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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18743427, filed on 06/14/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 10, “generates a plurality of items” should recite “generate a plurality of items”. In claim 11, “comprising” should recite “comprises”. 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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the following antecedence issues: “the respective sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points” (interpreted as a new element); “the charged particles” (interpreted as a new element).
Claims 10 and 20 analogously recite “the respective sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points” (interpreted as a new element).
Claims 2-9 and 11-19 are rejected as dependent on claims 1 and 10.
Claim 2 (and similarly claim 12) recites the following antecedence issues: “the angle” and “the angles” (interpreted as new elements).
Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are rejected as dependent on claims 2 and 12.
Claims 4 and 6 (and similarly claims 14 and 16) recite the following antecedence issues: “the angle that gives a lowest value of multiplication” (interpreted as a new element). Note that while ‘the angle’ technically has antecedence, this instance of “the angle” in claims 4 and 6 appears to refer to a new angle.
Claim 4 (and similarly claim 14) recite the following: “the weight value being heavy compared with when the at least one of contour points is not included in the predetermined region;”. This limitation is recited at a poor level of clarity such that the Examiner cannot ascertain the meaning. Additionally, “being heavy” is a relative term that is not defined by the claim, and 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. In view of the above, the limitation is being interpreted such that the weight value is increased for contour points in the predetermined region.
Claim 5 (and similarly claim 15) recite the following: “wherein the predetermined region is a region including contour points that enable a dimension of the mask pattern to be specified.” The bolded limitation is recited at a poor level of clarity such that the Examiner cannot ascertain the meaning.
Claim 7 (and similarly claim 17) recites the following bolded antecedence issues: “decrease in the frequency of the corresponding angle” (interpreted as new elements); “and wherein the scanning the mask pattern at the scan angle includes scanning the mask pattern at scan angles for the respective numbers of times of scanning.” Note that “scan angles” was previously recited in the claim, though this instance above appears to refer to a new element; and “the respective numbers of times of scanning” is being interpreted as a new element.
Claim 9 (and similarly claim 19) recites the following antecedence issue: “charged particles”. Note that “charged particles” are already introduced in claims 1 and 10. Additionally, the instances in claims 9 and 10 appear to refer to different elements. Clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites “the forming condition”, which lacks antecedence and should recite “the prescribed forming condition”.
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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a scan angle based on relative point position coordinates, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “A pattern shape measurement apparatus comprising:
circuitry configured to
generate, based on shape data on a pattern being a measurement target, contour point data including pieces of position information on contour points of the pattern, the pattern being a mask pattern;
select sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points from the contour point data and generates a plurality of items of extracted point data including the respective sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points;
calculate, for each of the plurality of items of extracted point data, a determined angle formed between a marker line based on the consecutive contour points and a base line that extends in a prescribed direction in the mask pattern; and
determine a scan angle of charged particles with respect to the mask pattern based on a frequency of occurrence of the determined angle.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can look at an image, identify contour points, select positional information for the contour points, calculate angles relative to the positional information, and determine a scan angle based on a frequency.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an apparatus with circuitry and shape data. The circuitry and shape data are recited at a level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic circuitry and shape data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to generic additional elements including a CPU, a non-transitory computer readable medium, and computer readable instructions. These amount to generic elements that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of determining a lowest angle frequency (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of selecting consecutive points from a predetermined region (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of assigning weights to frequencies and determining an angle based on multiplication values (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of specifying the predetermined region as a particular region that enables a dimension to be specified (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of assigning weights and determining an angle based on multiplication value (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of determining scan angles in a particular order and determining a number based on frequency of occurrence of an angle (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to specifying the additional element of shape data as image data, drawing data, or design data. These types of data are generically recited and therefore fail to integrate the abstract idea onto a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Note that claim 19 is not rejected under 35 USC 101 because the scan with charged particles amounts to non-generic shape data. Additionally, note that claims 1 and 20 are not rejected under 35 USC 101 for the recitation of scanning the mask pattern with charged particles at the scan angle, which amounts to a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b), claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101, and claims 10 and 11 are objected to. However, if these were overcome, the claims would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 1, 10, and 20 (and respective dependent claims), in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 recites: “A pattern shape measurement method comprising:
generating, based on shape data on a pattern being a measurement target, contour point data including pieces of position information on contour points of the pattern, the pattern being a mask pattern;
selecting sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points from the contour point data and generating a plurality of items of extracted point data including the respective sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points;
calculating, with circuitry, for each of the plurality of items of extracted point data, a determined angle formed between a marker line based on the consecutive contour points and a base line that extends in a prescribed direction in the mask pattern;
determining a scan angle for the charged particles with respect to the mask pattern based on a frequency of occurrence of the determined angle; and
scanning the mask pattern with the charged particles at the scan angle.”
Claim 10 recites: “A pattern shape measurement apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to
generate, based on shape data on a pattern being a measurement target, contour point data including pieces of position information on contour points of the pattern, the pattern being a mask pattern;
select sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points from the contour point data and generates a plurality of items of extracted point data including the respective sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points;
calculate, for each of the plurality of items of extracted point data, a determined angle formed between a marker line based on the consecutive contour points and a base line that extends in a prescribed direction in the mask pattern; and
determine a scan angle of charged particles with respect to the mask pattern based on a frequency of occurrence of the determined angle.”
Claim 20 recites: “A method for producing a semiconductor device, comprising:
generating a pattern on a substrate under a prescribed forming condition, the pattern being a mask pattern;
generating, based on shape data on the mask pattern, contour point data including pieces of position information on contour points of the mask pattern;
selecting sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points from the contour point data and generating a plurality of items of extracted point data including the respective sets of pieces of position information on consecutive contour points;
calculating, for each of the plurality of items of extracted point data, a determined angle formed between a marker line based on the consecutive contour points and a base line that extends in a prescribed direction in the mask pattern;
determining a scan angle of charged particles with respect to the mask pattern based on a frequency of occurrence of the determined angle;
scanning the mask pattern at the scan angle to obtain a captured image of the mask pattern;
obtaining measurement data on the mask pattern based on the captured image;
determining whether the measurement data is within a range indicated by a reference; and
changing, after the measurement data is determined to be not within the range indicated by the reference, the forming condition for the mask pattern to a predetermined condition based on the measurement data.”
Regarding the Prior Art: the closest prior art references include Sakai (US20180012349A1), Shimizu (US20150002651A1), Nakayama (US20140244215A1), and Schur (US20140353498A1). Sakai teaches analysis of semiconductor images, including the measurement of pattern features including coordinate of center of gravity and distance between patterns. Sakai does not disclose or suggest the measurement of angles between coordinates of a single pattern, nor determining a scan angle based on frequency of said angles. Shimizu discloses segmenting a semiconductor image into scanning regions and determining a scan direction for each region based on pattern edges located within the regions. Similarly to Sakai, Shimizu does not disclose or suggest measurements of angles between coordinates of a single pattern, nor determining a scan angle based on frequency of said angles. Nakayama discloses evaluating mask data of patterns on a semiconductor image, including calculating evaluation values based on mask number, distances between pattern elements, and angle of a line connecting pattern elements. However, Nakayama does not disclose or suggest determining a frequency of angles or determining a scan angle of charged particles based on said frequency of angles, and it would not be obvious to incorporate these features. Schur teaches performing SEM overlay metrology in accordance with scan directions aligned with or parallel to features of target structures. This alignment is independent of angles between coordinates of a single pattern, nor determining a scan angle based on frequency of said angles. Accordingly, these references do not disclose the bolded limitations above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights