DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The following reasons are provided to evaluate subject matter eligibility.
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
With regard to (1), the analysis is a ‘yes’, claim 1 recites a process/method, claim 16 recites a system/machine, and claim 20 recites a product/manufacture (i.e. non-transitory computer readable medium) .
With regard to (2A) Prong One, the analysis is a “yes”. Claim 1 (similarly claims 16 and 20) recites “receiving substrate pattern inspection images, determining, by a hardware computer system, contours in the substrate pattern inspection images to form a set of inspection contours, wherein determining contours comprises detecting edges of features in the substrate pattern inspection images; and filtering outlier contours from the set of inspection contours.” When viewed under the broadest most reasonable interpretation the claim recites an abstract idea of mental processes. The steps of “determining” and “filtering” are generically recited because there is no description of how this is accomplished. It can be interpreted as merely looking at the data, and evaluating the data in the mind. The concepts, as claimed, are observations and/or evaluations (“determining...”) and judgement (“filtering outlier contours.....” i.e. which contours do not fit a certain criteria/limits). There is nothing in the claim that requires more than an operation that a human, armed with the appropriate apparatus, pen/paper, can perform. One can perform the process using pen and paper, and the recitation of hardware computer system/processors/computer system in the claims is a mere use of generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG.
With regard to (2A) Prong Two: the analysis is a “No”. Claims 1, 16, and 20 recite the additional elements of “filtering outlier contours from the set of inspection contours.” These additional elements represents mere data gathering and indexing the data all together (i.e. obtaining certain contours and not outlier contours) that is necessary for use of the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(1). The claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regard to (2B): the pending claims do not show what is more than a routine in the art presented in the claims, i.e., the additional elements are nothing more than routine and well-known steps. The additional elements do not reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field, including the use of a particular machine or particular transformation. It has not been shown that the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do.
Claims 16 and 20 are similarly rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are rejected for the same reasons and not repeated herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 1, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bailey et al. (U.S. patent pub. 2016/0283617 A1).
Regarding claim 1: A method for enhancing a patterning process (paragraphs 0003 and 0017), the method comprising:
receiving substrate pattern inspection images (fig. 4 and paragraphs 0053 and 0054), determining, by a hardware computer system, contours in the substrate pattern inspection images to form a set of inspection contours (fig. 4 and paragraphs 0054 and 0055), wherein determining contours comprises detecting edges of features in the substrate pattern inspection images (paragraphs 0054-0057); and
filtering outlier contours from the set of inspection contours (paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 13: The method of claim 1, wherein the substrate pattern inspection images are generated with a charged particle inspection system, and wherein the charged particle inspection system comprises a scanning electron microscope (paragraph 0008, 0041, and 0061).
Regarding claim 16: See claim 1.
Regarding claim 20: See claim 1.
Contact Information
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
November 5, 2025