DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “spectrum assembly, corrector, corrector, attenuator, evaluator” (as cited in claims 1-13) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions (such spectrum assembly, corrector, corrector, attenuator, evaluator) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function based on current application discloser. The Specification discloses such spectrum assembly, corrector, corrector, attenuator, evaluator are functional steps and executed by processor, see [0090]-[0091] of current discloser.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-16 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-14 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 15-16 fall within category of process;
Regarding Claims 1-13 and 16
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of corrects at least one of spectral noise and uncertainty of a measurement parameter of the spectrum.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
An analyzing apparatus comprising:
a spectrum assembly, which includes measurement equipment, to acquire a spectrum which represents one or more measured semiconductor characteristics; and
a corrector provided with a model that corrects at least one of spectral noise and uncertainty of a measurement parameter of the spectrum.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “a corrector provided with a model that corrects at least one of spectral noise and uncertainty of a measurement parameter of the spectrum” are a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “a spectrum assembly, which includes measurement equipment, to acquire a spectrum which represents one or more measureed semiconductor characteristics;” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. ,field of use/ data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is An analyzing apparatus”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic monitoring component with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claim1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For examples, “An analyzing apparatus” are generic structure of data processing system , which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and PTO892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-13 and 16
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-13 and 16 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.
For example, limitations of claim 2, 4-13 and 16 further details of abstract idea of claim 1 which is a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment))
For example, Claim 3: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. ,field of use/ data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Regarding Claim 14
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea of corrects at least one of spectral noise and uncertainty of a measurement parameter of the spectrum.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
An analyzing system comprising:
a measuring apparatus to measure one or more semiconductor characteristics and to output the spectrum that represents the measured one or more semiconductor characteristics; and
the analyzing apparatus of claim 1 to recieve the spectrum to correct at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measured parameter of the spectrum..
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “he analyzing apparatus of claim 1 to recieve the spectrum to correct at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measured parameter of the spectrum” are a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 14 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “a measuring apparatus to measure one or more semiconductor characteristics and to output the spectrum that represents the measured one or more semiconductor characteristics” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. ,field of use/ data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is An analyzing apparatus, a measuring apparatus”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic sensor and computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic monitoring component with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claim14 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For examples, “An analyzing apparatus” are generic structure of data processing system , which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and PTO892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Regarding Claim 15
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea of corrects at least one of spectral noise and uncertainty of a measurement parameter of the spectrum.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
An analyzing method performed by an analyzing apparatus, the analyzing method comprising:
acquiring a spectrum including measuring a thin film thickness of a semiconductor;
evaluating uncertainty of a measurement parameter related to the spectrum;
attenuating spectral noise related to the spectrum;
generating a model to correct at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measurement parameter;
correcting the at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measurement parameter; and
outputting an updated spectrum based on the correction of the at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measurement parameter.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “evaluating uncertainty [..]; attenuating spectral noise [..]; [..] to correct at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measurement parameter; correcting [..]; outputting an updated spectrum[..]” are a combination of a mathematical concepts(i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships) and/or mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 15 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “acquiring a spectrum including meausring a thin film thickness of a semiconductor; outputting a[..]” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. ,field of use/ data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is An analyzing apparatus, a measuring apparatus”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic sensor and computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic monitoring component with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claim15 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For examples, “An analyzing apparatus” are generic structure of data processing system , which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and PTO892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
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(s)1-3, 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chalmers et al. (US20050174584).
Regarding Claim 1. Chalmers teaches an analyzing apparatus comprising(abstract; figs. 1 & 11):
a spectrum assembly, which includes measurement equipment, to acquire a spectrum which represents one or more measured semiconductor characteristics(spectrometer system: abstract; 11: fig. 1); and
a corrector (10: fig.1) provided with a model that corrects at least one of spectral noise (correct for spectral overlap: [0143]) and uncertainty of a measurement parameter of the spectrum([0143]-[0145], [0147]).
Regarding Claim 2. Chalmers further teaches an evaluator provided to evaluate the uncertainty of the parameter corresponding to a controllable factor of the measurement equipment that outputs the spectrum(the sensitivity of the detector :[0126], [0125], [0182]); and
an attenuator provided to attenuate the spectral noise based on an uncontrollable factor of the measurement equipment(film thickness:[0083], [0137]), wherein the corrector generates the model based on an evaluation result of the evaluator and an attenuation result of the attenuator([0083], [0129], [0137]).
Regarding Claim 3. Chalmers further teaches the controllable factor includes an initial setting parameter of the measurement equipment([0126], [0125], [0182]), and the uncontrollable factor includes one or more of a film thickness of a measurement target, a critical dimension, a refractive index, a lattice pitch, a nominal layer thickness of a layer, and a layer sequence([0083], [0129], [0137]).
Regarding Claim 5. Chalmers further teaches the corrector generates a first model corresponding to a physical model of the measurement equipment whose uncertainty satisfies a first set value, and the corrector outputs a parameter applied to the first model, outputs a first spectrum generated by the first model, or outputs the first model itself([0126], [0125], [0182]).
Regarding Claim 14. Chalmers teaches an analyzing system comprising (abstract; figs. 1 & 11):
a measuring apparatus to measure one or more semiconductor characteristics and to output the spectrum that represents the measured one or more semiconductor characteristics (spectrometer system: abstract; 11: fig. 1); and
the analyzing apparatus of claim 1 to receive the spectrum to correct at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measured parameter of the spectrum ([0083], [0129], [0137]).
Regarding Claim 15. Chalmers teaches an analyzing method performed by an analyzing apparatus, the analyzing method comprising(abstract; figs. 1 & 11):
acquiring a spectrum including meausring a thin film thickness of a semiconductor([0083], [0129], [0137]);
evaluating uncertainty of a measurement parameter related to the spectrum([0115], [0192], [0203]);
attenuating spectral noise related to the spectrum ([0143]-[0145]);
generating a model to correct at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measurement parameter([0143]-[0145]);
correcting the at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measurement parameter([0143]-[0145], [0147]); and
outputting an updated spectrum based on the correction of the at least one of the spectral noise and the uncertainty of the measurement parameter(fig. 16B, fig. 18).
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(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chalmers in view of Kato et al. (US 2006/0065949).
Regarding claim 16 Chalmers silent about the first set value is a standard deviation value of a thin-film thickness value.
However, Kato teaches the first set value is a standard deviation value of a thin-film thickness value([0265]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the invention of Chalmers , the first set value is a standard deviation value of a thin-film thickness value, as taught by Kato, so as to the damage of a region adjacent to the metal thin-film-resistor object by laser irradiation is identified.
Examiner Notes
Although there are no prior art rejections for Claims 4 and 6-13,(specifically claims 4, 7 and 9) the Examiner cannot comment on their allowability until all the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 is satisfactorily addressed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) US 2022/0121956: disclose a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device includes forming a pattern on a wafer, measuring a spectrum of the pattern on the wafer, with a spectral optical system, performing an analysis of the spectrum through a deep learning model for predicting pattern characteristics, the deep learning model being trained based on a domain knowledge, and evaluating the pattern on the wafer based on the analysis of the spectrum, wherein the domain knowledge includes a noise inducing factor of the spectral optical system.
b) 2019/0107384: disclose apparatus and methods for performing optically based film thickness measurements of highly absorbing films (e.g., high-K dielectric films) with improved measurement sensitivity are described herein. A highly absorbing film layer is fabricated on top of a highly reflective film stack. The highly reflective film stack includes one or more nominally identical sets of multiple layers of different, optically contrasting materials. The highly reflective film stack gives rise to optical resonance in particular wavelength ranges. The high reflectance at the interface of the highly absorbing film layer and the highly reflective film stack increases measured light intensity and measurement sensitivity. The thickness and optical dispersion of the different material layers of the highly reflective film stack are selected to induce optical resonance in a desired wavelength range. The desired wavelength range is selected to minimize absorption by the highly absorbing film under measurement.
c) US 2013/0334422: disclose the uncertainty of analysis based on spectral interference fringes is determined by the inverse of the frequency band of the light source, and hardly any difference that would allow the discrimination of thickness on the order of several .mu.m, as in an etching mask or the like, appears in an interference spectrum obtained from a relatively narrow band light source. In order to discriminate changes in thickness based on this sort of interference spectrum, it is necessary for an ideal interference spectrum which approximates the theoretic waveform to be observed with good precision. However, observed spectra which are actually obtained contain distortion and noise due to the effects of the emission spectrum of the light source itself, the bias spectrum due to the optical system, and other interference light components. Thus, even if curve fitting is performed on the observed interference spectrum, variability in the measured thickness values occurs due to spectrum distortion, and measuring the true thickness of the object of measurement with.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights