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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/26/2024 and 05/22/2025 has been entered and considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/09/2024, has been accepted for examination.
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, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Representative independent claim (claim 1)
Preamble: A method of determining a stitch quality of grating lines on a lithography grating structure.
[L1] Using a measurement tool to identify a line feature.
[L2] Measuring a primary coordinate (first x- and y-coordinates; first x-distance from field-of-view edge).
[L3] Measuring at least a secondary coordinate along the line feature (second x- and y-coordinates; second x-distance).
[L4] Using the primary and secondary coordinates to estimate a theoretical line feature.
[L5] Calculating a line angle measurement between the theoretical line feature and a reference axis.
[L6] Measuring a second line angle (via operations [L1]–[L5]).
[L7] Calculating a difference of the first and second line angles to determine line angle rotation.
[L8] Comparing the line angle rotation with a design specification line angle measurement.
Representative independent claim (claim 10)
[L9] Measuring a first line angle by: identifying a line feature; measuring primary and secondary coordinates; estimating a theoretical line feature; calculating a line angle.
[L10] Measuring a second line angle (repeat [L9]).
[L11] Calculating the difference between the first and second line angles to determine line angle rotation.
[L12] Comparing the line angle rotation with a design specification line angle measurement.
Representative independent claim (claim 20)
[L13] Positioning a measurement tool to measure a first image exposure in a grating structure.
[L14] Measuring a first line angle (via steps like [L9]).
[L15] Positioning the measurement tool to measure a second image exposure.
[L16] Measuring a second line angle (via steps like [L9]).
[L17] Calculating a difference of the first and second line angles to determine line angle rotation.
[L18] Comparing the line angle rotation with a design specification line angle measurement.
[L19] Determining a stitch quality from the difference between the first and second line angles.
Selected dependent limitations (examples)
Measurement tool is a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Line feature belongs to a grating structure and may be a two-dimensional pattern (elongated pillar, circular pillar, contact holes).
Theoretical line feature may be calculated using three or more coordinate points separated by predetermined distances; design specification may be about 1/500 of a degree or smaller.
Step 1: Statutory category determination.
All independent claims are drawn to “methods” (processes). They fall within a statutory category under § 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Identify judicial exception(s) with citations to PEG groupings; quote offending clauses.
The claims “recite” abstract ideas, specifically:
Mathematical concepts (formulas, calculations, and relationships). 2019 PEG, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
“using the primary and secondary coordinates to estimate a theoretical line feature” [L4].
“calculating a line angle measurement between the theoretical line feature and a reference axis” [L5].
“calculating a difference of the first line angle and the second line angle to determine a line angle rotation” [L7], [L11], [L17].
Mental processes (evaluations and observations that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper). 2019 PEG.
“comparing the line angle rotation with a design specification line angle measurement” [L8], [L12], [L18].
“determining a stitch quality from the difference” [L19].
Additional data-centric recitations typical of abstract processing:
“measuring a primary coordinate … measuring coordinates of at least a secondary coordinate” [L2]–[L3].
“estimating a theoretical line feature” [L4].
These clauses center on collecting measurement data and performing geometric calculations (slopes/angles, differences) to yield informational results (line angle rotation, stitch quality) without more. See Electric Power Group (collect/analyze/display information), SAP America v. InvestPic (advanced math over data), and Digitech (data manipulation) for analogous holdings.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Analyze integration into a practical application; discuss any claimed technological improvement; address whether extra-solution activity or field-of-use limitations are present.
Particular machine/technological improvement:
The “measurement tool” is recited generically, with a dependent claim specifying an SEM. The claims do not recite any non-conventional SEM configuration or an improvement to the operation of the SEM/computer (e.g., novel quenching, drift correction, latency reduction, or architecture). Selecting a field of view and measuring coordinates are routine SEM operations.
Use beyond informational result:
The process ends with “comparing” to a design specification and “determining stitch quality.” No control of fabrication equipment, adjustment of exposure/masks, or transformation of an article based on the computed results is recited.
Extra-solution activity:
Data gathering by a measurement tool and reporting/evaluating results (“comparing,” “determining quality”) are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g).
Field-of-use:
Limiting the method to “grating structures,” “image exposures,” or “waveguide fabrication” is a field-of-use constraint that does not, by itself, integrate the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
No transformation or particular machine use binding the math:
The claims neither effect a transformation of an article nor tie the mathematical processing to a particular machine in a way that improves that machine’s functioning. MPEP 2106.05(a), (b).
Conclusion (Prong 2):
On this record, the abstract calculations and evaluations are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Assess whether additional elements are significantly more; evaluation of well-understood, routine conventional (“WURC”) with evidentiary considerations.
Additional elements considered individually and in combination:
Measurement tool/SEM: Using an SEM to image/measure line features and coordinates is well-understood, routine, and conventional in lithography metrology. The claims do not recite an unconventional SEM operation. MPEP 2106.05(d).
Grating structures, “image exposures,” “stitching”: These are conventional aspects of multi-patterning and waveguide grating fabrication. The claims use them as context, not as a source of a technological improvement in the claimed steps.
Generic computer implementation: Estimating a line, computing angles/differences, and comparing to a spec are standard computations; implementing them on conventional processors/controllers is WURC. Alice; Electric Power Group; MPEP 2106.05(d).
Berkheimer evidentiary considerations:
A WURC finding should be supported with evidence (e.g., standard references or admissions) that SEM measurement of line features and calculation of slopes/angles to assess stitching is conventional metrology. The specification describes conventional imaging and data collection practices (e.g., selecting field of view, measuring coordinates, avoiding edge noise), suggesting routine operations.
Overall:
The claims do not add an “inventive concept” that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion: Eligible/ineligible under § 101.
Ineligible under § 101. The independent claims are directed to abstract mathematical/mental processing of measured data to produce informational results (line angle rotation, stitch quality) and do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The recited measurement tool and fabrication context constitute conventional data gathering/field-of-use limitations and do not add “significantly more.”
In conclusion, as to the dependent claims 2-9, and 11-19, the dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole 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, and the dependent claims fail to add a tangible result to the independent claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12085475 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations claimed in claims 1- 20 of the instant application are found in claims 1-20 of the patent. The limitations claimed in the claims of the present application are broader/narrower than the claim of the patent. They correspond as follows:
18/828,801
12,085,475 B2
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
Allowable Subject Matter
As to claims 1-20, claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection as set forth in this Office action is overcome.
As to claims 1, 10 and 20, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method of measuring a line angle comprising using the primary coordinate and the secondary coordinate to estimate a theoretical line feature; and calculating a line angle measurement between the theoretical line feature and a reference axis, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Claims 2-9 and 11-19 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
The closest prior art reference of Wei (2015/0205018 A1) discloses method of measuring a line angle.
However, Wei fails to disclose, teach or suggest method of measuring a line angle comprising using the primary coordinate and the secondary coordinate to estimate a theoretical line feature; and calculating a line angle measurement between the theoretical line feature and a reference axis as claimed and as specified in the present application specification.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art method of measuring a line angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877