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 Objections
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the other correction target devices” in lines 18-19, claim 13 recites the limitation “the other correction target devices” in lines 18-19, and claim 17 recites the limitation “the other correction target devices” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claims use a definite article “the”, however, the claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite the claims limitation of “other correction target devices”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the sample” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim uses a definite article “the”, however, the claim 13 does not recite the claim limitation of “a sample”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A depth measurement system comprising a plurality of depth measurement devices, each of the plurality of depth measurement devices calculating a depth index value indicating a relative depth of a pattern on a sample,
wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes
an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam,
a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam, and
a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target and calculates the depth index value of the predetermined pattern based on a measured value extracted from an electron image formed from an output from the detection system,
wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and the other correction target devices, and
wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe and outputs the depth index value of the predetermined pattern corrected using a mathematical model to which the correction coefficient is applied.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 13, and apparatus for claims 1 and 17).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam, a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam, and a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target, wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device the other correction target devices, and wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe.
The additional element “a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam”, “a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target”, “”wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device the other correction target devices”, and “wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic computer is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine.
The additional elements “depth measurement devices”, “an electron optical system”; “a detection system”; and “a correction target device” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For example, a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target is disclosed by “Doi WO 2020095346A1 (used US 20210404801 as translation)”, FIGs. 1 and 25, [0049], [0052], and [0064]; and “Shishido US 20160379798”, FIGs. 1, 2A, 11B; [0017], [0090], [0061], [0066], [0105].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 13 and 17 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-18, the most pertinent prior arts are “Doi WO 2020095346A1 (used US 20210404801 as translation)”, “Oyama US 20130123627”, “Taddei US 20200091014”, “Shishido US 20160379798”, and “Oosaki US 20060091309”.
As to claims 1, 13, and 17, Doi teaches a depth measurement devices, the depth measurement device calculating a depth index value indicating a relative depth of a pattern on a sample (Doi, FIGs. 1-3; [0052]),
wherein the depth measurement device includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam (Doi, FIGs. 1-3; [0039], [0040]),
a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam (Doi, FIGs. 1-3; [0040]), and
a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target (Doi, FIGs. 1 and 25; [0049], [0052], and [0064]) and calculates the depth index value of the predetermined pattern based on a measured value extracted from an electron image formed from an output from the detection system (Doi, FIGs. 11B, 12A, 12B; [0035] and [0049]; FIGS. 1 to 4; [0117]).
Oyama teaches wherein the depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and other correction target devices (Oyama, [0020], [0061], [0118]).
Taddei teaches plurality of depth measurement devices (Taddei, [0108]), and wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe (Taddei, [0101], [0115], [0170], [0197], [0241]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “the computer of the correction target device outputs the depth index value of the predetermined pattern corrected using a mathematical model to which the correction coefficient is applied” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 13, and 17.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Taddei WO 2021096712A1” teaches “ plurality of endpoints in a wet etching process of a substrate are determined. A plurality of benchmark end points during a wet etching process of a first substrate are determined, using first light information represented by a HSV color model for sample locations of the first substrate. Etch parameters are generated for a wet etching process for a second substrate. The generated etch parameters are used with second light information represented by at least one value of the Hue, Saturation, Value color model associated with a plurality of sample locations of the second substrate to reach respective end points during the wet etching process of a second substrate.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:00-12:00, 1:00-5:00 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2863