of the feature, and (v) a probability density function of the process variable for a setting of the process variable;
converting, by a hardware computer system, the probability density function of the process variable for the setting to a probability density function of the parameter for the setting based on a conversion function, wherein the conversion function is determined based on the function of the process variable; and
determining, by the hardware computer system, process window based on the probability density function of the parameter for the setting and the measurements of the failure rate of the feature
physically configuring or physically modifying an electronic device manufacturing process based on the process window and/or outputting a signal representing, or based on, the process window to a tool or system for enabling physical configuration or physical modification of the device manufacturing process.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method for gathering data and mathematical functional relationships between the data, then determining information from those and mathematical functional relationships. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, and 15 depend from claim 1. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong one: Limitation B converts a probability density function for one type of data to a probability density function for a second type of data using a conversion function. This action is mathematical calculation based on gathered data to provide statistical data and using a mathematical equation to convert the statistical data, which is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Limitation C determines a limit based on the converted statistical data and gathered failure rate. Analyzing data to determine a limit is a mental process using a mathematical solution is an abstract idea (see 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A, prong two: Limitation A gathers measurement values and functional relationships between the data. The data gathering is an extra insignificant activity because it contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g)).
Limitations B and C, the hardware computer system, is also an additional generic element that represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer (see 2106.05(f)). Once the determinations are all made, then no action is taken. Therefore, there is no integration of the exception into a practical application. A general purpose computer is not a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Limitation D, there is no integration of the exception into a practical application that is significantly more because the claimed application does not amount to more that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to the broadly recited electronic device manufacturing process or tool/system that physically modifies or physically configures the manufacturing process (see MPEP 2016.05(h)). The claimed abstract idea is only generally linked to a technological environment associated with the manufacture of a semiconductor device because the claims do not limit to any specific process or tool, or how the process window is implemented or applied to configure or modify the process. The “tool” and the “system” of the claims are generic machines and means for implementing a manufacturing process based on the process window with no link to how that is accomplished on a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Step 2B: Limitation A, data gathering is an extra insignificant activity and contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(g)). The inventive concept lies in the exception and not any combination of the additional elements or the claim as a whole. Limitation A does not represent significantly more than the exception.
Limitations B and C, the hardware computer system, similar to the analysis in prong two, is an additional generic element that represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer and does not represent significantly more than the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b) and MPEP2106.05(f)).
Limitation D, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Physically configuring or physically modifying an electronic device manufacturing process based on the process window and/or outputting a signal representing, or based on, the process window to a tool or system for enabling physical configuration or physical modification of the device manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure or modify is accomplished and using process window to modify or adjust a device manufacturing processes is a well-known method (“It is the task of the lithographer to maximize this faithfulness by judicious equipment selection, and adjustment, and definition of usable process windows”, see col. 1 lines 51-57 of Adams [US 5,362,585]; process window defines the tolerance of the tool, see col. 1 line 57- col 2 line 15 of Mansfield et al. [US 5,965,306]; and fix the tool or define operating limits, see col. 9 line 51 - col. 10 line 14 of Inani et al. [US 7,494,893]) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the “tool” and the “system” of the claims are generic machines and means for implementing a manufacturing process based on the process window with no link to how that is accomplished on a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claim 16 recites as an independent claim a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to perform each of the method limitations A-D as recited in claim 1. The subject matter eligibility analysis for claim 16 is the same as for claim 1. Except that in step 1, claim 16 recites the statutory subject matter of a machine, and for Step 2A Prong II and Step 2B, the computer readable medium is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as significantly more and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to the limitation of C and D of claim 1. Accordingly, the subject matter eligibility analysis for claim 17 is the same as for claim 1.
Claim 21 depends from Claim 17. The recited non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to perform at least the method of claim 17 ais merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as significantly more and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, and 15 depend from claim 1, claims 30-33 depend from claim 16, claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 17, and claims 28 and 29 depend from claim 21. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 28-33 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components that comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula as recited in claim 1 above. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 28-33 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 18, 19, and 28-33 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the process is limited to a specific technological field of invention including an optical proximity correction and/or optimization of a resist thickness or type of the a patterning process of the device manufacturing patterning process.
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.
Claims 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inani et al. [US 7,494,893].
For claim 17, Inani teaches a method comprising: determining, by a hardware computer system (see Fig. 6), a process window for a feature (process parameter for specific tool maintained within process window or specification limit, see col. 9 line 41- col. 10 line 14 and Figs. 4A-4B) based on a failure rate of the feature (defectivity data includes fail rate, see col. 4 lines 15-23 and col. 7 line 64-col.8 line 10, and col. 9 lines 3-9); and physically configuring or physically modifying an electronic device manufacturing process based on the process window and/or outputting a signal representing, or based on, the process window to a tool or system for enabling physical configuration or physical modification of the device manufacturing process (fix the tool or define operating limits, examples provided, see col. 9 line 51 - col. 10 line 14).
For claim 20, Inani teaches the configuring or modifying the device manufacturing process based on the process window and/or outputting a signal representing, or based on, the process window to a tool or system for enabling configuration or modification of the device manufacturing process comprises an optical proximity correction and/or optimization of a resist thickness or type of the patterning process (patterning processing tools for patterning process steps, see col. 2 lines 36-58).
For claim 21, Inani teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see Fig. 6) comprising instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to perform at least the method of claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inani in view of Van Wingerden et al. [US 2006/0206851].
For claims 18 and 28, Inani teaches determining the process window based on the failure rate (see prior art rejection of claim 17 above), but fails to teach the determining the process window comprises: obtaining a probability density function of a parameter of the feature for a setting of a process variable of a patterning process used to generate the feature; and determining the process window based on the probability density function.
Van Wingerden teaches obtaining a probability density function of a parameter of the feature for a setting of a process variable of a patterning process used to generate the feature; and determining the process window based on the probability density function (determining the process latitude for dose and focus based on CD distribution associated with variation in process variables, see [0096]-[0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the process window determination as taught by Van Wingerden in the determination of a process window as taught by Inani in order to optimize the process latitude in order to increase the likelihood of manufacturing an operable device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 8-12 of the Remarks that the “configuring or modifying” clause of claims 1, 16, and 17 are a specific practical application because it is applying an abstract idea to the physical configuration or physical modification of a device manufacturing process or tool/system.
The Applicant argues on pages 8-10, regarding claims 1, 16, and 17, that the Supreme Court in Diehr decided that the operable consideration is that "when a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e.g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of § 101." Diehr at 192 (emphasis added). So, the question here is whether an electronic device manufacturing process is a "... process which... is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect." Surely the answer to that must be yes. Manufacturing electronic devices surely must an epitome of what the U.S. patent laws aim to protect.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No implementation or application of the abstract idea in the electronic device manufacturing process is recited in the claim. A configuration or modification of a process/tool “based” on an abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limitations on the process beyond generally linking the claim to a general environment of electronic device manufacturing (see MPEP 2106.05(e)). Further, the application of a process window to modify or configure an electronic device manufacturing process/tool is so well known and the recitation in the claim is so general to include every aspect of the manufacturing process. There is no unconventional application of the determined process window (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). An electronic device manufacturing process is performing a process which patent laws were designed to protect, but the claim must recite limitations that implement the process to be eligible for protection. In Diehr, the claim “did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation "in a rubber molding process"” but recited specific limitations of the process (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Applicant argues on pages 10-11, whether a claim "encompasses every process and tool that produces a device" is not the correct consideration.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited application of an abstract idea that applicable broad range of processes and tools shows generality (see 2106.05(f)(3)). Also, the process of Diehr does not cover every molding process using the Arrhenius equation nor would that be a consideration since claim 1 at issue in Diehr recites elements of perform the molding method based on the equation. The comparison in footnote 1 between the opening of a mold to arrest the molding process based on a comparison of using an equation recited in Example 25 is very different from the general “physically configuring or physically modifying an electronic device manufacturing process based on the process window and/or outputting a signal representing, or based on, the process window to a tool or system for enabling physical configuration or physical modification of the device manufacturing process” in claims 1, 16 and 17, because the mold opens. In the manufacturing technique example that encompasses every process and tool that produces a device, the technique would indicate a high level of generality, accordingly, the application of an abstract idea would require sufficient meaningful application to encompass all processes and tools.
The Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12 that the claims recite an active application of the process window because of the recited “physically configuring or physically modifying an electronic device manufacturing process based on the process window”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The application using the word “based” is generally linking the abstract process window to a physical configuration or modification of a process. There is no specific limitation that recites integration or specific application of the process window in the process.
The Applicant argues on pages 13, regarding claim 17, that Inani fails to teach determining process window based on failure rate and that instead Inani teaches the process window is already known.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In step 411, described in col. 9 lines 51-67 with respect to Figs. 4A-4B, the process control specification defines maximum and minimum limits for a process parameter that uses a necessary process window and tolerable limit on the process parameter. This passage provides many process windows. The process window of the claims is anticipated by the maximum and minimum limits of the process control specification that is determined based on the detect data or fail rate acquired in step 407.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. [US 2006/0208205] teaches in Fig. 1, 3, and 5, using the convolution of dose function with a Gaussian and then converting the convolution into CD value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759