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 Objections
Claims 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: There are multiple claims assigned to claim number 19. For examination purposes the second instance of claim 19 is interpreted as claim 20, original claim 20 is interpreted as claim 21, and original claim 21 is interpreted as claim 22. 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 1-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
Claim 15: A non-transient computer program carrier comprising a computer program therein, the computer program, when executed by a processing system, configured to cause processing system to at least:
obtain metrology data relating to the semiconductor manufacturing process or at least part thereof;
obtain associated data relating to the said semiconductor manufacturing process or at least part thereof, the associated data providing information for interpreting the metrology data;
temporally filter the metrology data based on using the said associated data to interpret the metrology data; and
determine the correction based on the temporally filtered metrology data and the associated data, wherein the determining is such that the determined correction depends on a degree to which a trend and/or event in the said metrology data should be corrected based on the said interpretation of the said metrology data.
Step 1: The claim recites a non-transient program carrier. A non-transient program carrier is an apparatus. Thus, the claim is to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: Limitation (a) in claim 15 recites “obtain metrology data relating to the semiconductor manufacturing process or at least part thereof”. Limitation (b) in claim 15 recites “obtain associated data relating to the said semiconductor manufacturing process or at least part thereof, the associated data providing information for interpreting the metrology data”. Limitation (c) in claim 15 recites “temporally filter the metrology data based on using the said associated data to interpret the metrology data”. Limitation (d) in claim 15 recites “determine the correction based on the temporally filtered metrology data and the associated data, wherein the determining is such that the determined correction depends on a degree to which a trend and/or event in the said metrology data should be corrected based on the said interpretation of the said metrology data”. As is evident from applicant’s disclosure, the claimed steps (a)-(d) fall into the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas because the recited steps are observations (obtain metrology data in step (a) and obtain associated data in step (b)), judgements (temporally filter the metrology data based on using the said associated data to interpret the metrology data in step (c)) and calculations (determine the correction based on the temporally filtered metrology data and the associated data, wherein the determining is such that the determined correction depends on a degree to which a trend and/or event in the said metrology data should be corrected based on the said interpretation of the said metrology data in step (d)) that are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited calculation or observation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses general purpose computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional element “a processing system”. The processing system is merely a generic processor which is recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the processor is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Step 2B: The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception. As explained previously, the processing system is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Examiner takes official notice that processing systems were well-known and conventionally used before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze input data and generate output data based on the input data. Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are merely just extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
Claim 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stirton et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0147224 [Stirton].
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Stirton discloses a non-transient computer program carrier comprising a computer program therein, the computer program, when executed by a processing system, configured to cause processing system to at least:
obtain metrology data relating to a semiconductor manufacturing process or at least part thereof [receive measurement data from a metrology tool, paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0057];
obtain associated data relating to the semiconductor manufacturing process or at least part thereof, the associated data providing information for interpreting the metrology data [bias information associated with the process is determined, paragraphs 0033, 0035 and 0057];
temporally filter the metrology data based on using the associated data to interpret the metrology data [adjusting the metrology data using the bias information and filtering the adjusted metrology data to reject outliers, paragraphs 0032, 0053-0054 and 0057]; and
determine, based on the temporally filtered metrology data and the associated data, a correction for at least one control parameter for controlling at least part of the semiconductor manufacturing process so as to manufacture semiconductor devices on a substrate, wherein the determined correction depends on a degree to which a trend and/or event in the metrology data should be corrected based on the interpretation of the metrology data [calculating updated manipulated variables on the basis of a target value and a difference of a predicted process output and the filtered measurement data, paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0057].
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Stirton further discloses that the instructions configured to cause the processing system to determine a correction are further configured to cause the processing system to determine whether a trend and/or event in the metrology data should be ignored or corrected for [calculating updated manipulated variables on the basis of a target value and a difference of a predicted process output and the filtered measurement data, paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0057].
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Stirton further discloses that the instructions configured to cause the processing system to determine a correction are further configured to cause the processing system to determine a non-binary weighting for the metrology data depending on the interpretation of the metrology data [an age-based weighting factor may be established such that older measurement data may have a reduced influence on the calculation of a mean bias that may be used for the further calculation in determining manipulated variables to be used in the current control move, paragraph 0044].
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Stirton further discloses that the metrology data comprises one or more selected from: overlay data, focus data, critical dimension data and/or edge placement error data [critical dimension of resist features, paragraph 0027].
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Stirton further discloses that the instructions configured to cause the processing system to determine a correction are further configured to cause the processing system to model the metrology data and determine a spatial representation of the modeled metrology data, the correction being determined based on the spatial representation of the modeled metrology data [a model is used to predict process outputs including layer thicknesses and critical dimensions, paragraph 0030].
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Stirton further discloses that the instructions configured to cause the processing system to temporally filter are further configured to cause the processing system to apply a weighted moving average to the metrology data [exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) filter, paragraph 0032].
Regarding claim 8, Stirton further discloses that the correction is determined for application to one or more subsequent lots of substrates [process control on a run-to-run basis, paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 9, Stirton further discloses that the at least one control parameter relates to a control parameter of one or more selected from: an exposure step, an etch step, a deposition step, a polish step, a metrology step or a bonding step, of the semiconductor manufacturing process on the substrate [the one or more updated manipulated variables include exposure does or exposure time, paragraph 0031].
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Stirton further discloses that the associated data comprises one or selected from: alignment data, leveling data, tool usage data, lithographic exposure data, lens control parameter data, calibration/maintenance reports/logs, tool logging data, mark or target deformation data, additional metrology data of a different type to the metrology data and/or relating to a different process thread, previous layer control and/or metrology data, the associated data relating to one or more tools used in and/or processes of the semiconductor manufacturing process [bias metrics associated with the manufacturing environment, such as tool biases or site biases, paragraph 0033].
Regarding claim 11, Stirton further discloses that the correction is determined for application to a present lot and/or to a present substrate wafer as a feedforward correction [the process control receives information which may include pre-process or post-process measurement data, as well as information related to process tools in which products are to be processed or have been processed in previous steps, paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 12, Stirton further discloses that the correction is determined to be applied before processing of the present lot and/or present substrate wafer [the process control receives information which may include pre-process or post-process measurement data, as well as information related to process tools in which products are to be processed or have been processed in previous steps, paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 13, Stirton further discloses using the associated data to predict the effect that a trend and/or event indicated in the associated data has on behavior of the at least one control parameter [a model is used to calculate updated manipulated variables on the basis of a target value and a difference of a predicted process output and the filtered measurement data, paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0057].
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.
Claim 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirton et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2008/0147224 [Stirton].
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Stirton, as described above, discloses temporally filtering metrology data based on using associated data to interpret the metrology data. Stirton does not disclose that the temporally filtering of the metrology data is performed using a trained machine learning model. Examiner takes official notice that the concept and the advantages of using trained machine learning models to perform filtering of measured data in control systems were well known and expected in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, paragraph 0035 of Applicant’s specification discloses that machine learning methods were known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be used to perform prior art temporal processing and/or filtering of control data. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a trained machine learning model to perform the temporal filtering of the metrology data using associated data in Stirton, since trained machine learning models were known to identify and act on associations between different sets of data that are often undetectable by other algorithmic techniques.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Good et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2007/0239285 discloses using time weighted averaging to filter metrology data.
Stirton, US Patent no. 6,836,691 discloses filtering metrology data based on the metrology data collection purpose.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 February 7, 2026