DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-16, 18 and 20 are currently pending.
Claims 3, 5, 17, and 19 have been cancelled.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP2120202040.8 and EP22191076.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
I. Objections to drawings
Examiner does not have replacement drawings for Figure 4 and therefore cannot agree to withdraw the previous objection. Objections to the drawings are maintained.
II. Claim objections
Examiner agrees all previous claim objections are overcome, the objections are withdrawn.
III. 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues the claimed invention is not drawn to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees.
First, Applicant argues that the office has failed to identify the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. Remarks Section A.1.a. On page 6 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 02/20/2026 the Office clearly states “That is, a person can identify/detect the features of the mask pattern (i.e. reference template), separating the pattern from the background noise. A person can also determine how far the actual printed pattern shift from the mask pattern. These are concepts that fall under the grouping of abstract idea mental processes..” Here, the Examiner has identified multiple abstract ideas which occur in the claim and appropriately grouped them as mental processes.
Second, Applicant argues the claims are not directed to a mental process. See Remarks Section A.1.b. Applicant argues that, as amended, the claims involve a complex iterative process which cannot practically be performed in the human mind. A person can practically identify features of a mask pattern, determine an offset of the mask pattern, and repeat the process iteratively determining differences to an average data set. Examiner agrees with Applicant that the process outlined on page 10 could not practically be performed in the human mind. Applicant argues “The process starts by determining initial offsets for all lines and determining a mean line, then an offset for the first line which maximizes the value of the expression, keeping all others constant, is obtained and the mean line updated, with the loop repeating for each line and then starting again.” However, these are not claimed features, and therefore unpersuasive. Examiner notes these features are only found in claim 13, and the rejection has been updated to reflect that claim 13 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Third, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application by providing a technological improvement. Examiner disagrees. As stated in the Non-Final Rejection the claims merely recite generic machine components which are regarded as adding routine and conventional elements to the claim and fail to integrate the claim into a practical application. First, the claims do not require the method be applied to semiconductor inspection. Claim 1 does not even require a scanning electron microscope. The claimed technological improvements are once again unclaimed features and therefore unpersuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues the claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea. Again, Examiner disagrees. The Non-Final Rejection mailed 02/20/2026 did properly consider the claims as a whole and identified each element of the claim as either an abstract idea or a generic computing component which fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
IV. 35 U.S.C. 102
Examiner agrees the claims overcome the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and the rejections are withdrawn.
V. 35 U.S.C. 103
Examiner agrees the amendment overcomes the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 and the rejections are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S401 and S407 in Figure 4.. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-2, 4, 6-12 and 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of identifying an offset with a noise mask pattern without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, under step 2A prong 1, the claim recites the mental steps of:
-detecting a fingerprint of the mask pattern in a noise of the data sets;
-determining offsets based on the fingerprint of the mask pattern,
-wherein detecting the fingerprint comprises iteratively determining correlations between pairs of data sets and an average data set.
These steps could practically be performed in the human mind by identifying a mask pattern in an image and determining an offset from a finger print (reference template). A person could also repeat this step and compare to an average image.
Under step 2A prong 2, the claim recites additional elements of
-a sampling area of a pattern formed on a sample, wherein each sampling area is derived from predetermined portion of a mask pattern.
This fails to integrate the claim into a practical application because this is mere data gathering.
Under step 2B, the claim recites no additional elements which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 2, the claim adds that the data sets are for different trail offset values, this is mere data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claims adds determining correlations uses a fast Fourier Transform, this is a mathematical process which fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim adds that the fingerprint of the mask pattern results from noise in the mask pattern, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the claim adds the mask pattern comprises a series of parallel lines, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the claim adds the data sets represent contour of the parallel lines, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim adds decomposing the noise of the data set based on the offsets, this is a mathematical process which fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim adds the data set represents a pattern formed in a resist on a substrate or a pattern that has been transferred into the substrate or a pattern that as been transferred into the substrate, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim adds the data sets represents a pattern formed in a resist on a substrate and at least another of the data sets represents a pattern that has been transferred into the substrate, this is data gathering and fails to remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim adds determining a characteristic of a pattern transfer process based on the data sets, this is a mental process and does not remedy the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim follows the logic of claim 1 and has additional elements of:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions recorded thereon, the instructions, when executed by a computer or a controller of a scanning electron microscope.
These amount to generic computing components which fail to integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 follows the same logic as claim 2 above.
Claim 18 follows the same logic of claim 4 above.
Claim 20 follows the same logic as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, the claim follows the logic of claim 1 and has additional elements of:
a scanning electron microscope (SEM) configured to scan with an electron beam and generate an image; and
a non-transitory machine readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor in co-operation with the SEM to perform operations.
These amount to generic computing components which fail to integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12 and 14-16, 18 and 20 are not rejected under the prior art and would be in condition for allowance if the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 were overcome.
Claim 13 is allowed, neither the closest known prior art, nor any reasonable combination thereof, teaches:
using a scanning electron microscope to obtain a plurality of SEM images by scanning a plurality of copies of predetermined pattern in one or more samples;
extracting a contour of a line in each of the plurality of SEM images to obtain a plurality of line contours;
determining an initial set of offsets for each of the plurality of line contours;
calculating a mean contour based on the plurality of line contours and the initial set of offsets; and
iteratively calculating an improved set of offsets that maximizes a correlation between each of the contours of the lines and the mean contour and updating the mean contour.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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.
/Molly Wilburn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights