DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 are pending in the present application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/21/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 1 is an apparatus claim that includes method steps: “a determination circuitry that determines, as an outlier, a measured value at a measurement point where an absolute value of a difference between the measured value and the estimated value at each of the plurality of selected measurement points deviates from a threshold set in advance; and a correction circuitry that corrects the measured value at the measurement point determined as the outlier”.
However, the Examiner suggests that this rejection may be overcome by amending the limitations above to recite: “a determination circuitry configured to determine, as an outlier, a measured value at a measurement point where an absolute value of a difference between the measured value and the estimated value at each of the plurality of selected measurement points deviates from a threshold set in advance; and a correction circuitry configured to correct the measured value at the measurement point determined as the outlier”.
Regarding claim 2, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 2 is an apparatus claim that includes method steps: “the correction circuitry corrects the measured value by replacing the measured value at the measurement point determined as the outlier with the estimated value at the measurement point”.
However, the Examiner suggests that this rejection may be overcome by amending the limitations above to recite: “the correction circuitry is configured to correctreplacing the measured value at the measurement point determined as the outlier with the estimated value at the measurement point”.
Regarding claim 3, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 3 is an apparatus claim that includes method steps: “the calculation circuitry recalculates the plurality of estimated values for the substrate processing result of each of the plurality of selected measurement points, excluding the measurement point where the absolute value of the difference between the measured value and the estimated value deviates from the threshold, and wherein the determination circuitry determines the outlier using the absolute value of the difference between the measured value and the recalculated estimated value at each of the plurality of selected measurement points, excluding the measurement point deviating from the threshold”.
However, the Examiner suggests that this rejection may be overcome by amending the limitations above to recite: “the calculation circuitry is configured to recalculateis configured to determine
Regarding claim 4, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 4 is an apparatus claim that includes method steps: “the calculation circuitry repeats recalculation of the estimated values a number of times set in advance as a parameter setting, and wherein the determination circuitry repeats determination of the outlier a preset number of times as the parameter setting”.
However, the Examiner suggests that this rejection may be overcome by amending the limitations above to recite: “the calculation circuitry is configured to repeatis configured to repeat
Regarding claim 5, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 5 is an apparatus claim that includes method steps: “the calculation circuitry repeats recalculation of the estimated value until there is no measurement point determined as the outlier, and wherein the determination circuitry repeats determination of the outlier until there is no measurement point determined as the outlier”.
However, the Examiner suggests that this rejection may be overcome by amending the limitations above to recited: “the calculation circuitry is configured to repeatis configured to repeat
Regarding claim 6, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, claim 6 is an apparatus claim that includes method steps: “a recipe optimization circuitry that optimizes a recipe that sets a substrate processing sequence based on the measured values at the plurality of measurement points including the corrected measured value”.
However, the Examiner suggests that this rejection may be overcome by amending the limitations above to recited: “a recipe optimization circuitry is configured to
Regarding claim 7, this claim is rejected for failing to remedy the rejection of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US PGPUB 2021/0020479 A1, hereinafter Kang) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0209926 A1, hereinafter Lee)
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches an information processing apparatus (see Fig. 4 and 5, all elements) comprising: an input circuitry (210) configured to input positional information regarding a plurality of measurement points on a substrate and a plurality of measured values indicating a substrate processing result at each of the plurality of measurement points (see Fig. 4, 7, 8A; see also [0042]-[0044] and [0078], positional information regarding plurality of measured film thicknesses (processing result) as shown in Fig. 8A provided and described); a calculation circuitry configured to calculate a plurality of estimated values for the substrate processing result at each of the plurality of measurement points selected from the positional information regarding the plurality of measurement points, using a mathematical model (see Fig. 5, 9A-B, and 13A-B; see also [0082]-[0084], CPU considered calculation circuitry that calculates estimated variations of the film thickness values utilizing a variation state model for each measurement point from the position information as shown in Fig. 13A-B, wherein a plurality of points along concentric circles are utilized to determine the estimated variation and thus the Examiner has interpreted that the calculation circuitry determines a plurality of estimated values around the concentric circles to determine the expected variation state of the model); a determination circuitry that determines, as an outlier, a measured value at a measurement point where an absolute value of a difference between the measured value and the estimated value at each of the plurality of selected measurement points deviates from a threshold set in advance (see Fig. 4, singular point detection and correction device considered determination circuitry; see also [0041], [0065], and [0082]-[0084], singular point that is determined to be an outlier based on deviation or variation larger than a predetermined value, wherein the deviation is considered an absolute value); and a correction circuitry that corrects the measured value at the measurement point determined as the outlier (see Fig. 4 and [0068], portion of the singular point detection and correction device 220 considered the correction circuitry that (overwrites) corrects the measured value determined as the outlier).
Kang fails to specifically teach that the mathematical model is a local linear regression method.
Lee teaches a substrate handling device and method (see Abstract) wherein a linear regression is used in the measurement of the thickness of the substrate (see [0041]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the apparatus of Kang such that the variation state of the model utilized a linear regression method. This is because linear regression methods allow for the accurate modeling and calibration of linear correlations as suggested by Lee (see [0041]) and as known in the art of measuring and testing.
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Lee above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Kang teaches that the correction circuitry corrects the measured value by replacing the measured value at the measurement point determined as the outlier with the estimated value at the measurement point (see Fig. 4 and [0068], portion of the singular point detection and correction device 220 considered the correction circuitry and replaces the measured value determined as the outlier as described).
Regarding claim 3, Kang in view of Lee above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Kang teaches that the calculation circuitry recalculates the plurality of estimated values for the substrate processing result of each of the plurality of selected measurement points, excluding the measurement point where the absolute value of the difference between the measured value and the estimated value deviates from the threshold, and wherein the determination circuitry determines the outlier using the absolute value of the difference between the measured value and the recalculated estimated value at each of the plurality of selected measurement points, excluding the measurement point deviating from the threshold (see Fig. 13B and [0082]-[0084], estimated values (modeled deviation values) are recalculated after removal of the singular point; see also Fig. 2, plurality of wafers W monitored and thus the circuitry is interpreted as thus including a continuous and repeated process of monitoring, determining, and removing singular points as described above).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kang in view of Lee above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3.
Kang in view of Lee above fails to specifically teach that the calculation circuitry repeats recalculation of the estimated values a number of times set in advance as a parameter setting, and wherein the determination circuitry repeats determination of the outlier a preset number of times as the parameter setting; wherein the calculation circuitry repeats recalculation of the estimated value until there is no measurement point determined as the outlier, and wherein the determination circuitry repeats determination of the outlier until there is no measurement point determined as the outlier.
However, Kang teaches that the processing recipe for the substrate processing apparatus is repeatedly adjusted and optimized based on the measured film thickness for a plurality of wafers (see Fig. 1-2, plurality of wafers W; see also [0005], discussion of repeated recipe optimization).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the device of Kang in view of Lee above such that the calculation circuitry and determination circuitry were repeated such that outliers were continuously removed or removed based on a set number of iterations. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that optimization of the processing recipe based on substrate thickness would require continuous or semi-continuous monitoring to ensure accurate substrate processing.
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Lee above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Kang teaches a recipe optimization circuitry that optimizes a recipe that sets a substrate processing sequence based on the measured values at the plurality of measurement points including the corrected measured value (see [0005] and [0025], portion of the substrate processing apparatus considered to include circuitry to modify/optimize the recipe based on the accurate measure of the substrate thickness described).
Regarding claim 7, Kang in view of Lee above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Kang teaches that the measured value is a film thickness or a refractive index of a film formed on the substrate (see [0057], measured value of film thickness described).
Regarding claim 8, Kang teaches a correction method executed by an information processing apparatus (see Fig. 4 and 5, all elements; see also Fig. 7 and 10, correction methods described for apparatus of Fig. 4 and 4) the method comprising: inputting positional information regarding a plurality of measurement points on a substrate and a plurality of measured values indicating a substrate processing result at each of the plurality of measurement points (see Fig. 4, 7, 8A; see also [0042]-[0044] and [0078], positional information regarding plurality of measured film thicknesses (processing result) as shown in Fig. 8A provided and described); calculating a plurality of estimated values for the substrate processing result at each of the plurality of measurement points selected from the positional information regarding the plurality of measurement points, using a mathematical model (see Fig. 5, 9A-B, and 13A-B; see also [0082]-[0084], CPU considered calculation circuitry that calculates estimated variations of the film thickness values utilizing a variation state model for each measurement point from the position information as shown in Fig. 13A-B, wherein a plurality of points along concentric circles are utilized to determine the estimated variation and thus the Examiner has interpreted that the calculation circuitry determines a plurality of estimated values around the concentric circles to determine the expected variation state of the model); determining, as an outlier, a measured value at a measurement point where an absolute value of a difference between the measured value and the estimated value at each of the plurality of selected measurement points deviates from a threshold set in advance (see Fig. 4, singular point detection and correction device considered determination circuitry; see also [0041], [0065], and [0082]-[0084], singular point that is determined to be an outlier based on deviation or variation larger than a predetermined value, wherein the deviation is considered an absolute value); and correcting the measured value at the measurement point determined as the outlier (see Fig. 4 and [0068], portion of the singular point detection and correction device 220 considered the correction circuitry that (overwrites) corrects the measured value determined as the outlier).
Kang fails to specifically teach that the mathematical model is a local linear regression method.
Lee teaches a substrate handling device and method (see Abstract) wherein a linear regression is used in the measurement of the thickness of the substrate (see [0041]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the apparatus of Kang such that the variation state of the model utilized a linear regression method. This is because linear regression methods allow for the accurate modeling and calibration of linear correlations as suggested by Lee (see [0041]) and as known in the art of measuring and testing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855