DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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.
The term “optimal” in claims 1, 7-11 and 14-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of continued examination, the examiner interprets optimal as determined. To overcome the 112 rejection, the applicant can remove the term or clearly define optimal.
The term ”particular” in claims 8-9, 15-16 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “particular” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of continued examination, the examiner interprets optimal as determined. To overcome the 112 rejection, the applicant can remove the term or clearly define optimal.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising: obtaining, by a metrology optimization system, three-dimensional (3D) model information associated with an object; obtaining, by the metrology optimization system, optical sensor information associated with a metrology system that is to measure the object; determining, by the metrology optimization system and based on the 3D model information and the optical sensor information, an initial configuration for the metrology system; determining, by the metrology optimization system and based on the 3D model information, the optical sensor information, and the initial configuration, an optimal configuration for the metrology system; and providing, by the metrology optimization system, the optimal configuration for the metrology system.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “determining, by the metrology optimization system and based on the 3D model information and the optical sensor information, an initial configuration for the metrology system; determining, by the metrology optimization system and based on the 3D model information, the optical sensor information, and the initial configuration, an optimal configuration for the metrology system” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 31.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a metrology optimization system
In Claim 11: a metrology optimization system, one or more memories, one or more processors
In Claim 17: a non-transitory computer readable medium
The additional element of a metrology optimization system, one or more memories, one or more processors (generic processor) and a non-transitory computer readable medium are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Avrahami et al. (US20190213724A1, 2019-07-11) herein referred to as Avrahami.
Regarding Claim 1, Avrahami teaches a method, comprising: obtaining, by a metrology optimization system, three-dimensional (3D) model information associated with an object [0042]; obtaining, by the metrology optimization system, optical sensor information associated with a metrology system that is to measure the object [0043] determining, by the metrology optimization system and based on the 3D model information and the optical sensor information, an initial configuration for the metrology system [0025; 0042]; determining, by the metrology optimization system and based on the 3D model information, the optical sensor information, and the initial configuration, an optimal configuration for the metrology system [0030]; and providing, by the metrology optimization system, the optimal configuration for the metrology system [0030].
Regarding Claim 2, Avrahami further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D model information includes a computer-aided design (CAD) model of the object [0042].
Regarding Claim 3, Avrahami further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the 3D model information comprises: receiving, from the metrology system, initial measurement information associated with the object (Abstract; [0042]); and determining, based on the initial measurement information, the 3D model information (Abstract; [0042]).
Regarding Claim 4, Avrahami further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the 3D model information indicates at least one of: geometric information related to one or more components of the object; interface information related to one or more components of the object; material information related to one or more components of the object; or feature information related to one or more components of the object [0041].
Regarding Claim 5, Avrahami further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the optical sensor information indicates, for each optical sensor of the metrology system, at least one of: a field of view (FOV) of the optical sensor; a setback range of the optical sensor; a modulation frequency range of the optical sensor; a power level range of the optical sensor; a point density and point distribution of the optical sensor; a measurement path within the FOV of the optical sensor; or an integration time range of the optical sensor ([0030]: a setback range of the optical sensor (working distance)).
Regarding Claim 6, Avrahami further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the initial configuration indicates, for each optical sensor of the metrology system, at least one of: an initial position of the optical sensor relative to a surface of the object; an initial orientation of the optical sensor relative to the surface of the object; or an initial integration time for each point of a field of view (FOV) of the optical sensor [0054-0055; 0042 (initial position of the optical sensor relative to a surface of the object)].
Regarding Claim 7, Avrahami further teaches the method of claim 1, herein the optimal configuration indicates, for each optical sensor of the metrology system, at least one of: an optimal position of the optical sensor relative to a surface of the object; an optimal orientation of the optical sensor relative to the surface of the object; or an optimal integration time for each point of a field of view (FOV) of the optical sensor [0054-0055; 0042 (optimal position of the optical sensor relative to a surface of the object)].
Regarding Claim 9, Avrahami further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein providing the optimal configuration comprises: sending the optimal configuration to the metrology system, wherein sending the optimal configuration to the metrology system allows the metrology system to cause an optical sensor of the metrology system to be configured [0030] to have at least one of: a particular position relative to a frame of the metrology system; a particular orientation relative to the frame of the metrology system; or a particular integration time for each point of a field of view (FOV) of the optical sensor [0022].
Regarding Claim 10, Avrahami further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein providing the optimal configuration comprises: sending the optimal configuration to the metrology system, wherein sending the optimal configuration to the metrology system allows the metrology system to obtain optimal measurement information associated with the object. (Abstract; [0042]).
Regarding Claim 11, Avrahami teaches a metrology optimization system, comprising: one or more memories [0091]; and one or more processors [0026; 0091], coupled to the one or more memories [Claim 64], configured to: determine, based on three-dimensional (3D) model information associated with an object and optical sensor information associated with a metrology system that is to measure the object [0043], an initial configuration for the metrology system [0025; 0042]; determine, based on the 3D model information, the optical sensor information, and the initial configuration, an optimal configuration for the metrology system [0030]; and provide the optimal configuration for the metrology system [0030].
Regarding Claim 12, Avrahami further teaches the metrology optimization system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the metrology system, the optical sensor information [0043].
Regarding Claim 13, Avrahami further teaches the metrology optimization system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the metrology system, initial measurement information associated with the object (Abstract; [0042]); and determine, based on the initial measurement information, the 3D model information (Abstract; [0042]).
Regarding Claim 14, Avrahami further teaches the metrology optimization system of claim 11, wherein the optimal configuration indicates, for each optical sensor of the metrology system, at least one of: an optimal position of the optical sensor relative to a surface of the object; an optimal orientation of the optical sensor relative to the surface of the object; or an optimal integration time for each point of a field of view (FOV) of the optical sensor [0054-0055; 0042 (optimal position of the optical sensor relative to a surface of the object)].
Regarding Claim 16, Avrahami further teaches the metrology optimization system of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors [0026; 0091], to provide the optimal configuration [0030], are configured to: send the optimal configuration to the metrology system [0030], wherein sending the optimal configuration to the metrology system allows the metrology system to cause an optical sensor of the metrology system to be configured to have at least one of: a particular position relative to a frame of the metrology system; a particular orientation relative to the frame of the metrology system; or a particular integration time for each point of a field of view (FOV) of the optical sensor [0022; 0024: particular position and orientation (dictate preferred or optimal inspection parameters or settings that can be applied to certain areas, regions, aspects, elements, etc., of a part (examples of such parameters/settings include but are not limited to the angle(s), magnification level, illumination level(s), etc., at which the area, region, etc. should be scanned and/or how the corresponding sensor inputs should be processed/analyzed)].
Regarding Claim 17, Avrahami teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions [Claim 65], the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a metrology optimization system, cause the metrology optimization system to [Claim 64]: determine, based on three-dimensional (3D) model information associated with an object and optical sensor information associated with a metrology system that is to measure the object [0043], an optimal configuration for the metrology system [0030]; and provide the optimal configuration for the metrology system [0030].
Regarding Claim 19, Avrahami further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the metrology optimization system to provide the optimal configuration [0030], cause the metrology optimization system to: send the optimal configuration to the metrology system to allow the metrology system to cause an optical sensor of the metrology system to be configured according to the optimal configuration [0054-0055; 0042 (optimal position of the optical sensor relative to a surface of the object)].
Regarding Claim 20, Avrahami further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the metrology optimization system to provide the optimal configuration [0030], cause the metrology optimization system to: send the optimal configuration to the metrology system to allow the metrology system to obtain optimal measurement information associated with the object [Abstract; 0042].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 15 and 18 would be allowable if written to overcome the 101 and 112 rejection set forth in this office action and rewritten in independent form to incorporate all the limitations of their base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 8, Avrahami, along with all other references fail to teach The method of claim 1, wherein determining the optimal configuration comprises: determining, based on the 3D model information, the optical sensor information, and the initial configuration, respective initial signal-to-noise (SNR) scores for one or more regions of a surface of the object, wherein each region of the surface of the object is associated with a corresponding point of a field of view (FOV) of an optical sensor of the metrology system that has an initial position and an initial orientation relative to the surface of the object; determining, based on the 3D model information and the optical sensor information, a set of one or more other SNR scores for each region of the one or more regions of the surface of the object, wherein each other SNR score, of the set of one or more other SNR scores, is associated with at least one of a particular other position or a particular other orientation of the optical sensor relative to the surface of the object; and determining, based on the respective initial SNR scores for the one or more regions of the surface of the object and the set of one or more other SNR scores for each region of the one or more regions of the surface of the object, the optimal configuration. It is for this reason, Claim 8 would be allowable.
Claim 15 and 18 includes analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 8, and would therefore, for similar rationale as disclosed above, would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Stigwal et al. (METROLOGY SYSTEM, 2023-06-15) teaches a metrology system comprising a target object, a metrology instrument and a control unit configured for controlling an alignment of the targeting unit and for deriving an orientation of the target object.
Bhattacharya et al. (METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR INSPECTION OF SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURES, 2022-08-21) teaches methods and systems for discovery of defects of interest (DOI) buried within three dimensional semiconductor structures and recipe optimization.
Soetarman et al. (METHODS OF GENERATING THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3-D) INFORMATION OF A SAMPLE USING AN OPTICAL MICROSCOPE, 2022-07-01) teaches a method of generating 3D information including: varying the distance between the sample and an objective lens of the optical microscope at pre-determined steps; capturing an image at each pre-determined step; determining a characteristic value of each pixel in each captured image; determining, for each captured image, the greatest characteristic value across a first portion of pixels in the captured image; comparing the greatest characteristic value for each captured image to determine if a surface of the sample is present at each pre- determined step; determining a first captured image that is focused on an apex of a bump of the sample; determining a second captured image that is focused on a first surface of the sample based on the characteristic value of each pixel in each captured image; and determining a first distance between the apex of the bump and the first surface.
Egashira (METHOD OF DETERMINING SET OF SAMPLE SHOT REGIONS, METHOD OF OBTAINING MEASUREMENT VALUE, INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, LITHOGRAPHY APPARATUS, PROGRAM, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD, 2022-04-01) teaches a method for determining a set of sample shot regions in which positions of marks are to be measured, respectively among a plurality of shot regions of a substrate.
Emtman (SYSTEM AND METHOD UTILIZING MULTI-POINT AUTOFOCUS TO ALIGN AN OPTICAL AXIS OF AN OPTICAL ASSEMBLY PORTION TO BE NORMAL TO A WORKPIECE SURFACE, 2022-03-31) teaches a metrology system includes an optical assembly portion; an adjustment mechanism configured to change a distance and an angular orientation between the optical assembly portion and a workpiece surface; and a processor configured to control the adjustment mechanism to move the optical assembly portion to position a workpiece surface within a focal Z autofocus range; capture an image stack of the workpiece surface wherein each image of the image stack corresponds to a different autofocus height; determine an autofocus height for at least three locations of the workpiece surface; control the adjustment mechanism based on the autofocus heights to rotate the optical assembly portion relative to the workpiece surface to nominally align the optical axis of the optical assembly portion with a surface normal of the workpiece surface and adjust a distance between the optical assembly portion and the workpiece surface; and execute a defined operation on the workpiece surface.
Gross et al. (METROLOGY ASSISTED PART FORMING SYSTEM AND METHOD, 2020-10-27) teaches systems and methods for using metrology to assist a user at a workstation to form a part into a desired contour include scanning the part to obtain scanned data indicative of an actual contour of the part.
Pandev (PROCESS VARIATION-BASED MODEL OPTIMIZATION FOR METROLOGY, 2013-05-02) teaches a method that includes determining a first model of a structure. The first model is based on a first set of parameters. A set of process variations data is determined for the structure. The first model of the structure is modified to provide a second model of the structure based on the set of process variations data. The second model of the structure is based on a second set of parameters different from the first set of parameters. A simulated spectrum derived from the second model of the structure is then provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights