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 § 102
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)(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.
(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 1-4, 6-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kou et al. (US 2020/0050180 A1) (hereinafter Kou).
Regarding claim 1, Kou teaches a method for controlling a measuring device [metrology apparatus 240] (Para [0059], see Abstract, Figs. 2 and 7, Claims 1 and 11) comprising:
selecting a sample to be examined [one or more sample product units is selected for metrology] (Para [0093], see Abstract, Fig. 7, Claims 1 and 11);
creating conditions under which the sample is to be examined by the measuring device [one or more metrology steps are performed on the selected sample product units] (Para [0094], see Abstract, Figs. 2 and 7, Claims 1 and 11); and
establishing measured values regarding properties of the sample [metrology steps with metrology apparatus provided for making measurements of parameters of the products] (Para [0094], see Abstract, Fig. 7, Claims 1 and 11);
wherein the method steps are autonomously controlled by a controller [steps of methods described can be automated within any general purpose data processing hardware (computer)] (Para [0138]).
Regarding claim 2, Kou as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller autonomously selects the sample to be examined [one or more sample product units is selected for metrology; steps of methods described can be automated within any general purpose data processing hardware (computer)] (Para [0093, 0138], see Abstract, Fig. 7, Claims 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 3, Kou as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller selects the sample to be examined based on conditions established at an earlier time by the measuring device [710, one or more sample product units selected for metrology. This step is performed using object data 712 representing one or more parameters measured in relation to the plurality of product units] (Para [0091-0093], see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Kou as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller selects the sample to be examined based on measured values established at an earlier time by the measuring device [710, one or more sample product units selected for metrology. This step is performed using object data 712 representing one or more parameters measured in relation to the plurality of product units] (Para [0091-0093], see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Kou as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller accesses a database [databases 252, 256, 260 for context data, performance data, and object data] (Para [0065], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kou as applied to claim 6 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the database comprises information about material properties [context data CDAT represents all or part of the processing history of individual product units (wafers or other substrates); numerous types of operation can be required to make a real device, such as deposition of material, modification of surface material characteristics, and so forth; different layers require different etch processes according to the details of the material to be etched] (Para [0055-0057, 0061]) and measurement methods and the controller is configured to control the measuring device autonomously based on the information [advanced process control system implements a form of feedback control; context data may record what types of process steps have been applied, which individual apparatuses have been used in the performance of those steps, and what parameters were applied by those apparatuses] (Para [0061]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kou as applied to claims 6-7 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller updates the database after the establishing of the measured values [the term “object data” encompasses both the performance data PDAT (measured from processed product units after processing and stored in storage 252) and the other types of object data ODAT (measured from product units or other systems before and/or during processing and stored in storage 260)] (Para [0064], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Kou teaches a measuring device configured to perform the method according to claim 1 (see Rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Kou as applied to claim 9 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to autonomously select the sample to be examined [one or more sample product units is selected for metrology; steps of methods described can be automated within any general purpose data processing hardware (computer)] (Para [0093, 0138], see Abstract, Fig. 7, Claims 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 11, Kou as applied to claim 10 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to select the sample to be examined based on conditions established at an earlier time by the measuring device [710, one or more sample product units selected for metrology. This step is performed using object data 712 representing one or more parameters measured in relation to the plurality of product units] (Para [0091-0093], see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Kou as applied to claim 10 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to select the sample to be examined based on measured values established at an earlier time by the measuring device [710, one or more sample product units selected for metrology. This step is performed using object data 712 representing one or more parameters measured in relation to the plurality of product units] (Para [0091-0093], see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Kou as applied to claim 9 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to access a database [databases 252, 256, 260 for context data, performance data, and object data] (Para [0065], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Kou as applied to claim 6 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the database comprises information about material properties [context data CDAT represents all or part of the processing history of individual product units (wafers or other substrates); numerous types of operation can be required to make a real device, such as deposition of material, modification of surface material characteristics, and so forth; different layers require different etch processes according to the details of the material to be etched] (Para [0055-0057, 0061]) and measurement methods and the controller is configured to control the measuring device autonomously based on the information [advanced process control system implements a form of feedback control; context data may record what types of process steps have been applied, which individual apparatuses have been used in the performance of those steps, and what parameters were applied by those apparatuses] (Para [0061]).
Regarding claims 16-17, Kou as applied to claims 14-15 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the controller is configured to update the database after the establishing of the measured values [the term “object data” encompasses both the performance data PDAT (measured from processed product units after processing and stored in storage 252) and the other types of object data ODAT (measured from product units or other systems before and/or during processing and stored in storage 260)] (Para [0064], see Fig. 2).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kou, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Koeda (US 2014/0297226 A1) (hereinafter Koeda).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Kou as applied to claims 1 and 9 above teaches the claimed invention, except for further comprising repeating the establishing of the measured values when the controller detects that the measured values previously established are outside a plausible range. Koeda teaches a method for controlling a measuring device comprising repeating a step of establishing of measured values when it is detected by the controller that the established measured values are outside a plausible range [abnormal value from failed IPU leads to use of alternate system; operation confirmation of alternate system performed by remeasuring sample that has been measured] (Para [0037-0040, 0137]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Kou with Koeda such to further comprise repeating the establishing of the measured values when the controller detects that the measured values previously established are outside a plausible range, in order to ensure correct system functionality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 5-6, filed 13 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kou and Koeda above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights