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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: July 21, 2026.
Claims 1-14 and 16-21 are currently pending. Claims 1-2, 11-12, 17-18 and 20 have been amended. Claim 15 has been canceled. Claim 21 is new.
Response to Arguments
Summary of claim amendments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS page 10, with respect to the objection of claims 1, 11 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 1, 11 and 17 has been withdrawn.
The claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant has argued that the claims limitations of independent claim 17 and the amended claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are not directed to an abstract idea (see REMARKS pages 11-16). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments.
The applicant’s arguments, with respect to independent claims 1 and 17, regarding that a scanning electron microscope and a voltage contrast electron beam microscope/imaging system are sufficient in combination with the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 abstract idea rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments (see rejection of claims 1 and 17 below). The scanning electron microscope and the voltage contrast electron beam microscope/imaging system are currently claimed in a generic manner because any known scanning electron microscope and voltage contrast electron beam microscope/imaging system may be used instead of a specific structure and are claimed to collect data (an RSEM image and a voltage contrast electron beam image). The scanning electron microscope and the voltage contrast electron beam microscope/imaging system are also a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art to perform the claimed function of acquiring an RSEM image and a voltage contrast electron beam image. Thus, these claim limitations fail to have additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The applicant’s arguments, with respect to independent claims 11 and 17, regarding the displaying step using a display are sufficient in combination with the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 abstract idea rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments (see rejection of claims 11 and 17 below). The displaying step using a display as claimed are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processor/computer components performing generic computer functions of performing the steps as claimed) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying step using a display are also a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art to perform the claimed function of displaying defect information/data. Thus, these claim limitations fail to have additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-20 are in maintained in view of the examiner’s arguments above.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
Independent claim 1 recite(s) a method (a process).
Independent claim 11 recite(s) a non-transitory storage medium (a machine).
Independent claim 17 recite(s) an apparatus (a machine)
(Step 2A: Prong 1)
The limitations of claim 1 of performing the steps of acquiring, rending, determining, identifying, locating and analyzing; the limitations of claim 11 of performing the steps of determining, identifying, locating and analyzing; the limitations of claim 17 of performing the steps of determining, identifying, locating and analyzing, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind and the determining steps also covers performance of the limitation through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations. That is, other than reciting “an electronic processor” for claims 11 and 17, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations. For example, but for the “an electronic processor” language, the steps of claims 1, 11 and 17 encompasses a user to mentally (or with aid of pen and paper) and/or perform mathematical calculations to acquire, render, determine, identify, locate and analyze data to produce defect information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations through mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and/or calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 11 and 17 recite an abstract idea.
(Step 2A: Prong 2)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 11 and 17 do not contain any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a scanning electron microscope and a voltage contrast electron beam imaging system. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium, a displaying step using a display and an electronic processor to perform the steps of claim 11. Claim 17 recites the additional elements of a scanning electron microscope, a voltage contrast electron beam microscope, a displaying step using a display and an electronic processor, with the electronic processor to perform the steps of claim 17. The scanning electron microscope and the voltage contrast electron beam microscope/imaging system of claims 1 and 17 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of collecting data such as acquiring a review scanning electron microscope image of an associated IC and a voltage contrast electron beam image of the associated IC), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying step using a display, of claims 11 and 17, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of displaying data/results such as displaying defect data), and amounts to mere displaying of data/results, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The non-transitory storage medium and electronic processors, of claims 11 and 17, are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processor/computer components performing generic computer functions of performing the steps as claimed) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, 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, claims 1, 11 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 17 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above (see Step 2A: Prong 2), claims 1, 11 and 17 do contain additional elements. The scanning electron microscope and the voltage contrast electron beam microscope/imaging system of claims 1 and 17 provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than generic computer components or processes used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Claims 11 and 17 further recites the additional element of a displaying step using a display which provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than generic computer components or processes used in a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, recognized by one skilled in the art, when claimed in a generic manner. Claims 11 and 17 further recites the additional element of an electronic processor which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1, 11 and 17 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3, this claim further adds to the analyzing step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4, this claim further adds to the locating step of claim 1 and deriving step of claim 3. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5, this claim has additional elements of a low energy RSEM image and a high energy RSEM image using electron beams at different voltages. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 6, this claim further adds to the locating step of claims 1, 3 and 4. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7, this claim further adds to the identification and deriving steps of claims 1 and 3. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8, this claim further adds to the identifying step of claim 1. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, this claim further adds to the identifying step of claims 1 and 8. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has additional elements of a secondary electron detector and an EDX spectrometer to acquire images. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 1 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 12, this claim further adds to the determining step of claim 11. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 11 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 13, this claim further adds to the analyzing step of claim 11. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 11 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has additional elements of a low energy RSEM image and a high energy RSEM image using electron beams at different voltages. This claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 11 above) and is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity with a well-understood, routine, and convention function (see claim 11 analysis in Step 2A: Prongs 1 and 2 and Step 2B above).
Regarding claim 16, this claim further adds to the locating step of claims 1, 3 and 4. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 1 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 18, this claim further adds to the analyzing step of claim 17. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 17 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 19, this claim further adds to the analyzing step of claims 17 and 18. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 17 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 20, this claim further adds to the analyzing step of claims 17 and 18. Thus, this claim still falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (for similar reasons as disclosed for claim 17 above) and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the IC is an IC-under- fabrication, and the method further comprises: starting back end-of-line processing including forming metallization contacts to source and drain regions of transistors of the IC-under-fabrication, wherein the RSEM image of the IC-under-fabrication and the voltage contrast electron beam image of the IC-under-fabrication are acquired after the forming of the metallization contacts to source and drain regions of transistors of the IC- under-fabrication; analyzing the defect information to determine wafer processing should be continued; and completing the back end-of-line processing of the IC-under-fabrication in response to the determination that wafer processing should be continued.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fan discloses “Method and apparatus for reviewing voltage contrast defects in semiconductor wafers” (see US7132301)
Fushida et al. discloses “Inspecting method, inspecting apparatus, and method of manufacturing semiconductor device” (see US2007/0041631)
Yen discloses “Analysis method and analysis system of voltage contrast defect” (see US2022/0043054)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights