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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on April 26, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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
Claim 1: Statutory Category? Yes, The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes, “determine a curvature of the first contour” and “determine an etch bias direction based on the curvature” appear to be math/mental process. Additionally, “use a simulation model to determine an etch effect based on the etch bias direction for an etching process on the substrate pattern” appears to be a mathematical calculation. At least paras [0086], [0092] & [0096] seem to support math being involved.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No, Substrate etching appears to be a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h). The CRM would be generic hardware for performing the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05). Receiving a representation of a first contour is mere data-gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept? No, The claim as a whole merely describes how to “apply” (predict) distortion due to etch errors. So, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Moreover, the additional computer elements of claim 1 “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least:...” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 16: Statutory Category? Yes, The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes, the claim recites “determine a curvature of the first contour” and “determine an etch bias direction based on the curvature” appear to be math/mental process. Additionally, “use a simulation model to determine an etch effect based on the etch bias direction for an etching process on the substrate pattern” appears to be a mathematical calculation. At least paras [0086], [0092] & [0096] seem to support math being involved. Specifically, “input the etch bias value and the etch bias direction to a simulation” sounds like either part of the judicial exception (inputting values into an algorithm to manipulate math).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No, Substrate etching appears to be a field of use per MPEP 2106.05(h). The CRM would be generic hardware for performing the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05). Receiving a representation of a first contour is mere data-gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Inventive Concept? No, The claim as a whole merely describes how to “apply” (predict) distortion due to etch errors. So, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Moreover, the additional computer elements of claim 16 “A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least:...” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the curvature corresponds to a curvature at a given location of the first contour, wherein the etch bias direction is for the given location and is determined based on the curvature at the given location and further based on a curvature at one or more adjacent locations along the first contour in proximity to the given location.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 3 recites “the etch bias direction for the given location on the first contour is determined based on a combination of curvatures at the one or more adjacent locations along the first contour with the curvature at the given location.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the combination is weighted based on the curvatures.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the etch bias direction for a given location on the first contour is determined based on a combination of normal directions at one or more adjacent locations along the first contour with the normal direction of the first contour at the given location.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the combination is weighted with respect to the normal directions.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to determine an etch bias value based on the representation of the first contour of the substrate pattern, and use the simulation model to determine the etch effect based on the etch bias direction and the etch bias value.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the etch effect is a change in the first contour of the substrate pattern caused by etching, which produces an after etch substrate pattern, and wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to determine one or more locations on the after etch substrate pattern based on the etch bias direction, wherein the representation of the first contour is received electronically, and the representation of the first contour is a representation of a resist contour.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias direction are further configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias using an algorithm comprising a combination term, a filtering term, and a curvature term.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the simulation model is an etch bias model.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to, in a calibration flow, determine the etch bias direction at each location on a gage contour of the substrate pattern.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to, in a model application flow, bias each vertex of a resist contour with a bias vector based on the etch bias direction to determine an after etch contour.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to, for optical proximity correction, use a resist contour and an etch bias direction at each location on the resist contour, and determine an after etch contour, which can be used to estimate an etch signal for the optical proximity correction.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the etch effect is determined based on an etch bias value and the etch bias direction, and wherein the etch bias value and/or the etch bias direction are configured to be provided to a cost function to facilitate determination of costs associated with individual patterning process variables.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the curvature of the first contour is determined based on one or more derivatives of an equation that represents the first contour.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the representation of the substrate pattern comprises a resist image and the contour is a resist contour.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the after etch contour are further configured to cause the computer system to determine a location on the after etch contour based on the etch bias direction.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias direction are further configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias direction using an algorithm comprising a combination term, a filtering term, a curvature term, and a calibration term.”
The additional computer elements of claim 35 “a hardware computer” are rejected for simply applying a general purpose computer. (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Mere Instructions to Apply An Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) has found that simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the simulation model is a vector based effective etch bias model.”
This merely specifies the form quantifying the data, and is therefore merely an extension of the data quantization step of the process.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. [US 20080241709 A1, hereafter Nakagawa]
As per Claim 1, Nakagawa teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions thereon or therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system (Para 14), configured to cause the computer system to at least:
receive a representation of a first contour of a substrate pattern (Para 13, An original geometry to be formed in an absorber layer of a photomask blank is received);
determine a curvature of the first contour (See fig. 7 and 8);
determine an etch bias direction based on the curvature (original geometry may be modified to generate a modified geometry that is offset from the original geometry in at least one direction); and
use a simulation model to determine an etch effect based on the etch bias direction for an etching process on the substrate pattern (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 13 and 43, wherein A simulation may be performed based on the modified geometry to determine a simulated geometry).
As per Claim 2, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the curvature 108 corresponds to a curvature at a given location of the first contour (See fig. 5), wherein the etch bias direction is for the given location and is determined based on the curvature at the given location and further based on a curvature at one or more adjacent locations 100 along the first contour in proximity to the given location (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 43).
As per Claim 3, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 2, wherein the etch bias direction for the given location on the first contour is determined based on a combination of curvatures at the one or more adjacent locations along the first contour with the curvature at the given location (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 43).
As per Claim 4, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 3, wherein the combination is weighted based on the curvatures (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 43).
As per Claim 5, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the etch bias direction for a given location on the first contour is determined based on a combination of normal directions (100, 102) at one or more adjacent locations along the first contour with the normal direction of the first contour at the given location (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 43).
As per Claim 6, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 5, wherein the combination is weighted with respect to the normal directions (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 43).
As per Claim 7, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to determine an etch bias value based on the representation of the first contour of the substrate pattern, and use the simulation model to determine the etch effect based on the etch bias direction and the etch bias value (Para 41-43).
As per Claim 8, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the etch effect is a change in the first contour (100, 102) of the substrate pattern caused by etching, which produces an after etch substrate pattern (See fig. 5), and wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to determine one or more locations on the after etch substrate pattern based on the etch bias direction, wherein the representation of the first contour is received electronically (a particular geometry defined by a mask pattern file), and the representation of the first contour is a representation of a resist contour (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 39-41).
As per Claim 9, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias direction are further configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias using an algorithm comprising a combination term, a filtering term, and a curvature term (See fig. 5-8, Para 42 and 46).
As per Claim 10, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the simulation model is an etch bias model (Para 41).
As per Claim 11, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to, in a calibration flow, determine the etch bias direction at each location on a gage contour of the substrate pattern (Para 41).
As per Claim 12, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to, in a model application flow, bias each vertex of a resist contour with a bias vector based on the etch bias direction to determine an after etch contour (See fig. 5 and 6, wherein each point of the geometry 100).
As per Claim 13, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the etch effect are further configured to cause the computer system to, for optical proximity correction, use a resist contour and an etch bias direction at each location on the resist contour, and determine an after etch contour, which can be used to estimate an etch signal for the optical proximity correction (Para 29).
As per Claim 14, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the etch effect is determined based on an etch bias value and the etch bias direction, and wherein the etch bias value and/or the etch bias direction are configured to be provided to a cost function to facilitate determination of costs associated with individual patterning process variables (Para 40, wherein a particular offset extending around the perimeter of desired geometry 100 to generate a modified geometry 102).
As per Claim 15, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 1, wherein the curvature of the first contour is determined based on one or more derivatives of an equation that represents the first contour (Para 41-42).
As per Claim 16, Nakagawa teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions thereon or therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system (Para 14), configured to cause the computer system to at least:
receive a representation of a substrate pattern, wherein the representation comprises a contour in the substrate pattern (Para 13, An original geometry to be formed in an absorber layer of a photomask blank is received);
determine an etch bias value for a location on the contour of the substrate pattern (Para 14, wherein geometry offset from the original geometry in at least one direction);
determine a curvature of the contour of the substrate pattern at the location (See fig. 7 and 8);
determine an etch bias direction based on the curvature (original geometry may be modified to generate a modified geometry that is offset from the original geometry in at least one direction);
input the etch bias value and the etch bias direction to a simulation model (Para 14, wherein perform a simulation based on the modified geometry to determine a simulated geometry); and
use the simulation model to determine an after etch contour for the substrate pattern, the after etch contour comprising change in the contour of the substrate pattern caused by etching, wherein the after etch contour from the simulation model is configured to be used in a cost function to facilitate determination of costs associated with individual patterning process variables, and wherein the costs associated with individual patterning variables are configured to be used to facilitate an optimization of the patterning process (See fig. 5 and 6, Para 13 and 43, wherein A simulation may be performed based on the modified geometry to determine a simulated geometry).
As per Claim 17, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 16, wherein the representation of the substrate pattern comprises a resist image and the contour is a resist contour (See fig. 5C).
As per Claim 18, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to use the simulation model to determine the after etch contour are further configured to cause the computer system to determine a location on the after etch contour based on the etch bias direction (Para 41-42).
As per Claim 19, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 16, wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias direction are further configured to cause the computer system to determine the etch bias direction using an algorithm comprising a combination term, a filtering term, a curvature term, and a calibration term (Para 41-42).
As per Claim 20, Nakagawa teaches the medium of claim 16, wherein the simulation model is a vector based effective etch bias model (Para 41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882