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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 is “a system” in claim 14. The system is understood to be the a computing device of paragraph [0107] of the specification.
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 § 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 1-11, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite 1, 14, and 18 recite method steps for calculating at least one reparation dose for at least one die of a substrate exposed by a lithographic apparatus including:
a) obtaining a function of a distribution of an energy dose applied to the at least one die over time based on a measurement of exposure energy;
b) determining energy dose in a timeslot with a reparation point in the centre of the timeslot;
c) calculating a slope of the function in the timeslot to determine at least one measurement point, the at least one measurement point being positioned within the timeslot based on the slope of the function in the timeslot;
d) calculating a reparation dose at the measurement point, the reparation dose being the difference between the exposure energy dose applied at the at least one measurement point and a first energy dose threshold;
e) calculating a repair energy based on the reparation dose;
f) updating the function over the timeslot based on applying the repair energy at the reparation point.
Where claim 14 recites a modified step:
b) determine the energy dose in a timeslot with a reparation point in the centre of the timeslot, and proceed with item c) for the timeslot if the energy dose in the timeslot is less than an energy dose limit, or proceed with item g) if the energy dose in the timeslot is not less than the energy dose limit;
and an additional step of:
g) repeat items b) to f) for the next reparation point until a loop through the function is completed.
Step 1: Independent Claims 1, 14, and 18 recite a method, a system (machine, see interpretation above), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (product), respectively. Each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong one: The abstract idea lies in steps b-g. The steps of determining a dose value based on gathered data during a time slot, calculating a slope of the function in the timeslot, calculating a dose value based on a difference and dose value threshold, calculating an energy based on the dose, and updating the function based on the new dose values are all mental processes using gathered data that mathematical relationships. This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mental process relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g., Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
Step 2A, Prong two and Step 2B are combined since the analysis is similar for both:
The Examiner notes that Claims 12-13 and 15 are not rejected because the application of the abstract idea into a technological environment associated with the manufacture of a semiconductor device.
Step a) gathers measurement values and functional relationships between the data as a function. The data gathering is an extra insignificant activity because it contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(A) and 2106.05(g)). The inventive concept lies in the exception and not any combination of the additional elements or the claim as a whole. Limitation a) does not represent significantly more than the exception.
Claims 14 and 18 recite additional elements that includes: “a system” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions”. The claimed additional elements, a hardware computer, computer program product comprising a non- transitory computer-readable medium having instructions, does not make the claim a practical application because they are performing to recite at a high level of generality and generic computer functions or software routinely used in generic computer components or software in the claim. (They may also be considered as an abstract idea because, in this instance it functions to describe the data.) The additional elements further include a hardware computer, computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions therein, all of which can be implemented as generic computer components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The Examiner Claim 15 is tied to a particular machine and therefore not rejected.
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally in the field of a method for analyzing gathered data. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved, such as the actual using the repair dose to perform an exposure. The Examiner notes that Claims 12-13 and 15 performs these steps and therefore not rejected.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claims 1, 14, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea/ judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the generically recited additional computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea/judicial exception because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer.
Dependent claims 2-11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are dependent on their respective base claims 1 and 18, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 2-11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 22-11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps performed by computer components comprise data gathering and processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula are similar to those found to be non-patent eligible. Claims 2-11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 2-11, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 13, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims 1 and 14, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 12, 13, and 15 overcome the subject matter ineligibility of claims 1 and 14 by integration of the abstract idea into practical application that improves the technical field of microphotolithography.
Everts et al. [US 2018/0253014] teaches a method for calculating at least one reparation dose for at least one die of a substrate exposed by a lithographic apparatus, the method comprising: a) obtaining a dose function of a distribution of an energy dose applied to the at least one die over time based on a measurement of exposure energy (dose function shown in Fig. 5A without correction by the second mode); b) determining energy dose in a timeslot with a reparation point (second period 325 with 3 reparation points, see [0154]); d) calculating a reparation dose at the measurement point, the reparation dose being the difference between the exposure energy dose applied at the at least one measurement point and a first energy dose threshold (reparation dose based on the difference 324 between reference energy 307 and the drop point 323, see [0151]-[0154]); e) calculating a repair energy based on the reparation dose (energy of three pulses following the drop point, see Fig. 5A and [0155]); f) updating the function over the timeslot based on applying the repair energy at the reparation point (dose function shown in Fig. 5A with correction by the second mode).
The previously cited prior art fails to teach “c) calculating a slope of the function in the timeslot to determine at least one measurement point, the at least one measurement point being positioned within the timeslot based on the slope of the function in the timeslot” as recited in claims 1, 14, and 18. Claims 12, 13 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759