DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 4/26/2024, in which claims 1-9 are currently pending. The Application claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0120489, filed 09/11/2023, and claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0094650, filed 07/20/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 4/26/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
6- This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Communicator in claims 1, 2,
Optical measurement device, Measurement data transformation device in claims 16-18, 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7- 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.
8- Claims 4-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 4 and 5, which read “… wherein the first measurement data includes one step height value optically measured in one target region, and the density data …” and “wherein a size of the image comprised in the density data is greater than or equal to a size of the target region.”, respectively, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence and clarity issues, as it is not clear to which target region the clauses refer to, i.e. on the first semiconductor chip or on the second semiconductor chip, as presented in Claim 1.
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
9- 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.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
10- Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-12, 14-18, 20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (PGPUB No. 2018/0322234).
As to claims 1/16-17 and 11, Cao teaches a device, and its method of use, for transforming measurement data (Figs. 1-7 and Abstract), the device comprising: a communicator (processor 202 or one of its modules in Figs. 1, 3-4) configured to receive first measurement data, the first measurement data including a plurality of step height values, wherein the plurality of step height values are optically measured in units of a target region on a first semiconductor chip (¶ 2. 5-7, 19, 26-27, 32 for ex.; images of pattern 102/104) on which a chemical mechanical polishing -CMP- process is performed (¶ 20, 26-27), and receive layout data, the layout data including a layout in the first semiconductor chip (Abstract, ¶ 5-7, 19-20); and a processor configured to based on the layout data, generate density data, the density data including an image to which layout density is applied (¶ 45, 47, 54), the layout density indicating a ratio of area occupied by the layout in a unit resolution region (¶ 52; proportionality is considered), input the density data and the first measurement data to an artificial intelligence model (¶ 32, 44-46, 51), and predict, as an output of the artificial intelligence model, second measurement data, the second measurement data including a step height value per target region of a second semiconductor chip (Abstract, ¶ 5-7 ; predict PSGs), the second semiconductor chip comprising the first semiconductor chip and a metal deposited on the first semiconductor chip (¶ 19-23 for ex; during semiconductor printing processes, metal deposition is necessarily involved in terms of electrodes, gates, sources or the like).
(claims 2/12/18) wherein the processor is configured to receive raw data of the first measurement data via the communicator, remove noise from the raw data based on a noise removal algorithm, and input, to the artificial intelligence model, the first measurement data with the noise removed therefrom (¶ 48; 53-54).
(claim 5) wherein a size of the image comprised in the density data is greater than or equal to a size of the target region (Fig. 1).
(claims 6-8/14/20-15) wherein the artificial intelligence model comprises a neural network, the neural network including an input layer, a hidden layer, and an output layer; wherein the hidden layer comprises a convolution layer, a pooling layer, a fully connected layer, and a regression layer; (claims 8/15) wherein the processor is configured to train the artificial intelligence model with a learning data set based on supervised learning, the learning data set comprising the first measurement data, the density data, and the second measurement data (Abstract, ¶ 5-7, 23, 27, 32, 42).
(claim 10) wherein the processor is configured to optimize a size of a unit resolution region based on a learning result of the artificial intelligence model (¶ 26 for ex.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
12- Claims 3, 4/13/19, 9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Yamazaki et al. (PGPUB No. 2025/0031415)
As to claim 3, Cao teaches device of claim 2.
Cao does not teach expressly wherein the noise removal algorithm comprises fast Fourier transform (FFT), and wherein the processor is configured to transform a domain of the raw data to a frequency domain of the FFT based on the FFT, remove the noise from the raw data based on reflecting at least one mask in FFT spectrum with respect to the raw data, and transform the frequency domain of the FFT to the domain of the raw data.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches semiconductor device and its processing devices/methods (Abstract and Figs. 1-58) wherein FFT imaging and filtering, i.e. mask, are used to process density images (¶ 463, 465).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Cao in view of Yamazaki’s suggestions so that the noise removal algorithm comprises fast Fourier transform (FFT), and wherein the processor is configured to transform a domain of the raw data to a frequency domain of the FFT based on the FFT, remove the noise from the raw data based on reflecting at least one mask in FFT spectrum with respect to the raw data, and transform the frequency domain of the FFT to the domain of the raw data, with the advantage of effectively optimizing fast processing of the data filtering.
As to claims 4, 13/19, Cao teaches device of claims 1, 16 and method of claim 11, wherein the density data includes a plurality of images of a plurality of different layouts in the first semiconductor chip (¶ 24, 26-27, 36, 54).
Cao does not teach expressly wherein the first measurement data includes one step height value optically measured in one target region.
However, Cao teaches considering layer thickness in the process (¶ 2). Similarly, Yamazaki teaches measuring and controlling the thickness, height steps, of the layer regions (¶ 245, 255 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Cao in view of Yamazaki’s suggestions so that the first measurement data includes one step height value optically measured in one target region, with the advantage of effectively optimizing fast processing of the semiconductor layer properties.
As to claim 9, Cao teaches device of claim 8.
Cao does not teach expressly wherein the processor is configured to based on the artificial intelligence model learning according to the supervised learning, remove, based on a noise removal algorithm, noise from first raw data of the first measurement data and remove, based on the noise removal algorithm, noise from second raw data of the second measurement data, and set, as the learning data set, the first measurement data with noise removed therefrom, the density data, and the second measurement data with noise removed therefrom, even though it teaches using ANN to remove unwanted data from the images (¶ 32, 48; 53-54).
Moreover, Yamazaki teaches using artificial intelligence with FFT and image filtering on density data, and the measurement data (¶ 463-466, 847-856 for ex.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Cao in view of Yamazaki’s suggestions so that the processor is configured to based on the artificial intelligence model learning according to the supervised learning, remove, based on a noise removal algorithm, noise from first raw data of the first measurement data and remove, based on the noise removal algorithm, noise from second raw data of the second measurement data, and set, as the learning data set, the first measurement data with noise removed therefrom, the density data, and the second measurement data with noise removed therefrom, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the processing of the semiconductor layer properties.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights