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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 24, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation “the spatial transform” in line 11. This limitation appears to be referring back to the original limitation “a transform” in line 5. The naming of limitations should be consistent throughout the claims, thus the limitation of line 11 should be amended to “the transform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation “the spatial transform” in line 11. This limitation appears to be referring back to the original limitation “a transform” in line 5. The naming of limitations should be consistent throughout the claims, thus the limitation of line 11 should be amended to “the transform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the limitation “the inspection apparatus” in lines 1-2. This limitation appears to be referring back to the original limitation “An apparatus” in line 1. The naming of limitations should be consistent throughout the claims, thus the limitation “An apparatus” should be amended to “An inspection apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 does not contain any additional elements. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium 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 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 of claim 17 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of 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 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 11 and 17 do contain additional elements, while claim 1 does not contain any additional elements. The scanning electron microscope and the voltage contrast electron beam microscope of claim 17 provide no indication that the additional elements are anything other than a generic computer components or process used in a well-understood, routing, 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 15, this claim further adds to the analyzing step of claims 11 and 13. 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaneoka et al. discloses “Charged particle beam system, semiconductor inspection system, and method of machine sampling” (see US2007/0158560)
Honda et al. discloses “Method and apparatus for reviewing defects by detecting images having voltage contrast” (see US2009/0058437)
Duffy discloses “Voltage contrast based fault and defect inference in logic chips” (see US2016/0341791)
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