CTNF 18/611,531 CTNF 81571 DETAILED ACTION The following is an initial Office Action upon examination of the above-identified application on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-29-01 AIA Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 includes the grammatical and punctuation issues of “A system, comprising memory …”. Suggested claim language: “A system comprising a memory …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1: At step 1, the claim recites “a method” comprising a plurality of steps; and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures”. The limitation of “ determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures …” for example, per making associations between selected data) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “providing a first control signal causing one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument”; “causing the measurement instrument to take a first measurement of the first measurement target as the first measurement target passes through the field of view of the measurement instrument”; and “providing a second control signal causing the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument”. The limitations of “… a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures …”; and “… one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support …” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. The courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of “providing a first control signal …” and “providing a second control signal …” represent mere data output of information. The limitations of “providing” are recited at a high level of generally and so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations of “… causing one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument”; “ causing the measurement instrument to take a first measurement of the first measurement target as the first measurement target passes through the field of view of the measurement instrument”; and “… causin g the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument” represent a mere means for data gathering and action of data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations of “… causing one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument” and “… causin g the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument” are recitations of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965).” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitations of “… a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures …”; and “… one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support …” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The limitations of “providing a first control signal …” and “providing a second control signal …”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”. The limitations of “… causing one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument”; “ causing the measurement instrument to take a first measurement of the first measurement target as the first measurement target passes through the field of view of the measurement instrument”; and “… causin g the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than a mere means for data gathering and action of data gathering. In addition, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”. The limitations of “… causing one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument” and “… causin g the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument” represent an equivalent recitation of the phrase “apply it”, wherein the courts have identified limitations that “(m)erely recit(e) the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent)” with the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept …”. (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2: The limitation of “a pulsed reflectometry instrument” in claim 2 further details the limitation of “the measurement instrument” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1. Claim 3: At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets” and “representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements”. The limitation of “ grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements …” for example, per making associations between selected data) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The limitation of “ representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0321649 A1: pg. 4, par. [0034] and pg. 7, par. [0060]; i.e. [0034]: “… statistical analysis (e.g., mean, median, outlier removal, quartile analysis, etc.) may be utilized to determine properties of the target area.”) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “causing the measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements”. The limitation of “causing the measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than a mere means for data gathering and action of data gathering. In addition, the limitation are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”. Accordingly, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “ causing the measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than a mere means for data gathering and action of data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”. Considering the additional element individually and the claim as a whole, the additional element does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4: The limitation “the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate” in claim 4 further details the limitation of “grouping measurements into a plurality of groups measurements” in claim 3; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3. Claim 5: The limitation of “the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with regions of the substrate support” in claim 5 further details the limitation of “grouping measurements into a plurality of groups measurements” in claim 3; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3. Claim 6: The limitation of “the one or more properties comprise: substrate thickness; film thickness; critical dimension; index of refraction; or extinction coefficient” in claim 6 further details the limitation of “one or more properties of a spatial region” in claim 3; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 3. Claim 7: The limitation of “each measurement target corresponds to a memory block” in claim 7 further details the limitation of “each measurement target” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1. Claim 8: The limitation of “the first measurement is taken without stopping motion of the substrate support” in claim 8 further details the limitation of “the first measurement” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1. Claim 9: At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures”. The limitation of “determining a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “determining a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 10: Claim 10 represents an equivalent non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1. Claim 11: Claim 11 represents an equivalent non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3. Claim 12: Claim 12 represents an equivalent non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 4. Claim 13: Claim 14 represents an equivalent non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim to claim 5 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5. Claim 14: Claim 14 represents an equivalent non-transitory machine-readable storage medium claim to claim 6 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 6. Claim 15: At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “determining a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”. The limitation of “determining a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “determining a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 16: Claim 16 represents an equivalent system claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1. Further, at step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “memory” and “a processing device coupled to the memory …”. The limitations of “memory” and “a processing device coupled to the memory” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “memory” and “a processing device coupled to the memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer ‐ implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).” Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 17: Claim 17 represents an equivalent system claim to claim 3 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 3. Claim 18: Claim 18 represents an equivalent system claim to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 4. Claim 19: The limitation of “the first measurement is taken without stopping motion of the substrate support” in claim 19 further details the limitation of “the first measurement” in claim 16; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 16. Claim 20: At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “determine a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”. The limitation of “determine a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “determine a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets …”) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0170634 A1 (hereinafter Doyle) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0137892 A1 (hereinafter Cekli) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0269450 A1 (hereinafter Kim) . As per claim 1, Doyle substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Doyle teaches the limitations of a method, comprising: providing a first control signal to cause motion of a substrate support (Fig. 1, elements 106 and 108; i.e. a chuck and stage, respectively) to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument (pg. 4, par. [0034]; i.e. “The controller 240 may be, e.g., a processor that controls movement of the stage 108, and thus, the substrate 102 to its different measurement positions.”); causing the measurement instrument to take a first measurement of the first measurement target as the first measurement target passes through the field of view of the measurement instrument (pg. 3, par. [0029] and Fig. 1, element 130; i.e. optical metrology or inspection head and [0029]: “The substrate 102 is held by a chuck 106 that may be coupled to a stage 108. Additionally, or alternatively, the optical metrology or inspection head 130 may be coupled to a stage (not shown). The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).”); and providing a second control signal causing the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument (pg. 3, par. [0029], pg. 4, par. [0034], and Fig. 1, element 130; i.e. optical metrology or inspection head and [0029]: “The substrate 102 is held by a chuck 106 that may be coupled to a stage 108. Additionally, or alternatively, the optical metrology or inspection head 130 may be coupled to a stage (not shown). The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).” and [0034]: “The controller 240 may be, e.g., a processor that controls movement of the stage 108, and thus, the substrate 102 to its different measurement positions.”). Not explicitly taught are determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures; providing a first control signal causing one or more motors to cause motion; and providing a second control signal causing the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures (pg. 5, par. [0069] and [0070]; i.e. [0069]: “ In another embodiment, they may represent a different type of metrology target structure, for example in overlay or focus measurement target.” and [0070]: “In the performance of step 202, a set of measurement locations is generally selected, which is less than the full set 304 of possible measurement locations. This is because the time taken in the step 202 must fit within the overall cycle time of the wafers at the measurement station and the exposure station, or else throughput of the apparatus will be degraded. In the example of FIG. 3 (b), a selected set 306 of measurement locations comprises for example 28 locations from among the full set of 90 possible locations.”) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). Doyle in view of Cekli does not expressly teach providing a first control signal causing one or more motors to cause motion; and providing a second control signal causing the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument. However Kim, in an analogous art of sampling a substrate (pg. 1, par. [0010]), teaches the missing limitation of providing a control signal causing one or more motors of a support to cause movement (pg. 2, par. [0028], pg. 3, par. [0041] and Fig. 1, element 110; i.e. a stage module, [0028]: “A sample 90, including a biochip, for example, is loaded into sample holder 100.”, and [0041]: “… linear stage module 110 comprises a stepper motor configured to move sample 100 in a linear direction substantially perpendicular to axis 45 in a stepwise fashion.”) for the purpose of moving a sample holder (pgs. 2-3, par. [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle in view of Cekli to include the addition of the limitation of providing a control signal causing one or more motors of a support to cause movement to advantageously hasten sample sensing (Kim: pg. 1, par. [0007]). As per claim 2, Doyle teaches the measurement instrument comprises a pulsed reflectometry instrument (pg. 3, par. [0026]; i.e. “… the purge system 100 is used with an optical metrology or inspection head 130 that may include one or more metrology or inspection devices. Optical metrology or inspection head 130 is illustrated as including objective lenses 131a, 131b, which produce light beam 132 that is obliquely incident on the substrate 102, and an objective lens 131c, which produces light beam 134 that is normally incident on the substrate 102. The objective lenses 131a, 131b, by way of example, may be part of an ellipsometer or other instrument that uses obliquely incident light. The light beam 132 may be emitted by objective lens 131a and received by objective lens 131b after interacting with the substrate 102. The object lens 131c, by way of example, may be a reflectometer or other instrument that uses normally incident light. The light beam 134 is emitted by objective lens 131c and received by objective lens 131c after interacting with the substrate 102.”). As per claim 3, Doyle does not expressly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: causing the measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements; grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets; and representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of causing a measurement instrument (Fig. 1, element 140; i.e. a metrology apparatus) to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements (pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. “… a metrology apparatus 140 which is provided for making measurements of parameters of the products at desired stages in the manufacturing process. A common example of a metrology apparatus in a modern lithographic production facility is a scatterometer, for example an angle-resolved scatterometer or a spectroscopic scatterometer, and it may be applied to measure properties of the developed substrates at 120 prior to etching in the apparatus 122.”); grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets (pg. 8, par. [0088] and [0089]; i.e. [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” and [0089]: “In one implementation, for example, after the preliminary selection has been made as a first subset of measurement locations, a second subset of measurement locations can be determined by recognition of the fingerprint, and then a third, probably smaller, subset of measurement locations can be determined by reference to outliers found in the first and/or second subsets.”); and representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements (pg. 8, par. [0089]; i.e. [0089]: “The recognition of outliers may be performed with reference to the preliminary selection, and/or by reference to a larger set of measurement locations, when the method is performed iteratively.”) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitations of causing a measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements; grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets; and representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 4, Doyle does not expressly teach the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate (pg. 5, par. [0069] and [0070] and pg. 8, par. [0088]; i.e. [0069]: “ In another embodiment, they may represent a different type of metrology target structure, for example in overlay or focus measurement target.” and [0070]: “In the performance of step 202, a set of measurement locations is generally selected, which is less than the full set 304 of possible measurement locations. This is because the time taken in the step 202 must fit within the overall cycle time of the wafers at the measurement station and the exposure station, or else throughput of the apparatus will be degraded. In the example of FIG. 3 (b), a selected set 306 of measurement locations comprises for example 28 locations from among the full set of 90 possible locations.” and [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” ) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 5, Doyle does not expressly teach the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with regions of the substrate support. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of teach the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with regions of the substrate support (pg. 8, par. [0086] and [0088]; i.e. [0086]: “It can be seen that some extreme values of overlay deviation are concentrated in certain regions of the substrate, top left and bottom right in the drawing. In FIG. 8(b), on the other hand, we see the average over all the wafers in the sample of the overlay deviations when a dynamic selection is made from among the three sets of measurement locations 606, 606′, 606″.” and [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” ) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with regions of the substrate support to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 6, Doyle does not expressly teach the one or more properties comprise: substrate thickness; film thickness; critical dimension; index of refraction; or extinction coefficient. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of teach the one or more properties comprise: critical dimension (pg. 4 par. [0057] and [0058]; i.e. [0057]: “In order that the substrates that are exposed by the lithographic apparatus are exposed correctly and consistently, it is desirable to inspect exposed substrates to measure properties such as overlay errors between subsequent layers, line thicknesses, critical dimensions (CD), etc.” and [0058]: “Using metrology apparatus 140, it may be determined, for example, that important performance parameters such as overlay or critical dimension (CD) do not meet specified accuracy requirements in the developed resist.” ) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more properties comprise: critical dimension to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 8, Doyle teaches the limitation of the first measurement is taken without stopping motion of the substrate support (pg. 3, par. [0029]; i.e. “The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).”). As per claim 10, Doyle substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Doyle teaches the limitations of a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a processing device to perform operations comprising: providing a first control signal to cause motion of a substrate support (Fig. 1, elements 106 and 108; i.e. a chuck and stage, respectively) to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument (pg. 4, par. [0034]; i.e. “The controller 240 may be, e.g., a processor that controls movement of the stage 108, and thus, the substrate 102 to its different measurement positions.”); causing the measurement instrument to take a first measurement of the first measurement target as the first measurement target passes through the field of view of the measurement instrument (pg. 3, par. [0029] and Fig. 1, element 130; i.e. optical metrology or inspection head and [0029]: “The substrate 102 is held by a chuck 106 that may be coupled to a stage 108. Additionally, or alternatively, the optical metrology or inspection head 130 may be coupled to a stage (not shown). The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).”); and providing a second control signal causing the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument (pg. 3, par. [0029], pg. 4, par. [0034], and Fig. 1, element 130; i.e. optical metrology or inspection head and [0029]: “The substrate 102 is held by a chuck 106 that may be coupled to a stage 108. Additionally, or alternatively, the optical metrology or inspection head 130 may be coupled to a stage (not shown). The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).” and [0034]: “The controller 240 may be, e.g., a processor that controls movement of the stage 108, and thus, the substrate 102 to its different measurement positions.”). Not explicitly taught are determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures; providing a first control signal causing one or more motors to cause motion; and providing a second control signal causing the one or more motors However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures (pg. 5, par. [0069] and [0070]; i.e. [0069]: “ In another embodiment, they may represent a different type of metrology target structure, for example in overlay or focus measurement target.” and [0070]: “In the performance of step 202, a set of measurement locations is generally selected, which is less than the full set 304 of possible measurement locations. This is because the time taken in the step 202 must fit within the overall cycle time of the wafers at the measurement station and the exposure station, or else throughput of the apparatus will be degraded. In the example of FIG. 3 (b), a selected set 306 of measurement locations comprises for example 28 locations from among the full set of 90 possible locations.”) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of determining a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). Doyle in view of Cekli does not expressly teach providing a first control signal causing one or more motors to cause motion; and providing a second control signal causing the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument. However Kim, in an analogous art of sampling a substrate (pg. 1, par. [0010]), teaches the missing limitation of providing a control signal causing one or more motors of a support to cause movement (pg. 2, par. [0028], pg. 3, par. [0041] and Fig. 1, element 110; i.e. a stage module, [0028]: “A sample 90, including a biochip, for example, is loaded into sample holder 100.”, and [0041]: “… linear stage module 110 comprises a stepper motor configured to move sample 100 in a linear direction substantially perpendicular to axis 45 in a stepwise fashion.”) for the purpose of moving a sample holder (pgs. 2-3, par. [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle in view of Cekli to include the addition of the limitation of providing a control signal causing one or more motors of a support to cause movement to advantageously hasten sample sensing (Kim: pg. 1, par. [0007]). As per claim 11, Doyle does not expressly teach the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise: causing the measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements; grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets; and representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of causing a measurement instrument (Fig. 1, element 140; i.e. a metrology apparatus) to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements (pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. “… a metrology apparatus 140 which is provided for making measurements of parameters of the products at desired stages in the manufacturing process. A common example of a metrology apparatus in a modern lithographic production facility is a scatterometer, for example an angle-resolved scatterometer or a spectroscopic scatterometer, and it may be applied to measure properties of the developed substrates at 120 prior to etching in the apparatus 122.”); grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets (pg. 8, par. [0088] and [0089]; i.e. [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” and [0089]: “In one implementation, for example, after the preliminary selection has been made as a first subset of measurement locations, a second subset of measurement locations can be determined by recognition of the fingerprint, and then a third, probably smaller, subset of measurement locations can be determined by reference to outliers found in the first and/or second subsets.”); and representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements (pg. 8, par. [0089]; i.e. [0089]: “The recognition of outliers may be performed with reference to the preliminary selection, and/or by reference to a larger set of measurement locations, when the method is performed iteratively.”) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitations of causing a measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements; grouping measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets; and representing one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 12, Doyle does not expressly teach the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate (pg. 5, par. [0069] and [0070] and pg. 8, par. [0088]; i.e. [0069]: “ In another embodiment, they may represent a different type of metrology target structure, for example in overlay or focus measurement target.” and [0070]: “In the performance of step 202, a set of measurement locations is generally selected, which is less than the full set 304 of possible measurement locations. This is because the time taken in the step 202 must fit within the overall cycle time of the wafers at the measurement station and the exposure station, or else throughput of the apparatus will be degraded. In the example of FIG. 3 (b), a selected set 306 of measurement locations comprises for example 28 locations from among the full set of 90 possible locations.” and [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” ) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 13, Doyle does not expressly teach the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with regions of the substrate support. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of teach the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with regions of the substrate support (pg. 8, par. [0086] and [0088]; i.e. [0086]: “It can be seen that some extreme values of overlay deviation are concentrated in certain regions of the substrate, top left and bottom right in the drawing. In FIG. 8(b), on the other hand, we see the average over all the wafers in the sample of the overlay deviations when a dynamic selection is made from among the three sets of measurement locations 606, 606′, 606″.” and [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” ) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with regions of the substrate support to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 14, Doyle does not expressly teach the one or more properties comprise: substrate thickness; film thickness; critical dimension; index of refraction; or extinction coefficient. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of teach the one or more properties comprise: critical dimension (pg. 4 par. [0057] and [0058]; i.e. [0057]: “In order that the substrates that are exposed by the lithographic apparatus are exposed correctly and consistently, it is desirable to inspect exposed substrates to measure properties such as overlay errors between subsequent layers, line thicknesses, critical dimensions (CD), etc.” and [0058]: “Using metrology apparatus 140, it may be determined, for example, that important performance parameters such as overlay or critical dimension (CD) do not meet specified accuracy requirements in the developed resist.” ) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of the one or more properties comprise: critical dimension to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 16, Doyle substantially teaches the Applicant’s claimed invention. Doyle teaches the limitations of a system, comprising a processing device (Fig. 5, element 240; i.e. a controller), wherein the processing device is configured to (pg. 4, par. [0034]; i.e. “The controller 240 may be, e.g., a processor that controls movement of the stage 108, and thus, the substrate 102 to its different measurement positions.”): provide a first control signal to cause motion of a substrate support (Fig. 1, elements 106 and 108; i.e. a chuck and stage, respectively) to dispose a first measurement target within a field of view of a measurement instrument (pg. 4, par. [0034]; i.e. “The controller 240 may be, e.g., a processor that controls movement of the stage 108, and thus, the substrate 102 to its different measurement positions.”); cause the measurement instrument to take a first measurement of the first measurement target as the first measurement target passes through the field of view of the measurement instrument (pg. 3, par. [0029] and Fig. 1, element 130; i.e. optical metrology or inspection head and [0029]: “The substrate 102 is held by a chuck 106 that may be coupled to a stage 108. Additionally, or alternatively, the optical metrology or inspection head 130 may be coupled to a stage (not shown). The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).”); and provide a second control signal to cause the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument (pg. 3, par. [0029], pg. 4, par. [0034], and Fig. 1, element 130; i.e. optical metrology or inspection head and [0029]: “The substrate 102 is held by a chuck 106 that may be coupled to a stage 108. Additionally, or alternatively, the optical metrology or inspection head 130 may be coupled to a stage (not shown). The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).” and [0034]: “The controller 240 may be, e.g., a processor that controls movement of the stage 108, and thus, the substrate 102 to its different measurement positions.”). Not explicitly taught are memory and a processing device coupled to the memory, wherein the processing device is configured to: determine a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures; provide a first control signal to cause one or more motors to cause motion of a substrate support; and provide a second control signal to cause the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of memory (pg. 16, par. [0157]; i.e. “There may also be provided a data storage medium (e.g., semiconductor memory, magnetic or optical disk) having such a computer program stored therein.”) and a processing device coupled to the memory (pg. 16, par. [0157]: “using a computer program containing one or more sequences of machine-readable instructions describing methods of recognizing characteristics in position data obtained by alignment sensors, and applying corrections as described above. This computer program may be executed for example within the control unit LACU of FIG. 1, or some other controller, for example within the metrology apparatus 140.”), wherein the processing device is configured to: determine a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures (pg. 5, par. [0069] and [0070]; i.e. [0069]: “ In another embodiment, they may represent a different type of metrology target structure, for example in overlay or focus measurement target.” and [0070]: “In the performance of step 202, a set of measurement locations is generally selected, which is less than the full set 304 of possible measurement locations. This is because the time taken in the step 202 must fit within the overall cycle time of the wafers at the measurement station and the exposure station, or else throughput of the apparatus will be degraded. In the example of FIG. 3 (b), a selected set 306 of measurement locations comprises for example 28 locations from among the full set of 90 possible locations.”) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitations of memory and a processing device coupled to the memory, wherein the processing device is configured to: determine a plurality of measurement targets of a substrate, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of structures, and wherein each measurement target is associated with a structure of the plurality of structures to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). Doyle in view of Cekli does not expressly teach provide a first control signal causing one or more motors to cause motion; and provide a second control signal causing the one or more motors of the substrate support to dispose a second measurement target of the substrate within the field of view of the measurement instrument. However Kim, in an analogous art of sampling a substrate (pg. 1, par. [0010]), teaches the missing limitation of provide a control signal causing one or more motors of a support to cause movement (pg. 2, par. [0028], pg. 3, par. [0041] and Fig. 1, element 110; i.e. a stage module, [0028]: “A sample 90, including a biochip, for example, is loaded into sample holder 100.”, and [0041]: “… linear stage module 110 comprises a stepper motor configured to move sample 100 in a linear direction substantially perpendicular to axis 45 in a stepwise fashion.”) for the purpose of moving a sample holder (pgs. 2-3, par. [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle in view of Cekli to include the addition of the limitation of provide a control signal causing one or more motors of a support to cause movement to advantageously hasten sample sensing (Kim: pg. 1, par. [0007]). As per claim 17, Doyle does not expressly teach the processing device is further configured to: cause the measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements; group measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets; and represent one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitations of cause a measurement instrument (Fig. 1, element 140; i.e. a metrology apparatus) to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements (pg. 4, par. [0058]; i.e. “… a metrology apparatus 140 which is provided for making measurements of parameters of the products at desired stages in the manufacturing process. A common example of a metrology apparatus in a modern lithographic production facility is a scatterometer, for example an angle-resolved scatterometer or a spectroscopic scatterometer, and it may be applied to measure properties of the developed substrates at 120 prior to etching in the apparatus 122.”); group measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets (pg. 8, par. [0088] and [0089]; i.e. [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” and [0089]: “In one implementation, for example, after the preliminary selection has been made as a first subset of measurement locations, a second subset of measurement locations can be determined by recognition of the fingerprint, and then a third, probably smaller, subset of measurement locations can be determined by reference to outliers found in the first and/or second subsets.”); and represent one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements (pg. 8, par. [0089]; i.e. [0089]: “The recognition of outliers may be performed with reference to the preliminary selection, and/or by reference to a larger set of measurement locations, when the method is performed iteratively.”) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitations of cause a measurement instrument to take a plurality of measurements, each of the plurality of measurements associated with one of the plurality of measurement targets, and each of the plurality of measurement targets associated with one of the plurality of measurements; group measurements into a plurality of groups of measurements based on spatial proximity of the associated measurement targets; and represent one or more properties of a spatial region of the substrate by determining a statistical metric based on the measurements of a group of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 18, Doyle does not expressly teach the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate. However Cekli, in an analogous art of measuring substrates (pg. 1, par. [0002]), teaches the missing limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate (pg. 5, par. [0069] and [0070] and pg. 8, par. [0088]; i.e. [0069]: “ In another embodiment, they may represent a different type of metrology target structure, for example in overlay or focus measurement target.” and [0070]: “In the performance of step 202, a set of measurement locations is generally selected, which is less than the full set 304 of possible measurement locations. This is because the time taken in the step 202 must fit within the overall cycle time of the wafers at the measurement station and the exposure station, or else throughput of the apparatus will be degraded. In the example of FIG. 3 (b), a selected set 306 of measurement locations comprises for example 28 locations from among the full set of 90 possible locations.” and [0088]: “… the dynamically selected set of measurement locations may include at least one location selected by recognition of a statistically exceptional measurement at one of the selected measurement locations.” ) for the purpose of measuring a substrate at different locations (pg. 5, par. [0069]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle to include the addition of the limitation of the groups of measurements of the plurality of groups of measurements are associated with groups of structures of the substrate to maximize throughput and processing efficiency (Cekli: pgs. 3-4, par. [0052]). As per claim 19, Doyle teaches the limitation of the first measurement is taken without stopping motion of the substrate support (pg. 3, par. [0029]; i.e. “The stage 108 (and/or the stage coupled to the optical metrology or inspection head 130, produces relative motion between the chuck 106 (with substrate 102) and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 so that at least one of the chuck 106 and the optical metrology or inspection head 130 is movable to position the substrate 102 at a plurality of measurement positions with respect to the optical metrology or inspection head 130. For example, the stage 108 may move the substrate 102 linearly, e.g., within the Cartesian coordinate plane (X,Y) directions, or may rotate and linearly move the substrate 102, e.g., in Polar coordinate plane (R, θ).”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0297600 A1 (hereinafter Mantiply) . As per claim 7, Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim does not expressly teach each measurement target corresponds to a memory block. However Mantiply, in an analogous art of an inspection system (pg. 3, par. [0030] and pg. 6, par. [0052]), teaches the missing limitation of each measurement target corresponds to a memory block (pg. 3, par. [0028]; i.e. “… the specimen includes a wafer having three-dimensional (3D) NAND structures formed thereon. 3D NAND (where NAND stands for not-AND, a type of logic gate in semiconductor devices) is a type of non-volatile flash memory that includes vertical stacks of multiple layers of memory cells. For example, the structure of 3D NAND generally includes silicon bit cell gates formed of alternating conductive and insulating layers formed on a wafer and separated by one or more high aspect ratio (HAR) structures such as charge traps formed of materials like silicon nitride and channel(s) formed on silicon.”) for the purpose of maintaining an in-focus condition during inspection or metrology (pg. 3, par. [0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim to include the addition of the limitation of each measurement target corresponds to a memory block to advantageously improve focus tracking of preselected surface or plane of specimens to avoid inaccuracies in results generated from during a scan or measurement (Mantiply: pg. 1, par. [0009] and pg. 3, par. [0030]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0049486 A1 (hereinafter Godec-Schonbacher) . As per claim 9, Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim does not expressly teach determining a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement. However Godec-Schonbacher, in an analogous art of an inspection system (pg. 1, par. [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of determining a measurement path comprising a plurality of measurement targets (pg. 10, par. [0101]; i.e. “In other words, the processing unit 72 may use the information indicative of the vertical height map of the sample 6 for determining a proper starting position for the analysis of the sample 6 by probe 11 and/or for determining a trajectory along which the probe 11 or the sample 6 moves at the beginning and/or during analysis of the sample 6.”), wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform a first measurement (pg. 10, par. [0101] and pg. 13, par. [0124]; i.e. [0101]: “This determination may for instance be made under consideration of the boundary condition that collisions between probe 11 and/or structures supporting the probe 11 and protruding sections of the sample 6 are to be avoided. In other words, the analysis of the sample 6 by scanning probe 11 along the sample 6 may be carried out based on the determined sample height distribution information.” and [0124]: “The tilting angle, α, may be selected in accordance with space requirements and constraints in the framework of the scanning probe microscope 1 and should be selected so that the wide view camera 92 can see enough of the sample 6 within its range of view.”) for the purpose of analyzing a sample (pg. 10, par. [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim to include the addition of the limitation of determining a measurement path comprising a plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform a first measurement to enable a simple, quick, and failure-free robust operation of a scanning probe microscope (Godec-Schonbacher: pg. 1, par. [0007]). As per claim 15, Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim does not expressly teach determining a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement. However Godec-Schonbacher, in an analogous art of an inspection system (pg. 1, par. [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of determining a measurement path comprising a plurality of measurement targets (pg. 10, par. [0101]; i.e. “In other words, the processing unit 72 may use the information indicative of the vertical height map of the sample 6 for determining a proper starting position for the analysis of the sample 6 by probe 11 and/or for determining a trajectory along which the probe 11 or the sample 6 moves at the beginning and/or during analysis of the sample 6.”), wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform a first measurement (pg. 10, par. [0101] and pg. 13, par. [0124]; i.e. [0101]: “This determination may for instance be made under consideration of the boundary condition that collisions between probe 11 and/or structures supporting the probe 11 and protruding sections of the sample 6 are to be avoided. In other words, the analysis of the sample 6 by scanning probe 11 along the sample 6 may be carried out based on the determined sample height distribution information.” and [0124]: “The tilting angle, α, may be selected in accordance with space requirements and constraints in the framework of the scanning probe microscope 1 and should be selected so that the wide view camera 92 can see enough of the sample 6 within its range of view.”) for the purpose of analyzing a sample (pg. 10, par. [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim to include the addition of the limitation of determining a measurement path comprising a plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform a first measurement to enable a simple, quick, and failure-free robust operation of a scanning probe microscope (Godec-Schonbacher: pg. 1, par. [0007]). As per claim 20, Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim does not expressly teach determine a measurement path comprising the plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform the first measurement. However Godec-Schonbacher, in an analogous art of an inspection system (pg. 1, par. [0008]), teaches the missing limitation of determine a measurement path comprising a plurality of measurement targets (pg. 10, par. [0101]; i.e. “In other words, the processing unit 72 may use the information indicative of the vertical height map of the sample 6 for determining a proper starting position for the analysis of the sample 6 by probe 11 and/or for determining a trajectory along which the probe 11 or the sample 6 moves at the beginning and/or during analysis of the sample 6.”), wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform a first measurement (pg. 10, par. [0101] and pg. 13, par. [0124]; i.e. [0101]: “This determination may for instance be made under consideration of the boundary condition that collisions between probe 11 and/or structures supporting the probe 11 and protruding sections of the sample 6 are to be avoided. In other words, the analysis of the sample 6 by scanning probe 11 along the sample 6 may be carried out based on the determined sample height distribution information.” and [0124]: “The tilting angle, α, may be selected in accordance with space requirements and constraints in the framework of the scanning probe microscope 1 and should be selected so that the wide view camera 92 can see enough of the sample 6 within its range of view.”) for the purpose of analyzing a sample (pg. 10, par. [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Doyle in view of Cekli in further view of Kim to include the addition of the limitation of determine a measurement path comprising a plurality of measurement targets, wherein the measurement path is determined based on one or more constraints of a measurement system used to perform a first measurement to enable a simple, quick, and failure-free robust operation of a scanning probe microscope (Godec-Schonbacher: pg. 1, par. [0007]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to inspection systems/methods. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0093648 A1 discloses methods and systems for monitoring semiconductor fabrication processes. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0038980 A1 discloses a method and substrate examining device that sequentially and automatically measures at least thickness and internal stress of a thin film at a predetermined measurement point on a surface of every manufactured semiconductor substrate to perform quality control on each substrate, and reliably recognizes a cause of defects to improve productivity. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0169900 A1 discloses an inspection apparatus irradiating an electron beam to an inspection object and capturing secondary electrons modified according to properties of a surface thereof to form image data, and inspecting in high throughput a pattern or the like formed on the surface of an inspection object based on image data, and a device production process of producing a device in a high yield using the inspection apparatus as used for detection of wafer defects in semiconductor manufacturing. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0224151 A1 discloses an inspecting apparatus which has two or more detectors disposed within a single barrel, one of which is selected in accordance with an amount of electronic or optical signals or an S/N ratio, thereby allowing for detection and measurement of images on a surface of a sample. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0129317 A1 discloses a metrology or inspection apparatus in a lithography system. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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. /JENNIFER L NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 2 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 4 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 5 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 6 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 7 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 8 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 9 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 10 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 11 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 12 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 14 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 16 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 17 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 18 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 19 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 20 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 21 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 22 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 23 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 24 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 26 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 27 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 28 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 29 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 30 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 31 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 32 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 33 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 34 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 35 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 36 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 38 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 39 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 40 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 41 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 42 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 43 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 44 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 45 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 46 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 47 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 48 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 49 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 50 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 51 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 52 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 53 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 54 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 55 Art Unit: 2117 Application/Control Number: 18/611,531 Page 56 Art Unit: 2117
Prosecution Insights