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 .
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 1-8, 13 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 21 recites a method / a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein of determining thermally-induced deformation of a structure that comprises the steps of obtaining current timing data for the structure and timing history data of the structure, determining thermally-induced deformation data for the structure in dependence on the timing history data and the timing data for the current state of the structure using a model and configuring the manufacturing process and/or providing a signal representing to a system for use in configuration of the manufacturing process. These steps are a mental process of gathering and analyzing information so as to characterize a process and therefore recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)).
Claims 1 and 21 recites a lithographic apparatus/a computer system. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited lithographic apparatus/a computer system do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a lithographic apparatus/a computer system.
Claims 1 and 21 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic lithographic apparatus/a computer system only provide for the implementing of mental process on a lithographic apparatus/a computer system. Further, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
Dependent claims 2-8, 13, 15-20 and 22-25 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 2-8, 13, 15-20 and 22-25 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which also falls within the mental processes or mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kupers et al. [US 2019/0072857 A1].
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Kupers et al. discloses a method / a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein (Figs. 3 and 5), the method comprising:
obtaining timing data (322) for a structure in a lithographic apparatus (paragraph [0061]), wherein the timing data comprises timing data for the current state of the structure and timing history data that comprises timing data for at least one previous state of the structure (paragraph [0062]); and
using one or more models (302-306) to determine thermally-induced deformation data for the structure in dependence on the timing history data and the timing data for the current state of the structure (paragraph [0059]) and in dependence on thermally-induced deformation data of a different structure that is physically and/or thermally coupled to the structure (paragraphs [0057]-[0059] teaches the reticle and the reticle table and the wafer and the wafer table, further the reticle and wafer are thermally coupled) and physically configuring a manufacturing process involving the lithographic apparatus based on the thermally-induced deformation data for the structure and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the thermally-induced deformation data for the structure to a system for use in configuration of the process (paragraphs [0057]-[0076] and [0089], see also Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6, Kupers et al. discloses wherein there are a plurality of structures in the lithographic apparatus, and the method comprises: obtaining timing data for each of the plurality of structures, wherein the timing data for each structure comprises timing data for the current state of the structure and timing history data that comprises timing data for at least one previous state of the structure; and for each of the plurality of structures, using one or more models to determine thermally-induced deformation data for the structure in dependence on the timing history data and the timing data for the current state of the structure, wherein the structure is one of a substrate, a substrate support, a reticle, a measurement sensor or a measurement sensor support, wherein the current and at least one previous state of the structure are consecutive states of the structure, wherein the model for the structure determines thermally-induced deformation data for the structure in dependence on a time-decaying characteristic as energy is transported across the structure (paragraphs [0057]-[0076] and [0089], see also Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Kupers et al. discloses a semiconductor device produced in dependence on the method (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Kupers et al. discloses wherein, for the structure, the timing history data includes the start and/or end times of one or more previous states of the structure (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 18-20, Kupers et al. discloses wherein the structure is a substrate, the substrate comprises a plurality of fields, and the one or more models are configured to determine thermally induced field deformation data of the plurality of fields of the substrate, wherein the deformation data generated by a model is dependent on one or more model parameters, and the method further comprises changing one or more parameters of the model in dependence on measured data during the current and/or previous state of a structure, further comprising at least one of the one or more models determining deformation data for the structure in dependence on received deformation data of a current and/or previous state of the different structure (paragraphs [0057]-[0076] and [0089], see also Fig. 5).
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 3, 7, 8, 16 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupers et al. in view of Shigenobu et al. [US 2020/0363734 A1].
Regarding claims 3, 7, 8, 16 and 22-25, Kupers et al. discloses the method / an arrangement for determining thermally-induced deformation, as applied above.
Kupers et al. does not teach wherein the structures include a substrate that is secured to a substrate support, and the method comprises determining the deformation data of the substrate in dependence on the deformation data of the substrate support, wherein the deformation data for a structure includes deformation effects at a plurality of different locations on the structure, further comprising the one or more models determining deformation data for a structure in dependence on received previously modelled deformation data of the current and/or previous state of the structure, a method for correcting thermally-induced deformations of one or more structures in a lithographic apparatus, the method comprising: determining thermally-induced deformation data of one or more structures; and determining processing data for a structure in dependence on the determined thermally-induced deformation data, wherein the determined processing data is exposure data, and the method comprises exposing a substrate in dependence on the exposure data, wherein the deformation data and/or processing data are determined substantially in real time, wherein the processing data is determined in dependence of a feedforward correction process, wherein the model for the structure determines thermally-induced deformation data for the structure in dependence on a time-decaying characteristic as energy is transported across the structure, an arrangement for correcting thermally-induced deformation of a structure comprising a processor unit, wherein the structure is a substrate or a substrate support, and the current state of a structure, and/or one or more previous states of the structure, includes at least one of an immersion process, the transfer from an immersion process to a clamping process, the transfer from a clamping process to a measurement process, a measurement process or the transfer from a measurement process to an immersion process.
However, Shigenobu et al. discloses a method / an arrangement for managing thermally-induced field deformations of lithographic object such as a substrate, a sensor, a closing plate, a table on which the object is positioned (paragraphs [0017], [0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide thermally-induced field deformations of lithographic object such as a substrate, a sensor, a closing plate, a table on which the object is positioned, as taught by Shigenobu et al. in the system of Kupers et al. because such a modification provides robustness of overlay accuracy against thermal deformation of a substrate (paragraph [0005] of Shigenobu et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “physically configuring a manufacturing process involving the lithographic apparatus based on the thermally-induced deformation data for the structure and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the thermally-induced deformation data for the structure to a system for use in configuration of the process”, is not an abstract idea, but rather at least recite a specific practical application, see pages 8-9 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As applied above, the application of configuring and/or providing a signal for the manufacturing process is not a practical application because a result of the abstract idea is generically applied to configure the manufacturing process without any specific details of how the application to configure is accomplished and using the performance of processing parameters to adjust the manufacturing processes is a well-known method.
Applicant also argued that the applied reference does not teach “using one or more models to determine thermally-induced deformation data for the structure in dependence on the timing history data and the timing data for the current state of the structure and in dependence on thermally-induced deformation data of a different structure that is physically and/or thermally coupled to the structure”, see pages 8-10 of the remarks.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kupers et al. explicitly teach wherein the models include the reticle and the reticle table and the wafer and the wafer table (paragraphs [0057]-[0059]. Further, it is noted that the reticle and wafer are thermally coupled which the model also includes (paragraphs [0057]-[0076] and [0089]).
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEORAM PERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/DEORAM PERSAUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882