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 amendment filed on July 06, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 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 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, the claimed invention is directed to a process steps of a method/ a non-transient computer program carrier for obtaining a statistical description describing an expected fingerprint component of the spatial distribution and a noise component describing an expected level of measurement noise associated with the parameter of interest; obtaining metrology data related to the parameter of interest; and inferring, by a hardware computer via Bayesian inference, the spatial distribution of the parameter of interest over the at least one substrate or portion thereof, using the statistical description as a prior and the metrology data as an observation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer element do not add a meaningful limitation to abstract idea as they amount to simply implementing abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it appears that the claimed steps are implemented by a generic computer processor for implementing of mental process on a computer.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, 14-19 and 21 fail to cure the deficiency (as set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 2-11, 14-19 and 21 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to particular technological environment.
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) 1-11 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ypma et al. [US 20180253015 A1, hereafter Ypma].
As per Claims 1, 13, 20 and 21, Ypma teaches a method comprising:
obtaining a statistical description describing an expected fingerprint component
of a spatial distribution of a parameter of interest over at least one substrate or portion thereof and a noise component describing an expected level of measurement noise associated with the parameter of interest, the at least one substrate having been subject to a semiconductor manufacturing process (Para 119-120, the apparatus applies automated statistical techniques, and/or facilitates use of manual observation and selection);
obtaining metrology data related to the parameter of interest (Para 120-121);
inferring, by a hardware computer via Bayesian inference, the spatial distribution
of the parameter of interest over the at least one substrate or portion thereof, using the
statistical description as a prior and the metrology data as an observation (Para 150, a
probabilistic analysis, for example using a Bayesian network); and
configuring or controlling the semiconductor manufacturing process based on the inferred spatial distribution and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the inferred spatial distribution to a system for use in configuration or control of the semiconductor manufacturing process (See fig. 2, Para 85, wherein a report 254 identifying a likely cause, or a list of potential causes, for an identified error. It may produce ready-made corrections 256, which can be applied to the control systems of one or more of the apparatuses 200-226, to improve the performance of the system in processing product units in future).
As per Claim 2, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
parameter of interest is a parameter associated with the semiconductor manufacturing
process (Para 9).
As per Claim 3, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
expected fingerprint component comprises a plurality of shape components of the
spatial distribution of the parameter of interest (Para 97-98).
As per Claim 4, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the
inferring comprises simultaneously fitting each shape component out of the plurality of
shape components to the metrology data (Para 162).
As per Claim 5, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
metrology data comprises a plurality of metrology datasets, each metrology dataset
relating to a respective substrate of a plurality of substrates, and the inferring comprises
fitting the expected fingerprint component to each metrology dataset simultaneously
(Para 112, wherein component vectors may be expected to have a fairly direct
relationship with physical effects in the manufacturing process).
As per Claims 6 and 16, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 3,
wherein some or each shape component out of the plurality of shape components are
expected to be smooth according to the statistical description (Para 198, wherein spatial
and/or temporal smoothing may be applied to reduce noise in the measurements).
As per Claims 7 and 17, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 3,
wherein some or each shape component out of the plurality of shape component is
expected to have a low bending energy, divergence or curl (Para 116, wherein the
drawing indicates a Gaussian distribution curve that has been fitted to the data).
As per Claims 8 and 18, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 3,
wherein the inferring comprises fitting one or more shape components out of the
plurality of shape components to the metrology data so as to minimize bending energy,
divergence or curl for each shape component expected to be smooth (Para 116,
wherein the drawing indicates a Gaussian distribution curve that has been fitted to the
data).
As per Claims 9 and 19, Ypma teaches the method according to claim 3,
wherein the inferring comprises fitting one or more shape components out of the
plurality of shape components to the metrology data such that the expected level of
measurement noise is minimized (Para 116).
As per Claim 10, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the
semiconductor manufacturing process is a lithographic process and the plurality of
shape components comprise one or more selected from: an interfield shape, an
intrafield shape, a slit fingerprint, a scan-up scan-down shape, a step-left step-right
shape, an edge roll-off shape that depends only on radius and/or a shape per exposure
field (Para 113).
As per Claim 11, Ypma teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the
metrology data comprises a set of measurements of a parameter other than the
parameter of interest and/or relating to a domain other than that of the parameter of
interest (Para 83).
As per Claims 14 and 15, Ypma teaches a processing arrangement comprising:
the computer program carrier of claim 13; and a processor operable to run the computer
program.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark section, with regard to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, Applicant argued that even arguendo that the claim is directed to an "abstract idea", the claimed subject matter recites at least a practical application of configuring or controlling the semiconductor manufacturing process based on the inferred spatial distribution and/or providing a signal representing, or based on, the inferred spatial distribution to a system for use in configuration or control of the semiconductor manufacturing process, which is no different in kind than the determination of a particular time in Diehr and the application of that time in Diehr to configure a known manufacturing process (i.e., a rubber molding process known more than 100 years prior to Diehr's application).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP (2106.05(h)) expressed a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Here in the instant claim use of the abstract idea of the inferred spatial distribution and/or providing a signal in configuring or controlling the semiconductor manufacturing process do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102, Applicant also argued that applied prior art to Ypma do not disclose a noise component describing an expected level of measurement noise associated with the parameter of interest that is used in Bayesian inference.
The Examiner disagrees. Ypma, for example [0085], disclosed that a report 254 identifying a likely cause, or a list of potential causes, for an identified error (noise). It may produce ready-made corrections 256, which can be applied to the control systems of one or more of the apparatuses 200-226, to improve the performance of the system in processing product units in future. [0151] further disclosed that spatial measurement data and/or context data from newly incoming product units can be used to update the probability of co-occurrence for the particular use case and fully customize when sufficient data arrives. Note that observation of either spatial measurement data or context data (or both) for new product units is allowed, since probabilities on any of the missing (non-observed) variables may be inferred via aforementioned Bayes' rule of inference (See also figure 2, wherein the root cause analysis performance apparatus 252 collects the object data from storage 266 containing measurement error, and the library data from storage 268). Therefore, Applicant’s argument on the above points is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights