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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/24 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission 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:
a dimension measurement unit in claims 1, 3-5, and 8.
an outlier removal unit in claims 1-3.
a representative value determination unit in claims 1 and 6.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 9-10 rejected because it recites an abstract idea as indicated in bold and underlined below:
A pattern measurement device, method, and a non-transitory storage medium storing a pattern measurement program for measuring a dimension of a pattern formed on a sample, the pattern measurement device comprising:
a dimension measurement unit configured to measure a dimension of the pattern;
an outlier removal unit configured to execute statistical outlier processing at least twice on a plurality of dimension values measured by the dimension measurement unit; and
a representative value determination unit configured to obtain a representative dimension value of the pattern from one or a plurality of the dimension values from which an outlier has been removed by the outlier removal unit.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea (bold and underlined above) falls in the category of mental processes.
Step 2a: While claim 1 is directed toward a statutory category of invention, the claim appears to be directed toward a judicial exception, namely the abstract idea of: configured to measure a dimension of the pattern, execute statistical outlier processing at least twice on a plurality of dimension values measured, and obtain a representative dimension value of the pattern from one or a plurality of the dimension values from which an outlier has been removed. For the above stated reasons, the bold and underlined parts of claims 1 and 9-10 shown above have been considered as mental processes. Such limitations are considered to set forth the abstract idea, because the claims are directed toward an idea in and of itself.
The claims only recite and describe gathering and combining data by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical relationships and/or algorithms. The gathering and combining steps merely employ mathematical relationships to manipulate existing information to generate additional information in the form of "configured to measure a dimension of the pattern, execute statistical outlier processing at least twice on a plurality of dimension values measured, and obtain a representative dimension value of the pattern from one or a plurality of the dimension values from which an outlier has been removed".
This idea is similar to the basic concept of manipulating information using mathematical relationships found to be an abstract idea by the courts (e.g. Benson, Flook, Diehr, Grams).
The courts have indicated that comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene) and ideas in and of themselves (Bilski and Alice) are all examples of judicial exceptions, particularly abstract ideas.
The courts have indicated that, a mathematical procedure for converting one form of numerical representation to another was found to be a judicial exception, particularly abstract ideas (Benson) as were an algorithm for calculating parameters indicating an abnormal condition in Grams.
Thus, the claim is drawn to an abstract idea.
The above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons:
Step 2b: Claims recites additional elements that includes: “imaging device”, "a pattern measurement device ", "a dimension measurement unit", "an outlier removal unit", and "a representative value determination unit", therefore the claims recite the abstract ideas. Viewing these limitations individually, the limitations are recited at a high level of generality and only perform generic functions of receiving, manipulating or calculating and transmitting information. Generic computers performing generic functions or components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see МРЕР § 2106.05(f)). Looking at the elements as combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) applying the abstract idea (see MРЕР § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(с)).
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 microscopic imaging method. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved.
The claim doesn't recite any details of what calculation or determination results are being considered, how evaluation for comparing results, and how initiating results are obtained or an indication of them, or what is being done with the results at the end.
The underlying process that is supposed to be improved is not stated in this claim. It is not clear what the purpose of the claim is what is expected to be achieved.
For reasons stated above, it has been determined that claims 1 and 9-10 are directed to an abstract idea/ judicial exception with additional generic computer elements, and the genomically 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.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an "Inventive concept") to the exception. The rationale detailed in the above paragraphs apply mutatis mutandis. measuring, executing statistical outlier processing, and obtaining a representative dimension value of the pattern a result data is all well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 2-8 are dependent on their respective base claim 1, and include all the limitations of their respective base claims. Therefore, claims 2-8 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-8 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 in, e.g., Alice Corp., FairWarning, and Parker v Flook. Claims 2-8 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 2-8 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a0(1) as being anticipated by Seidel et al (US 2021/0158215 hereinafter “Seidel”).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10; Seidel discloses a pattern measurement device (measuring device 800 @ figure 8), method, and a non-transitory storage medium storing a pattern measurement program for measuring a dimension of a pattern (paragraphs [0025], [0080], and [0096]: e.g., a measuring device 800 which can be used to measure positioning errors of structure or pattern elements of a photomask and/or of a wafer, the critical dimension of pattern elements, i.e. the CD (critical dimension) thereof, of masks and/or wafers and/or overlay errors when aligning masks of a mask stack) formed on a sample (810 @ figure 8), the pattern measurement device (800 @ figure 8) comprising:
a dimension measurement unit (a signal processing unit 840 @ figure 8) configured to measure a dimension of the pattern (paragraph [0025]: e.g., a feature of the element for a photolithography process can comprise a pattern element of a photomask or of a wafer and/or an alignment marking of the photomask or of the wafer);
an outlier removal unit (machine learning model 600 @ figure 6 and paragraph [0086]) configured to execute statistical outlier processing at least twice on a plurality of dimension values (outlier values 350 @ figures 3 and 5 and paragraph [0085]: e.g., on the basis of a statistical analysis of all the measured values 100, what are outliers 350 in the statistical distribution of the recorded measured values 100 sj(i), and thus to optimize the evaluation of a measurement and hence the accuracy of a measuring device. The method described in this application has the advantage, then, of making it possible, already before or during the performance of a planned measurement, to decide whether a planned measurement will yield a “good” measured value 300, i.e. a usable measured value 300, or else a “poor” measured value 350, i.e. an outlier 350) measured by the dimension measurement unit (840 @ figure 8 and paragraph [0099]-[0100]: e.g., the display of the computer system 850 is not illustrated in FIG. 8. A machine learning model 600 and/or a trained ML model 700 can be stored in the memory 855 of the computer system 850…An optimization unit 860 of the computer system 850 causes the signal processing unit 840 to perform or to defer a planned measurement of a measured value 100, 300, 350 by the optical system 885 of the measuring device 800); and
a representative value determination unit (850 @ figure 8) configured to obtain a representative dimension value of the pattern from one or a plurality of the dimension values (100, 300, 350 @ figures 1, 3 and 5 and paragraph [0107]) from which an outlier (350 @ figures 3 and 5) has been removed by the outlier removal unit (600 @ figure 6). See figures 1-9
Regarding claim 4; Seidel discloses the dimension measurement unit (840 @ figure 8) measures a dimension value of the pattern by performing image recognition on a captured image of the sample (810 @ figure 8 and paragraph [0098]: e.g., the CCD sensor 835 transmits the measurement signal thereof to the signal processing unit 840, which calculates an image from the signal detected by the CCD sensor 835).
Regarding claim 5; Seidel discloses the dimension measurement unit (840 @ figure 8) measures a dimension value of the pattern (paragraph [0096]: e.g., a measuring device 800 which can be used to measure positioning errors of structure or pattern elements of a photomask and/or of a wafer) included in an entire captured image or 90% or more of the captured image (figures 1, 3, 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al (US 2021/0158215 hereinafter “Seidel”) in view of Jinguu (US 2022/0036235).
Regarding claim 2; Seidel discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the outlier removal unit executes, at least twice as the statistical outlier processing, processing of setting a value out of a quartile range as an outlier for the plurality of dimension values. However, Jinguu teaches that it is known in the art to provide the outlier removal unit (12 @ figure 3) executes, at least twice as the statistical outlier processing (abstract, paragraphs [0065] and paragraph [0071]: e.g., the outlier removal process is also referred to as a first removal process… the removal process of the data when not in operation is also referred to as a second removal process), processing of setting a value out of a quartile range as an outlier for the plurality of dimension values (paragraph [0061]-[0062]: e.g., The data processing unit 12 may calculate, for example, the median value, the maximum value or the minimum value, or various other statistics such as the first quartile or the third quartile as a statistical value). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the pattern measurement device of Seidel with limitation above as taught by Jinguu for the purpose of improving accuracy of detecting abnormal measured values and the quality of the learning data.
Regarding claim 3; Seidel discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the outlier removal unit mainly removes an outlier due to a measurement error of the dimension measurement unit in the statistical outlier processing of first time, and mainly removes an outlier due to a structure of the pattern in the statistical outlier processing of second time. However, Jinguu teaches that it is known in the art to provide the outlier removal unit (12 @ figure 3) mainly removes an outlier due to a measurement error of the dimension measurement unit in the statistical outlier processing of first time (paragraph [0065]: e.g., The data processing unit 12 can remove abnormal measured values generated by measurement errors or input of disturbance from the learning data by executing the outlier removal process. As a result, the quality of the learning data is improved. The outlier removal process is also referred to as a first removal process), and mainly removes an outlier due to a structure of the pattern in the statistical outlier processing of second time (paragraph [0071]: e.g., the data processing unit 12 can specify the measured value acquired when the object to be measured is not in operation as the removal data by determining that if the measured value satisfies the predetermined condition. As a result, the quality of the learning data is improved. The removal process of the data when not in operation is also referred to as a second removal process). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the pattern measurement device of Seidel with limitation above as taught by Jinguu for the purpose of improving accuracy of detecting abnormal measured values and the quality of the learning data.
Regarding claim 6; Seidel discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the representative value determination unit adds and averages a plurality of the dimension values from which an outlier has been removed, to obtain the representative dimension value. However, Jinguu teaches that it is known in the art to provide the representative value determination unit (12, 50 @ figure 3) adds and averages a plurality of the dimension values from which an outlier has been removed, to obtain the representative dimension value (figures 3-5 and paragraphs [0078]-[0079]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the pattern measurement device of Seidel with limitation above as taught by Jinguu for the purpose of improving accuracy of detecting abnormal measured values and the quality of the learning data.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel et al (US 2021/0158215 hereinafter “Seidel”) in view of Sugiyama et al (US 2016/0313266 hereinafter “Sugiyama”).
Regarding claim 7; Seidel discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the pattern is formed by directed self-assembly of a polymer. However, Sugiyama teaches that it is known in the art to provide the pattern is formed by directed self-assembly of a polymer (paragraph [0033]: e.g., pattern (for example, hole patterns) formed by the self-assembly of polymer are clearly aligned, a regular hexagon is formed by an imaginary straight line which links centroids of the formed patterns to each other). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the pattern measurement device of Seidel with limitation above as taught by Sugiyama for the purpose of improving the quality of the polymer itself, or to maintain the quality.
Regarding claim 8; Seidel discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the pattern is formed by periodically forming a plurality of holes or dots, and the dimension measurement unit measures a distance between centers of the holes or the dots adjacent to each other or a diameter of the holes or the dots. However, Sugiyama teaches that it is known in the art to provide the pattern (paragraph [0033]: e.g., patterns (for example, hole patterns) formed by the self-assembly of polymer are clearly aligned, a regular hexagon is formed by an imaginary straight line which links centroids of the formed patterns to each other) is formed by periodically forming a plurality of holes or dots (400 @ figure 4), and the dimension measurement unit (114 @ figure 1) measures a distance between centers of the holes or the dots adjacent to each other or a diameter of the holes or the dots (paragraph [0041]: e.g., As a method of connecting, firstly, distances between the calculated multiple hole centroid coordinates are calculated. The number of holes adjacent to each hole when holes are clearly aligned as described above is 6. The number of holes adjacent to each hole when holes are not clearly aligned is at most about 8. Thus, if about 8 holes are selected in order of a short distance, by using distances between centroid coordinates of holes, and holes having values of the distances which are close to each other are selected again, a relationship between holes which are necessarily adjacent to each other is specified). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the pattern measurement device of Seidel with limitation above as taught by Sugiyama for the purpose of achieve improvement or maintaining of yield of semiconductor devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Macgregor (US 2010/0287153) discloses a computer method and system for identifying significance of patterns across a plurality of data patterns and determining the relative pattern significance factor further involves calculating a percentage change of an identified outlier from a median for a outlier patter.
2) Behm et al (US 2006/0255010) discloses the method includes: measuring a mask feature formed on a top surface of a layer on a substrate to obtain a mask feature dimension value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
February 21, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877