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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 02/15/2024.
Claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending. Claims 14-15 are cancelled. Claims 16-22 are new. Claims 1-10, 12-13 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-22 objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claims 17-22 recite “The medium according to claim 16” in the first line of the claim for consistency and in order to avoid antecedent basis issues the claims should be amended to recite --The non-transitory computer-readable medium according to claim 16 --. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 16-22 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the claim recites “determining, by a hardware computer system, a metrology contribution from the contributions wherein the metrology contribution is the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings” in lines 5-7 of claim 1 and in lines 6-8 of claim 16 renders the claim indefinite.
The term “least” in claims 1 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “least” 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. It is unclear from the claim what constitutes “least dependence” as the claim do not provide a particular definition as to ascertain what contribution is considered to have “least dependence”. It is unclear from the claim how the contribution is being determined to have least dependence as a function of the measurement settings as no particular definition for the least dependence have been provided. In addition, it is unclear with respect to which parameter the contribution have “least dependence” from. Clarification and correction is required.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation "the contribution", in line 6 of claim 1 and in line 6 of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear from the claim whether the claimed “contributions” refer to the “plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources” or different contribution. Clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons discussed above with respect to their respective independent claims 1 and 16.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “wherein the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement setting is selected” renders the claim indefinite. The term “least” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “least” 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. It is unclear from the claim how the contribution is being determined to have least dependence as a function of the measurement settings as no particular definition for the least dependence have been provided. In addition, it is unclear with respect to which parameter the contribution have “least dependence” from. Clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claim 7, is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 6 from which it depends.
For examination on the merits the claims 1-13 and 16-22 are interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections 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 1-13 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category, namely a method. Similarly claim 16, belongs to a statutory category namely a system (i.e. non-transitory computer-readable medium”).
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1 recite(s) concepts related to at least one category of abstract idea in which the recited judicial exception falls. Claim 1 recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for determining a metrology contribution, and “determining a metrology contribution from the contributions wherein the metrology contribution is the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings”, which are concepts related to mathematical calculations, mental processes that can be performed by pen and paper. Similarly claim 16, recites concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for “determine a metrology contribution from the contributions wherein the metrology contribution is the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings”, which are concepts related to mathematical calculations, mental processes that can be performed by pen and paper.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “hardware computer system” recited in claim 1, and “computer system” recited by claim 16 which amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea and the “providing a plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources obtained at a plurality of measurements settings” which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored (i.e. non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein) as part of insignificant post-solution activity, and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “hardware computer system”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 17-22 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 17-22 merely expand on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired (claims 2-13) and applied for performing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 16-22 do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “the plurality of measurement settings are obtained at at least one measurement location on a semiconductor wafer” which amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 3, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “each measurement setting a characteristic of a metrology tool is modified” which amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 4, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “each measurement setting a characteristic of a the semiconductor wafer at at least one said measurement location is modified” which amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 5, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. determining a parameter indicating the way of varying of the statistical independent sources) and further data characterization and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 6, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings is selected at a value of the parameter which is below a threshold value) and further data characterization and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 7, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. wherein the threshold value is determined by a user input) and further data characterization and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 8, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “wherein the measurement settings include a wavelength of a metrology tool” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 9, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. wherein the providing a plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources is obtained through Independent Component Analysis) and further data characterization and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 10, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. determining the metrology contribution comprises a linear combination of at least two metrology contributions) and further data characterization and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 11, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. determining a parameter of interest of a lithographic process wherein the parameter of interest is determined from the metrology contribution) and further data characterization and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 12, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “performing the method inline as a part of a semiconductor device manufacturing process” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 13, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “exposing at least one target onto a substrate, performing said measurement step…” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 17, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “the plurality of measurement settings are obtained at least one measurement location on a semiconductor wafer” which amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 18, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “each measurement setting a characteristic of a metrology tool is modified” which amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 19, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “each measurement setting a characteristic of a the semiconductor wafer at least one said measurement location is modified” which amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 20, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. determine a parameter indicating the way of varying of the statistical independent sources) and further data characterization and which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 21, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and further data characterization and introduces the additional element of “wherein the measurement settings include a wavelength of a metrology tool” which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 22, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea (i.e. perform an Independent Component Analysis to provide the plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources) and further data characterization which is generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-13 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-13 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Middlebrooks et. al. US 20200192229 A1 (hereinafter Middlebrooks).
Regarding claim 1, Middlebrooks disclose a method to determine a metrology contribution, the method comprising: providing a plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources obtained at a plurality of measurement settings (see abstract; Figure 5 where the combination of contributions from various sources, such as systematic errors and true value in a set of measurements results are shown; para. 0067-0068, 0071); and determining, by a hardware computer system (see para. 0077, computer system 100), a metrology contribution from the contributions wherein the metrology contribution is the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings (see para. 0071, wherein contributions from different sources in a set of results measured from a lithography process or a substrate processed by the lithography process are determined with optionally reduced number of dimensions, and wherein reducing the number of dimensions can be achieved by a suitable algorithm such as principal component analysis as a statistical procedure and wherein independent component is used to determine the contributions; see para. 0073).
Regarding claim 2, Middlebrooks further disclose wherein the plurality of measurement settings are obtained at least one measurement location on a semiconductor wafer (see abstract, para. 0003, “silicon wafer” 0047, wherein substrate measurement recipe may be used to align the mask to the substrate, by measuring the relative position of the substrate; para. 0071, “substrate measurement recipes obtained from multiple different locations and at each location using multiple different substrate measurement recipes”; para. 0124).
Regarding claim 3 Middlebrooks further disclose wherein at each measurement setting a characteristic of a metrology tool is modified (see para. 0042, where adjusting an apparatus such that the device fabrication results and/or processes have one or more desirable characteristics is discussed; para. 0046, 0119, wherein a set of predetermined design rules is disclosed; para. 0126, wherein modifications are disclosed; para. 0102, 0129, 0132).
Regarding claim 4 Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein at each measurement setting a characteristic of a semiconductor wafer at least one measurement location is modified (see abstract, para. 0003, “silicon wafer” 0047, wherein substrate measurement recipe may be used to align the mask to the substrate, by measuring the relative position of the substrate; para. 0071, “substrate measurement recipes obtained from multiple different locations and at each location using multiple different substrate measurement recipes”; para. 0124).
Regarding claim 5 Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the determining the metrology contribution comprises determining a parameter indicating the way of varying of the statistical independent sources (see para. 0066-0068, wherein a contribution from systematic errors is statistically determined; see para. 0071; para. 0035, 0055, 0074, figures 11a-c).
Regarding claim 8 Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the measurement settings include a wavelength of a metrology tool (see para. 0041, 0047, 0099).
Regarding claim 9 Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the providing a plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources is obtained through Independent Component Analysis (see para. 0071 “independent component analysis (ICA)” is discussed).
Regarding claim 10 Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the determining the metrology contribution comprises a linear combination of at least two metrology contributions (para. 0063, “measurement are linear combinations(e.g. the sum) of the contributions from the systematic errors and the contribution from the true value”, 0067).
Regarding claim 11 Middlebrooks further disclose a method of determining a parameter of interest of a lithographic process wherein the parameter of interest is determined from the metrology contribution (see para. 0046 “lithography process”).
Regarding claim 12 Middlebrooks further disclose performing the method inline as a part of a semiconductor device manufacturing process (see para. 0003, 0117, “manufacturing process involving a lithographic apparatus”, para. 0118, 0123).
Regarding claim 13 Middlebrooks disclose the materials discussed above with respect to claim 12 and further disclose exposing at least one target onto a substrate (see para. 0004, 0044, 0105), performing said measurement step (see para. 0004, 0005, 0044-0045) and using a corrected parameter of interest value or a parameter of interest corresponding to a preferred measurement setting in correcting a subsequent exposing step on a subsequent substrate (para. 0102, adjuster configured to adjust angular intensity distribution of radiation beam to have a desired uniformity and intensity distribution; 0004, 0043-0045; 0105-0107, pattern imparted to radiation beam is projected onto a target portion C at one time and then the substrate table is shifted in the X and/or Y direction so that a different target can be exposed, 0124-0126).
Regarding claim 16, Middlebrooks disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system (see para. 0075, 0077), configured to cause the computer system to at least:
obtain a plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources obtained at a plurality of measurement settings (see abstract; Figure 5 where the combination of contributions from various sources, such as systematic errors and true value in a set of measurements results are shown; para. 0067-0068, 0071); and
determine a metrology contribution from the contributions wherein the metrology contribution is the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings (see para. 0071, wherein contributions from different sources in a set of results measured from a lithography process or a substrate processed by the lithography process are determined with optionally reduced number of dimensions, and wherein reducing the number of dimensions can achieved by a suitable algorithm such as principal component analysis as a statistical procedure; see para. 0073).
Regarding claim 17, Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the plurality of measurement settings are obtained at least one measurement location on a semiconductor wafer (see abstract, para. 0003, “silicon wafer” 0047, wherein substrate measurement recipe may be used to align the mask to the substrate, by measuring the relative position of the substrate; para. 0071, “substrate measurement recipes obtained from multiple different locations and at each location using multiple different substrate measurement recipes”; para. 0124).
Regarding claim 18, Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein at each measurement setting a characteristic of a metrology tool is modified (see para. 0042, where adjusting an apparatus such that the device fabrication results and/or processes have one or more desirable characteristics is discussed; para. 0046, 0119, wherein a set of predetermined design rules is disclosed; para. 0126, wherein modifications are disclosed; para. 0102, 0129, 0132).
Regarding claim 19, Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein at each measurement setting a characteristic of the semiconductor wafer at the measurement location is modified (see abstract, para. 0003, “silicon wafer” 0047, wherein substrate measurement recipe may be used to align the mask to the substrate, by measuring the relative position of the substrate; para. 0071, “substrate measurement recipes obtained from multiple different locations and at each location using multiple different substrate measurement recipes”; para. 0124).
Regarding claim 20, Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to determine a metrology contribution are further configured to cause the computer system to determine a parameter indicating the way of varying of the statistical independent sources (see para. 0066-0068, wherein a contribution from systematic errors is statistically determined; see para. 0071; para. 0035, 0055, 0074, figures 11a-c).
Regarding claim 21, Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the measurement settings include a wavelength of a metrology tool (see para. 0041, 0047, 0099).
Regarding claim 22, Middlebrooks further disclose, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to provide a plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources are further configured to cause the computer system to perform an Independent Component Analysis to provide the plurality of contributions from statistically independent sources Analysis (see para. 0071 “independent component analysis (ICA)” is discussed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et. al. US 20200192229 A1 (hereinafter Middlebrooks) in view of Smorenburg et al. US2020/0201192A1 (hereinafter Smorenburg).
Regarding claim 6 Middlebrooks further disclose wherein the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings is selected at a value of the parameter (see para. 0049, wherein the target used has been reduced to e.g. 20 μm by 20 μm or less, or to 10 μm by 10 μm or less; see para. 0071; para. 0073, wherein accurate substrate measurement recipe should lead to results having a large contribution from the true value and small contributions from other sources; 0124, wherein features with dimensions smaller than classical resolution limit of a lithographic apparatus are printed according to a resolution formula, by employing a wavelength of radiation, a numerical aperture of projection optics in the lithographic apparatus, critical dimension –generally the smallest feature size printed—and empirical resolution factor; para. 0131, “design variables” comprises a set of parameters of an apparatus or a device manufacturing process, for example, parameters a user of the lithographic apparatus can adjust).
However, Middlebrooks do not specifically disclose settings being selected at a value of the parameter which is below a threshold value (emphasis added).
Smorenburg et al. discuss a method and apparatus for metrology for use in metrology of lithographic patterning process in which a wavelength may be selected based on a sensitivity thereof to aspects of a feature T and wherein the second wavelength may be selected because it has a sensitivity below a threshold to features of the substrate W outside the target area (see para. 0030, 0103-0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Smorenburg discussed above to configure the system of Middlebrooks such that the contribution having least dependence as a function of the measurement settings is selected at a value of the parameter which is below a threshold value for the benefit of providing a means that would allow to process features with dimension smaller than the classical resolution limit of the lithographic apparatus in order to achieve particular electrical functionality and performance and in order to facilitate fine-tunning steps that may be applied to the lithographic projection apparatus and/or design layout (para., 0004) and to offer a desired level of penetration into lower levels (see para. 0072).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Middlebrooks et. al. US 20200192229 A1 (hereinafter Middlebrooks) in view of Tel et al. US2020/0371441A1 (hereinafter Tel).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Middlebrooks and Smorenburg teach the materials discussed with respect to claim 6. Middlebrooks discuss that parameters may be inputted (see para. 0050) and that “design variables” comprises a set of parameters of an apparatus or a device manufacturing process, for example, parameters a user of the lithographic apparatus can adjust (para. 0132) and a computer, an input device including alphanumeric and other keys to communicate information and command selections to processor and another type of user input device, (see para. 0076).
However, the combination of Middlebrooks and Smorenburg do not expressly or explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is determined by a user input.
Tel discuss a metrology sampling scheme for a patterning process in which contributions applicable to a plurality of substrate is discussed (see abstract, 0165) in the threshold value is determined by a user input (see para. 0225, threshold can be user defined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Tel discussed above to provide the system of Middlebrooks as modified by Smorenburg such that the threshold value is determined by a user input for the benefit of providing a means for achieving an accuracy threshold or benchmark accuracy desired (see para. 0225-0226) of the parameters thus enhancing the system accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights