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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) is/are:
Pattern extractor in claim 1;
Calculator in claim 1;
Comparer in claim 1;
Position error calculator in claim 1;
Control unit in claim 11;
Substrate inspection unit in claim 15; and
Thickness calculation unit in claim 19.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps/units of extracting, calculating a position, comparing and calculating a position error. The steps/units of extracting and comparing fall under the enumerated grouping of mental process because they correspond to observation, evaluation, and/or judgment, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, and the steps/units of calculating position and position error fall under the enumerated grouping of mathematical concepts because they correspond to mathematical relationships and/or calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations, such as recitation of a substrate and a bounded pattern, generally link the used of the judicial exception to semiconductor manufacturing. For the same reasons, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they only recite limitations that fall under the enumerated grouping of mathematical concepts because they merely corroborate and correspond to mathematical relationships and/or calculations. As such, claims 2-3 are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite additional limitations, such as oxide site box, cells and scribes lines, that generally link the used of the judicial exception to semiconductor manufacturing. For the same reasons, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, claims 5, 6, 7, 13, and 14 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Us patent application publication no. 2018/0330976 to Chao et al. (hereinafter Chao).
For claim 1, Chao as applied discloses a measurement position monitoring apparatus, the measurement position monitoring apparatus comprising:
a pattern extractor extracting a pattern from an image associated with a substrate, wherein the pattern is a bounded pattern (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 41-43, 45, and 51-53 and FIGS. 3A-C, 4A-E, and 5-7, which teach recognizing a pattern of vias bounded in the wafer from a captured digital imaging data of a wafer);
a calculator calculating a position of a target point within the extracted pattern (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 29, and 47, and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach determining individual center locations of individual vias in the pattern and calculating the average center location of a set of vias);
a comparer comparing the target point with a reference point (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 29, 36, and 48 and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach comparing the average center location to a desired reference location); and
a position error calculator calculating a position error in the target point (see, e.g., pars. 36 and 48 and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach determining a distance between the average center location and the desired camera center).
For claim 15, Chao as applied discloses semiconductor manufacturing equipment comprising:
a stage supporting a substrate (see, e.g., pars. 22-28 and FIG. 1, show a substrate support);
a substrate inspection unit inspecting the substrate (see, e.g., pars. 22-28 and FIG. 1, show a substrate support); and
a measurement position monitoring apparatus monitoring a position of a target point within the substrate, wherein the measurement position monitoring apparatus comprises:
a memory storing one or more instructions (see, e.g., pars. 24 and 25 and FIG. 1); and
at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions, wherein the one or more instructions (see, e.g., pars. 24 and 25 and FIG. 1), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the measurement position monitoring apparatus to:
extract a pattern from an image associated with the substrate, wherein the pattern is a bounded pattern (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 41-43, 45, and 51-53 and FIGS. 3A-C, 4A-E and 5-7, which teach recognizing a pattern of vias bounded in the wafer from a captured digital imaging data of a wafer),
calculate the position of the target point within the extracted pattern (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 29, and 47 and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach determining individual center locations of individual vias in the pattern and calculating the average center location of a set of vias),
compare the target point with a reference point (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 29, 36, and 48 and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach comparing the average center location to a desired reference location), and
calculate a position error in the target point (see, e.g., pars. 36 and 48 and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach determining a distance between the average center location and the desired camera center).
For claim 2, Chao as applied discloses that the position error includes a first component in a first direction and a second component in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (see, e.g., pars. 46-48, which teach using x-y coordinate in determining the centers and recognizing the direction of the misalignment, e.g., left and right; the examiner interprets the above teaching to suggests that the distance is determined using x and y coordinates).
For claim 3, Chao as applied discloses that the position error calculator calculates the position error based on a distance between the target point and the reference point (see, e.g., par. 36 and FIG. 2B, which teach determining a distance between the average center location and the desired camera center).
For claim 7, Chao as applied discloses that the target point is an inner center of the extracted pattern (see, e.g., par. 31 and FIGS. 2A and B, which teach that the calculated center is an inner center of the howl via pattern).
For claim 8, Chao as applied discloses that the reference point is associated with image sensor that has acquired the image (see, e.g., par. 31, which teaches that the desired center is a camera view center).
For claim 9, Chao as applied discloses that the reference point is associated with a center of a field of view (FOV) of the image sensor (see, e.g., pars. 29-31, 48-49 and 56, which teach that the desired center is a camera view center).
For claims 11 and 16, Chao as applied discloses:
a control unit controlling a control position of a control target based on the position error (see, e.g., pars. 23, 28 and 49 and FIG. 1, which teach adjusting a wafer position based on the determined distance between the average center location and the desired camera center and that a controller that can move the substrate support to properly align the wafer).
For claim 12, Chao as applied discloses that the control unit adjusts a stage position of a stage supporting the substrate (see, e.g., pars. 23-25, 28 and 49 and FIG. 1, which teach that a controller that can move the substrate support to properly align the wafer).
For claim 13, Chao as applied discloses that the measurement position monitoring apparatus is used when inspecting patterns or materials on the substrate (see, e.g., pars. 3, 19 and 22, which teach using the photolithography system to recognize and verify a pattern and inspect a film on a substrate).
For claim 14, Chao as applied discloses that the measurement position monitoring apparatus is used when comparing patterns between a reticle and the substrate (see, e.g., pars. pars. 27-28 and FIG. 1, which teach using the photolithography system to properly align the wafer on the substrate support with the pattern of radiation projected from the reticle).
For claim 17, Chao as applied discloses:
a light source generating and outputting light (see, e.g., pars. 22-28 and FIG. 1, show an illumination source);
a first stage supporting a reticle (see, e.g., pars. 22-28 and FIG. 1, show a reticle including an opaque plate and teach using a structural support including a reticle support );
a second stage supporting the substrate (see, e.g., pars. 22, 28 and FIG. 1, show a substrate support);
a first optical system reflecting light from the light source to be incident upon a surface of the reticle (see, e.g., pars. 22 and FIG. 1, show condenser lens); and
a second optical system reflecting light passing through the reticle to be incident upon a surface of the substrate (see, e.g., pars. 22 and FIG. 1, show objective lens).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of us patent application publication no. 2021/0366102 to Park et al. (hereinafter Park).
For claim 4, while Chao does not explicitly teach, Park in the analogous art teaches that the position error calculator converts pixels within the image into distance values (see, e.g., pars. 67-69 and FIG. 6 of Park, which teach determining an actual distance based on the number of pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao to determine the distance using the pixel count as taught by Park because doing so would allow measuring the distance precisely (see par. 69 of Park).
For claim10, Chao as applied does not explicitly teach that the position error calculator calculates the position error based on a number of pixels between the target point and the reference point (see, e.g., pars. 67-69 and FIG. 6 of Park, which teach determining an actual distance based on the number of pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao to determine the distance using the pixel count as taught by Park because doing so would allow measuring the distance precisely (see par. 69 of Park).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Us patent application publication no. 2005/0118785 to Kwon.
For claim 5, while Chao as applied does not explicitly teach, Kwon in the analogous art teaches that the extracted pattern is formed within a scribe lane between a plurality of cells (see, e.g., pars. 18 and 30-36 and FIGS. 2A-E of Kwon, which teach that the alignment pattern is within a scribes lane between cell area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao to use patterns in a scribe lane as taught by Kwon because doing so would constitute a simple substitution of one alignment pattern for another (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
For claim 6, while Chao as applied does not explicitly teach, Kwon in the analogous art teaches that the extracted pattern is associated with an oxide site (OS) box. (see, e.g., pars. 18 and 30-36 and FIGS. 2A-E of Kwon, which teach that the alignment pattern is associated with oxide filling the pattern forming trenches).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao to use oxide based patterns as taught by Kwon because doing so would constitute a simple substitution of one alignment pattern for another (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Us patent no. 6515293 to Jun et al. (hereinafter Jun).
For claim 18, while Chao does not explicitly teach, Jun in the analogous art teaches that the substrate inspection unit measures a thickness of an oxide film formed between patterns in the substrate (see, e.g., lines 1-43 in col. 2, lines 40-67 in col. 3, lines 1-7 in col. 4, lines 19-65 in col. 5, lines 1-9 in col. 6, which teach determining a thickness of an oxide site layer between cells based on the intensity of reflected light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao to determine the thickness of oxide layer as taught by Jun because doing so would allow measuring the thickness of a thin layer non-destructively (see abstract, lines 55-67 in col. 1, lines 30-40 in col. 3, lines 22-31 in col. 6 of Jun).
For claim 19, Chao as applied teaches:
a light-emitting unit applying light in a direction where the substrate is positioned (see, e.g., pars. 22-28 and FIG. 1, show an illumination source);
a light-receiving unit receiving light reflected from the substrate (see, e.g., pars. 22-28 and FIG. 1, show an image sensor).
Chao as applied does not explicitly teach a thickness calculation unit calculating the thickness of the oxide film using the received light by the light-receiving unit (see, e.g., lines 1-43 in col. 2, lines 40-67 in col. 3, lines 1-7 in col. 4, lines 19-65 in col. 5, and lines 1-9 in col. 6 of Jun, which teach determining a thickness of an oxide site layer between cells based on the intensity of reflected light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao to determine the thickness of oxide layer as taught by Jun because doing so would allow measuring the thickness of a thin layer non-destructively (see abstract, lines 55-67 in col. 1, lines 30-40 in col. 3, and lines 22-31 in col. 6 of Jun).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao in view of Kwon and further in view of Park.
For claim 20, Chao as applied teaches a method for monitoring measurement position, the method being executed by at least one processor (see, e.g., pars. 24 and 25 and FIG. 1), the method comprising:
extracting a pattern from an image associated with a substrate, wherein the pattern is a bounded pattern (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 41-43, 45, 51-53 and FIGS. 3A-C, 4A-E, 5-7, which teach recognizing a pattern of vias bounded in the wafer from a captured digital imaging data of a wafer);
calculating a position of a target point within the extracted pattern (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 29, 47, and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach determining individual center locations of individual vias in the pattern and calculating the average center location of a set of vias);
comparing the target point with a reference point (see, e.g., pars. 18, 19, 29, 36, 48 and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach comparing the average center location to a desired reference location); and
calculating a position error in the target point (see, e.g., pars. 36, 48 and FIGS. 2A-B and 5, which teach determining a distance between the average center location and the desired camera center),
wherein the target point is the target point is an inner center of the extracted pattern (see, e.g., pars. 31 and FIGS. 2A, B, , which teach that the calculated center is an inner center of the howl via pattern),
the reference point is associated with a field of view (FOV) of an image acquisition unit that has acquired the image (see, e.g., pars. 29-31, 48-49 and 56, which teach that the desired center is a camera view center),
the position error includes a first component in a first direction and a second component in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (see, e.g., pars. 46-48, which teach using x-y coordinate in determining the centers and recognizing the direction of the misalignment, e.g., left and right; the examiner interprets the above teaching to suggests that the distance is determined using x and y coordinates), and
calculating the position error comprises calculating a distance between the target point and the reference point based on pixels within the image and calculates the position error based on the distance (see, e.g., pars. 36 and FIGS. 2B, which teach determining a distance between the average center location and the desired camera center).
While Chao as applied does not explicitly teach, Kwon in the analogous art teaches that the extracted pattern is formed within a scribe lane between a plurality of cells (see, e.g., pars. 18 and 30-36 and FIGS. 2A-E of Kwon, which teach that the alignment pattern is within a scribes lane between cell area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao to use patterns in a scribe lane as taught by Kwon because doing so would constitute a simple substitution of one alignment pattern for another (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
While Chao in view of Kwon does not explicitly teach, Park in the analogous art teaches calculating a distance between the target point and the reference point based on pixels within the image (see, e.g., pars. 67-69 and FIG. 6 of Park, which teach determining an actual distance based on the number of pixels).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art be before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chao in view of Kwon to determine the distance using the pixel count as taught by Park because doing so would allow measuring the distance precisely (see par. 69 of Park).
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Inoue et al. (us pat. pub. 2016/0034632)
Describes a position measuring method. In one embodiment, a mask including first patterns to be transferred and second patterns not to be transferred is prepared. The position coordinates of the second patterns are measured with a position measuring apparatus and an inspection system. First position correction data is generated based on the position coordinates of the second patterns. A difference is obtained between the measured position coordinates of the second patterns and the first position correction data is corrected using the obtained difference. Second position correction data is generated from the corrected first position correction data. An optical image including the position coordinates of the first and second patterns is acquired. The position coordinates of the first patterns of the optical image are corrected using a difference between the position coordinates of the second patterns of the optical image and of the second patterns based on the second position correction data.
Shiratsuchi et al. (us pat. pub. 2019/0026596)
Describes a pattern inspection apparatus. In one embodiment, the apparatus includes reference outline creation processing circuitry configured to create a reference outline of a reference figure pattern, which serves as a reference, by using pattern data of a design pattern that serves as a base of a figure pattern formed on a substrate; outline extraction processing circuitry configured to extract an outline of the figure pattern in the measurement image from the measurement image using, as starting points, a plurality of points that are positioned on the reference outline; and comparison processing circuitry configured to compare the reference outline with the outline of the figure pattern.
Kobashi et al. (us pat. pub. 2022/0199433)
Describes a die bonding apparatus. In one embodiment, the apparatus includes a control device for controlling an imaging device. The control device is configured to: detect the dicing grooves by photographing the wafer using the imaging device; roughly determine a central position of the die by calculating the center coordinate of the die on the basis of the detected dicing grooves; move a center of the die to a center of an optical axis of the imaging device on the basis of the center coordinate; photograph the moved die by the imaging device and detect positions of pads possessed by the die on the basis of an image of the photographed die; detect a specific pad arrangement having a unique pitch on the basis of the detected dispositions of the pads; and register the detected specific pad arrangement as a template model.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Table 1 and form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights