DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of interim copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-13 are directed to a method, program operable to perform the method, or device that is suitable to run the program. Claims 1-11 are directed to a statutory category of a method, Claim 12 is directed to non-statutory subject matter (see above), and Claim 13 is directed to a statutory category of a device.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites “correcting for effects in the measurement acquisition data using first correction data from said calibration correction database and/or using said trained model so as to obtain corrected measurement data and/or a corrected parameter of interest which is/are corrected for at least said effects” which is described with respect to Block C in paragraphs [0116]-[0133] of the specification as a set of mathematical operations for correcting data values. Accordingly the correcting step is a mathematical operation which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 1 recites the steps of: obtaining, using a metrology device, measurement acquisition data relating to measurement of a target on a production substrate during a manufacturing phase; obtaining a calibration correction database and/or a trained model having been trained on said calibration correction database, configured to correct for effects in the measurement acquisition data; […] and updating said calibration correction data and/or said trained model with said corrected measurement data and/or corrected parameter of interest. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by the additional steps because the additional steps are only insignificant extra-solution steps of data gathering and outputting (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: Similar to step 2A prong 2, the additional steps recited by the claim are only insignificant extra-solution steps of data gathering and outputting that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2 and 3 inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional identification of the type of effects is not integration into a practical application by the additional steps because the additional steps are only insignificant extra-solution steps of data type identification (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)).
Claims 4 and 5 inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional updating steps is not integration into a practical application by the additional steps because the additional steps are only insignificant extra-solution steps of data outputting (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional identification of the type of correction data is not integration into a practical application by the additional step because the additional step is only an insignificant extra-solution step of data type identification (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)).
Claim 7 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional building a database of subset databases is not integration into a practical application by the additional step because the additional step is only an insignificant extra-solution step of data type identification and data gathering and outputting in databases (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)).
Claims 8 and 9 inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional use of correction data or applying a trained model to obtain a parameter of interest is not integration into a practical application by the additional steps because the additional steps are only insignificant extra-solution steps of applying the abstract idea without any details of how to accomplish the determination (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)(1)(3)).
Claims 10 and 11 inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional identification of the type parameters of interest is not integration into a practical application by the additional steps because the additional steps are only insignificant extra-solution steps of data type identification (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g)).
Claims 12 and 13 inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional computer program and processor device is not integration into a practical application by the additional elements because the additional elements are only insignificant extra-solution elements that are generic computing components for performing an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claims 14-17 inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. For steps 2A prong 2 and 2B: the additional elements of a metrology device or exposure device that is suitable for performing the computing method of claim 1 by a processor device are recited without providing any relationship between the method and how the method is performed by the metrology device or exposure device, such as, the metrology device providing the measurement data of claim 1. Therefore, the subject matter of the claims merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the use of a metrology device to capture measurement data of a production substrate to ensure that the production device produced during substrate processing by an exposure device is meeting desired tolerances is a well understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known in the semiconductor substrate processing arts and the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stirton et al. [US 6,597,447].
For claim 1, Stirton teaches a method for measuring a parameter of interest, comprising:
obtaining, using a metrology device (350, see Figs. 2 and 3), measurement acquisition data relating to measurement of a target on a production substrate during a manufacturing phase (step 420, see Fig. 4);
obtaining a calibration correction database (step 430, see Fig. 5) and/or a trained model having been trained on said calibration correction database, operable to correct for effects in the measurement acquisition data;
correcting for effects in the measurement acquisition data using first correction data from said calibration correction database and/or using said trained model so as to obtain corrected measurement data and/or a corrected parameter of interest which is/are corrected for at least said effects (calibrated/adjusted metrology data in step 550, see Fig. 6); and
updating said calibration correction database and/or said trained model with said corrected measurement data (prior metrology data from previously processed semiconductor wafers 105 can also be used, in conjunction with test-wafer metrology data, as metrology data reference points, see col. 8 lines 25-41, previously determined actual metrology data is used) and/or corrected parameter of interest.
For claim 2, Stirton teaches said effects in the measurement acquisition data comprise at least finite-size effects (line width, CD, see col. 5 line 57 - col. 6 line 55).
For claim 3, Stirton teaches said effects in the measurement acquisition data comprise at least sensor effects relating to the sensor optics used to acquire the measurement acquisition data (optical drift, see col. 7 lines 7-11).
For claim 4, Stirton teaches updating step is performed for each target measured, or each target which satisfies at least one criterion (test features, see col. 8 lines 31-65, measured to determine whether metrology data within margin, see Fig. 8).
For claim 7, Stirton teaches building one or more subset calibration correction databases, each of which comprise one or more proper subsets of the calibration correction database (metrology data database and test wafer database, see col. 8 lines 25-41).
For claim 8, Stirton teaches said correcting step comprises: using the first correction data and/or trained model to obtain said corrected measurement data; and using the corrected measurement data to determine the parameter of interest (overlay, see col. 5 lines 60-65).
For claim 11, Stirton teaches the parameter of interest is overlay (overlay, see col. 5 lines 60-65) or focus.
For claim 12, Stirton teaches a device comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a set of instructions that is executable by one or more processors of the device to cause the device to perform the method of claim (computer control system and software system, see col. 1 lines 31-55, col. 5 lines 1-7 and 43-55, col. 10 line 63-col. 11 line 25).
For claim 14, Stirton teaches the device is the metrology device (350, see Figs. 2 and 3).
For claim 15, Stirton teaches the device is an exposure apparatus (exposure tool or stepper, see col. 1 lines 31-55) that comprises a metrology device (350, see Figs. 2 and 3) comprising the non-transitory computer readable medium and the one or more processors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirton in view of Pasadyn et al. [US 2003/0082837].
For claim 5, Stirton fails to teach said updating step is performed as an inline update such that the updated calibration correction database and/or updated trained model is used for each subsequent measurement acquisition.
Pasadyn teaches said updating step is performed as an inline update such that the updated calibration correction database and/or updated trained model is used for each subsequent measurement acquisition (system 300 stores inline cascade metrology data, see [0036], [0038], [0043], [0048], [0049], and [0059]-[0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inline correction as taught by Pasadyn in the calibration correction as taught by Stirton in order to quickly provide wafer to wafer correction that provides more accurate correction of metrology data.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirton in view of Warnaar et al. [US 2020/0133140].
For claim 6, Stirton fails to teach said calibration correction database comprises different correction data for different target positions with respect to sensor optics used in measuring the target.
Warnaar teaches said calibration correction database comprises different correction data for different target positions with respect to sensor optics used in measuring the target (sensor asymmetry calibration information, see [0163]-[0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the correction data associated with sensor asymmetry as taught by Warnaar in the calibration data as taught by Stirton in order to reduce the effect of drift (see [0157] and [0158] of Warnaar).
Claims 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirton in view of Park et al. [US 2006/0206279].
For claims 9, 10, 16, and 17, Stirton teaches an exposure apparatus and a metrology device (see col. 1 lines 31-55 and Figs. 2 and 3) comprising one or more processors and configured to perform the method of claims 1 (system 300, the metrology data analyzer unit 360 is integrated into the computer system 330 or may be integrated into the metrology tool 350, see Fig. 3).
Stirton fails to teach applying said trained model to said measurement acquisition data to directly determine said parameter of interest, wherein the parameter of interest is aligned position, an exposure apparatus comprising: a patterning device support for supporting a patterning device; a substrate support for supporting a substrate; the exposure apparatus being operable to use an aligned position value in control for one or both of: said substrate support and/or a substrate supported thereon, and said patterning device support and/or a patterning device supported thereon.
Park teaches applying said trained model to said measurement acquisition data to directly determine said parameter of interest (applying correction value to alignment data based on data type, see Fig. 4 and [0021]-[0022]), wherein the parameter of interest is aligned position (alignment), an exposure apparatus comprising: a patterning device support for supporting a patterning device; a substrate support for supporting a substrate; the exposure apparatus being operable to use an aligned position value in control for one or both of: said substrate support and/or a substrate supported thereon, and said patterning device support and/or a patterning device supported thereon (a wafer is loaded onto an exposure apparatus, the wafer is aligned with a reticle, see [0110], the supports are inherent).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the alignment model to find correction for alignment as taught by Park in the method as taught by Stirton in order to provide accurate alignment data to the exposure apparatus to ensure accurate exposure of the mask pattern onto the substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 16, 2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues:
A) On pages 7-9, that the identified judicial exception is not directed to mathematical concept.
B) On page 9, that in the SME analysis, the claim is not considered as whole.
C) On page 10, the rejection carves out certain limitations without evaluating the practical application as a whole.
D) On pages 10 and 12, that in combination with the specification, the claimed method recites steps that solve a specific technological problem of improving measurement of small targets.
E) On pages 13-16, that Stirton fails to teach updating the calibration correction database with corrected measurement data because the rejection relies on two different classes of data to support the prior art rejection of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees:
A) The broadest reasonable interpretation based on the disclosure is correcting measurement data using first correction data, where the correction is a mathematical operation (a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.C.). The bulk of the specification (pages 15-30) is devoted to a concept that is mathematical operations that correct metrology data.
B) The current framework for analysis of SME requires identifying an abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and determining whether the additional elements integrate the exception into practical application (step 2A prong two) or amount to significantly more (step 2B). As a whole, the claim is directed to obtaining metrology data and correcting the metrology data based on obtained calibration data. The analysis above does not remove limitations from the claim or consider them alone, but instead determines the relationship relative the judicial exception as required by step 2A prong one (If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two, see MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1.) .
C) Similar to the response above for argument B), the current framework for analysis of SME requires identifying the elements of the claim and their relationship to judicial exception. This analysis is not carving up the claim, but instead analyzes whether the judicial exception is integrated into practical application or the additional elements amount to significantly more.
D) It is not clear from the claim limitations that the improvement in a technological field is provided. The judicial exception is applied to gathered metrology data, but the claimed correction is not applied practically. The Desjardins memo identifies the improvement to the field was how the model itself would function and the associated enhancements to computer function. The judicial exception is this case only provides for how the data is manipulated in the correction step. The claim does not recite subject matter that provides practical application such that there is an improvement in the measurement of small targets.
E) Initially, Stirton recites in col. 9 lines 39-40 that calibrated metrology data is stored in the metrology data database 220, providing an explicit description that the database is updated with the corrected metrology data. Stirton also uses the term “actual metrology data” to describe calibrated metrology data as the accurate metrology data, see step 560 in Fig. 5 and col. 8 lines 20-24. In the cited section of the rejection above, Stirton relies on previous metrology measurement data stored in the metrology database as metrology data reference points. As noted above, previous metrology data includes the calibrated/adjusted/actual metrology data that is stored in the metrology database. The reference points also include test wafer metrology data because accurate data is required to ensure accurate drift calculation. The calibrated metrology data is most accurate previous metrology data that incorporates the most recent process correction and is therefore used as reference data to determine drift. Also, it is not clear how prior adjusted metrology data would eliminate the error being tracked because it would allow for measuring the change in drift or the multiplier between two sets of measurement at different time periods.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759