`
`[| Additional inventors are being named on the separately numbered sheets attached hereto
`
`TITLE OF THE INVENTION (280 characters max)
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF
`FABRICATION FACILITY
`
`Direct all correspondenceto:
`Customer Number
`
`~
`
`CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`
`227249
`Piace Customer Number
`Bar Code Label here
`Type Customer Number here
`OR
`
`Firm or
`Individual Name LYON & LYON LLP
`
`Address
`
`Address
`633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4700
`ZIP
`California
`City
`Los Angeles
`State
`Fax
`(213) 489-1600
`Country United States
`Telephone
`ENCLOSED APPLICATION PARTS(checkall that app!
`
`Specification|Number of Pages 77 [| Small Entity Statement
`
`
`Drawing(s)|NumberofSheets agnnical Appendix
`pag
`METHOD OF PAYMENTOFFILING FEES FOR THIS PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT (check one
`[_] Acheck or money orderis enclosed to coverthe filing fees
`FILING FEE
`XX or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account Number:
`$150.00
`I<] The Commissioneris hereby authorized to chargefiling fees
`
`90071-2066
`(213) 955-0440
`
`12-2475
`.
`
`
`
`OS
`
`G~
`\o-\4-
`
`OO
`
`Pro’
`=
`YO V
`[orfi
`—— 3 EXPRESSMAIL NO. EL360341950US
`PTO/SB/16 (2-96)
`Please type a plus sign (+) in this box >
`Approvedfor use through 01/31/2001. OMB0651-0037
`=e
`Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE af.
`00/LT
`== w
`Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no personsare required to respond to a collection of information unlessit displays a valid
`
`————as
`OMB control number.
`— PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT COVER SHEET
`°
`=-_ This is a requestforfiling a PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENTunder 37 CFR1.53(c).
`E
`
`
`1343
`INVENTOR(S)
`
`Given Name(first and middle[if an
`Bradley D.
`
`Family Name or Surname
`SCHULZE
`
`Residence
`{City and either State or Foreign Country)
`Phoenix, Arizona
`
`n
`
`INA
`“60/24ng
`
`
`
`The invention was made by an agency of the United States Governmentor undera contract with an agencyof the United
`States Government.
`No.
`
`C] Yes, the nameof the U.S. Government agency and the Government contract numberare:
`
`=
`ZO
`RespectfullyTE7Date 10/17/2000
`
`VY[A
`SIGNATURE AdA-ha
`
`C—O
`-
`REGISTRATION NO.
`37.747
`TYPED or PRINTED NAME Christopher A. Vanderlaan
`(if appropriate)
`?
`
`Docket N|257/140
`
`TELEPHONE (213) 489-1600 257/40 ocket Number
`
`
`USE ONLY FOR FILING A PROVISIONAL APPLICATION FOR PATENT
`This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.51 The information is used by the public to file (and by the PTO to process) a provisional
`application Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S C 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 8 hours to complete, including
`gathering, preparing, and submitting the complete provisional application to the PTO. Timewill vary depending upon the individual case. Any
`comments on the amountof time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief
`a information Officer, US. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20231. DO NOT SEND FEES OR
`COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Box Provisional Application, Assistant Commissioner for Patents, Washington, D.C.
`20231.
`
`LA-166498.1
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 1
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 1
`
`

`

`Express Mail No.
`EL360341950US_
`
`Patent
`257/140
`
`SPECIFICATION
`
`TITLE OF THE INVENTION
`
`5
`
`SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR AUTOMATED MONITORING AND
`
`ASSESSMENTOF FABRICATION FACILITY
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`1)
`
`Field of the Invention
`
`The field of the present invention relates to systems and methods for monitoring
`
`and assessing the performance and operation of
`
`fabrication facilities, such as
`
`semiconductor fabrication facilities.
`
`2)
`
`Background
`
`The manufacture of microelectronic circuits and/or components on semi-
`
`conductor wafers can be a complex and involved process, requiring numeroustools and
`
`machines operating in a production sequence according to a specified set of
`
`instructions (e.g., a “recipe”). Examples of fabrication processestypically performedin
`
`20
`
`the manufacture of a semiconductor wafer include etching, deposition, diffusion, and
`
`cleaning.
`
`Large semiconductor fabrication facility can have dozens or even hundreds of
`
`tools, each of whichis called upon periodically to perform part of a process as dictated
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`1
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 2
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 2
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`by the selected recipe(s).
`
`Some fabrication tools are used for processing
`
`semiconductor wafers, while others, known as metrology tools, are generally used for
`
`measuring the output of a processing tool. Fabrication tools are often employed in an
`
`assembly-line fashion, with each applicable tool having a role in the step-by-step
`
`5
`
`fabrication of a semiconductor wafer. However, due to the nature of the step-by-step
`
`
`
`manufacturing processes,at least sometools will be idle at any given time, waiting for
`
`the output of an upstream tool. Fabrication tools can also be idle for other reasons,
`such as when needing maintenance,repair or re-programming, or re-configuration with
`
`respect to othertools in the plant. The amountof time fabrication tools are idle bears a
`
`correlation, directly or indirectly, to the overall efficiency of a semiconductorfabrication
`
`facility, and hence a correlation to the profitability of the facility. A challenge for each
`
`fabrication facility is thus to reduce idle time of fabrication tools to the maximum extent
`
`possible, therefore maximizing production time, yield and profitability.
`
`Moreover, many processing tools and metrology tools are quite expensive, and
`
`the collective array of tools brought together at a semiconductor fabrication facility
`
`represent a substantial investment. To the extent tools are idle, the investment in these
`
`tools is wasted.
`
`The floorspace at semiconductor fabrication facilities
`
`is also
`
`enormously expensive, due to extreme requirements of cleanliness, among other
`
`reasons, and so even inexpensive tools which are idle can be costly in terms of wasted
`
`20
`
`floorspace that is being underutilized. Furthermore,
`
`large semiconductor fabrication
`
`facilities often will have many duplicate tools for performing processesin parallel.
`
`If
`
`facility engineers can determine that certain duplicate tools are idle for long periods,
`
`then someof the duplicate tools can potentially be eliminated, saving both the cost of
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`2
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 3
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 3
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`the tools and the floorspacethat they take up. Alternatively,if all of a certain type of tool
`
`are operating at maximum efficiency yet still are the cause of a bottleneck in the
`
`manufacturing process, production engineers may determine that more tools need to be
`
`purchased. Therefore, a tremendous need exists to identify which fabrication tools are
`
`5
`
`active and whichidle, and for what reasons. For example,if a fabrication tool wasidle
`
`
`
`for a long period because the upstream process step takes a long time, a production
`
`engineer may cometo a different conclusion about how to adjustfacility resources then
`
`if the idle period was dueto the fact that the upstream fabrication tool was broken and
`
`needed to be repaired. Thus, the reason fortool idleness can be important information
`
`for engineers controlling semiconductor manufacturing processes.
`
`To assist production engineers in assessing semiconductor manufacturing
`
`efficiency, a variety of informational reporting standards have been promulgated. One
`
`of the earliest such standards is known as the E10-0699 Standard for Definition and
`
`Measurement
`
`of Equipment Reliability, Availability
`
`and Maintainability
`
`(RAM)
`
`(hereinafter the “E10 Standard”), hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth fully
`
`herein. This standard, originally put forward around 1986 by Semiconductor Equipment
`
`and Materials International (SEMI), defines six basic equipment states into which all
`
`equipment conditions and periodsoftime (either productive oridle time) mustfall. Total
`
`time for each tool
`
`is divided into Operations Time and Non-Scheduled Time.
`
`20
`
`Operations Time is divided into five different categories (Unscheduled Downtime,
`
`Scheduled Downtime, Engineering Time, Standby Time, and Productive Time) which,
`
`together with Non-Scheduled Time, comprise the six basic equipment. states.
`
`Equipment Downtime for a given tool
`
`is divided into Unscheduled Downtime and
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`3
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 4
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 4
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`Scheduled Downtime. Likewise, Equipment Uptime for a given tool
`
`is divided into
`
`Engineering Time, Standby Time and Productive Time. Of these three Equipment
`
`Uptime
`
`states, Productive Time and Standby Time
`
`collectively represent
`
`the
`
`Manufacturing Time for a giventool.
`
`5
`
`The E10 Standard also defines a number of
`reliability,
`availability and
`maintainability measurements relating to equipment performance. Such measurements
`
`
`
`include,
`
`for example, mean (productive)
`
`time between interrupts (MTBI), mean
`
`(productive) time between failures (MTBF), mean (productive) time between assists
`
`(MTBA), mean cycles between interrupts (MCBI), mean cycles between failures
`
`(MCBF), and mean cycles between assists (MCBA). Mean (productive) time between
`
`interrupts (MTBI) indicates the average time that the tool or equipment performedits
`
`intended function betweeninterrupts, and is calculated as the productive time divided by
`
`the numberof interrupts during that time. Mean (productive) time between failures
`
`(MTBF)
`
`indicates the average time the tool or equipment performed its intended
`
`function between failures, and is calculated as the productive time divided by the
`
`numberoffailures during that time. Mean (productive) time between assists (MTBA)
`
`indicates the average time the tool or equipment performed its intended function
`
`between assists, and is calculated as the productive time divided by the numberof
`
`assists during that time. Mean cycles betweeninterrupts (MCBI), mean cycles between
`
`20
`
`failures (MCBF), and mean cycles between assists (MCBA) are similar, but relate the
`
`numberof tool or equipment cycles to the numberof interrupts, failures and assists,
`
`rather than the productive time.
`
`The E10 Standard also provides guidelines for
`
`calculating equipment dependent uptime, supplier dependent uptime, operational
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`4
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 5
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 5
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`uptime, mean time to repair (average time to correct a failure or an interrupt), mean time
`
`off-line (average time to maintain the tool or equipment or return it to a condition in
`
`which it can perform its intended function), equipment dependent scheduled downtime,
`
`supplier dependent scheduled downtime, operational utilization, and total utilization.
`
`5
`
`The E10 Standard providesfor calculation of two important metrics in particular: Overall
`
`Equipment Effectiveness
`
`(OEE),
`
`and Overall Fabrication Effectiveness
`
`(OFE).
`
`Traditionally, most of the information used to calculate the metrics in the E10 Standard
`
`
`
`_ has been gathered manually — a slow, tedious process proneto potentialerrors.
`
`Since its inception, the E10 Standard has been refined and improved upon.
`
`In
`
`recent years, at least two new standards have been proposedor adopted by SEMI, the
`
`sameentity that originally proposed the E10 Standard. Thefirst of these new standards
`
`is known as the E58-0697 Automated Reliability, Availability and Maintainability
`
`Standard (ARAMS)(hereinafter the “E58 Standard”), and the second is known as the
`
`E79 Standard for Definition and Measurement of Equipment Productivity (hereinafter
`
`the “E79 Standard”), both of which are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth
`
`fully herein. The E58 Standard was proposed around 1997 in an attemptto integrate
`
`automated machine processes into the E10 Standard. Accordingly, the E58 Standard
`
`specifies triggers for state transitions described in the E10 Standard, with the intent of
`
`encouraging tool or equipment manufacturers to store and make available trigger
`
`20
`
`information at each tool. As the E58 Standard was apparently envisioned, tool and
`
`equipment manufacturers would include special software with their tools and equipment,
`
`allowing controllers or monitoring equipment to read information about trigger events
`
`that could be gathered and usedin the calculations of tool availability, reliability and
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`5
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 6
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 6
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`maintainability. However, very few tool and equipment manufacturers have actually
`
`written such special software for their tools and equipment. One possible reasonforthe
`
`reluctance to include such softwareis that, if productivity information were available to
`
`their customers,
`
`tool and equipment manufacturers might be required to extend
`
`5_warranty periods for their tools and equipment for periods of time in which the
`
`z=,
`
`
`
`equipment was not up and running. Therefore, tool and equipment manufacturers have
`
`an incentive not to provide software that meets the guidelines of the E58 Standard.
`
`More recently, the E79 standard has been proposed. The E79 Standard builds
`
`upon the E10 and E58 Standards, and specifies, among other things, a set of metrics
`
`for calculating certain reporting items. Two such metrics are referred to as the Overall
`
`Equipment Efficiency (OEE) metric and Overall Fabrication Efficiency (OFE) metric.
`
`The E79 Standard also specifies metrics for determining, for example, Availability
`
`Efficiency, Performance Efficiency, Operational Efficiency, Rate Efficiency, Theoretical
`
`Production Time, and Quality Efficiency, among others.
`
`While the E10, E58 and E79 Standards all provide guidelines for assessing
`
`equipmentavailability, reliability and maintainability, they do not describe how to gather
`
`and process the necessary information. These tasks can be quite challenging. For
`
`example, different platforms are used in different semiconductorfabricationfacilities for
`
`communicating
`
`between supervisory equipment
`
`and various
`
`processing
`
`and
`
`20
`
`measurementtools. Therefore, a single information gathering technique might not be
`
`possible for all fabrication facilities. Furthermore, despite the existence of the E58
`| Standard, few tools actually store the trigger and event information that facilitates the
`
`calculation of various performance and efficiency metrics covered by the standards.
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`6
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 7
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 7
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`Thus, obtaining the necessary data can bedifficult.
`
`In addition, multi-chamber tools
`
`(also known ascluster tools) pose a problem, because they involve equipment with
`
`multiple subsidiary tools treated as a single unit. The standards indicate a preference
`
`that information concerning the individual subsidiary tools be available, as opposedto
`
`5
`
`merely information aboutthe cluster tool as a whole.
`
`
`
`While having an automated wayof gathering and processing information useful
`
`for monitoring and assessing tool and equipment performance according to the various
`
`available standards would be highly beneficial, actual implementations of systems for
`
`performing these activities may be undesirableif they require modifications to existing
`
`contro! systems which are deployed in semiconductorfabrication facilities. Owners of
`
`such facilities may be very reluctant to make changes that would impact their existing
`
`control systems, because of the potential for introducing “bugs” or errors into the
`
`system, or causing other unforeseen consequences. Moreover, actual implementations
`
`of systems for monitoring or assessing tool and equipment performance according to
`
`the various standards may also be undesirable if they require modifications to the
`
`existing processing or metrology tools. Tool manufacturers may be quite reluctant to
`
`make changesthat might impact the performanceoftheir tools, such as changing the
`
`messagedriverof the tools, or that might lead to incompatibilities with existing versions
`
`of tools, interface equipment, or control systems. Moreover, tool manufacturers may
`
`20_simply want to avoid the expenseof re-designingtheir tools to provide the functionality
`
`that may be required for monitoring or assessing tool and equipment performance.
`
`It would therefore be advantageous to provide a non-intrusive,
`
`reliable and
`
`comprehensive system or method for monitoring, assessing and reporting the operation
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`7
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 8
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 8
`
`

`

`and performance of semiconductor or other types of fabrication facilities.
`
`It would
`
`further be advantageous to provide such a system or method that requires a minimum
`
`of modifications to existing control systems, tools or equipment.
`
`Patent
`257/140
`
`5
`
`SUMMARYOF THE INVENTION
`
`The invention in one aspect provides a system and method for automated
`
`monitoring and assessment of the performance and operation of a fabrication facility,
`
`such as a semiconductorfabrication facility.
`
`
`
`In one embodiment, a system and method for monitoring and assessing
`
`operation of a semiconductor fabrication facility includes connecting a monitoring and
`
`assessment computer system to a system bus which is also connected, directly or
`
`indirectly (e.g., via supervisory workstations), to a manufacturing execution system and
`
`a number of semiconductorfabrication tools in the facility. Via a user interface, state
`
`models and trigger events are configured for each of the semiconductor fabrication
`
`tools. The state models may be based in part uponthe trigger events, various external
`
`states, and various recipe classifications. Once the state models have been defined,
`
`messages transmitted on the system bus between the semiconductor fabrication tools
`
`and the manufacturing execution system are monitored by the automated monitoring
`
`and assessment computer system. Whencertain types of messages are observed, the
`
`20
`
`automated monitoring and assessment computer system automatically generates
`
`appropriate triggers according to the user specifications, which causesstate transitions
`
`according to the user-defined state models. The system updates the state modelof
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`8
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 9
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 9
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`eachtool affected by a trigger, and logs state transition and any pertinent information
`
`regarding the triggering messagein a tracking database.
`
`The automated monitoring and assessment system maytrack state changes for
`
`each tool
`
`in the system, and may additionally maintain and update real-time status
`
`5
`
`information for each tool that can be viewed ona live status display screen or otherwise.
`
`The information in the tracking database may be used as the basis for generating
`
`historical reports regarding the operation of all of the tools in the semiconductor
`
`fabrication facility.
`
`Further embodiments, variations and enhancements are also disclosed herein.
`
`BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
`
`FIGS. 1 through 3 are top-level diagram illustrating examples of semiconductor
`
`fabrication systems in which an automated monitoring and assessment computer may
`
` be incorporated.
`
`
`
`FIG. 4 is a top-level diagram illustrating further details of a semiconductor
`
`fabrication system in which an automated monitoring and assessment computer may be
`
`employed.
`
`FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating one possible state table hierarchy that may be
`
`used in the monitoring and assessment software of any of the systemsillustrated in
`
`20
`
`FIGS. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
`
`FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a software logic flow for processing messagesat
`
`an automated monitoring and assessment system based uponatransition initiation
`
`type.
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`9
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 10
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 10
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating a software logic flow for receiving andfiltering
`
`trigger messages at an automated monitoring and assessmentsystem.
`
`FIG. 8 is a block diagram showing details in accordance with one embodiment of
`
`a preferred automated monitoring and assessment system.
`
`5
`
`FIG. 9 is an example of a screen displayillustrating a hierarchical state model
`
`structure for an automated monitoring and assessment system.
`
`FIGS. 10A— 10D are examplesof a state properties screen display, with different
`
`sub-screen tabs selected, as may be presented to a user whohasselected a particular
`
`
`
`state to view its properties.
`
`FIG. 11 depicts a pop-up menu as maybe usedfor selecting various options in
`
`connection with the automatic transitions sub-screen depicted in FIG. 10B.
`
`FIG, 12 is an example ofa trigger(i.e., symptom) configuration screen display as
`
`may be presented to a user via a user interface for associating triggers with default
`
`transition states and interrupts for a particulartool.
`
`FIGS. 13A -13C are examples of a trigger (i.e., symptom) properties screen
`
`display with various tabs selected, as may be presented to a user for selecting
`
`properties for a particulartrigger.
`
`FIG. 14 is an example of a screen display (or pop-up window) as may be
`
`presented to a uservia a userinterface for associating an external state response with
`
`20_a trigger for a particulartool.
`
`FIGS. 15A — 15F and 16 collectively illustrate screen displays that may be
`
`presented to the user in order to perform mappings between alarm events, collection
`
`events, variables and triggers.
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`10
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 11
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 11
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`FIG.
`
`17 illustrates a relationship between data appearing on a trigger
`
`configuration screen (e.g., FIG. 12) and data appearing on a PPID Classification sub-
`
`screen.
`
`FIG.
`
`18 illustrates a relationship between data appearing on a trigger
`
`5
`
`configuration screen (e.g., FIG. 12) and data appearing on an external state control sub-
`
`screen.
`
`
`
`FIGS. 19A — 19F are examples of screen displays as may be presented to a user
`
`in orderto define tool or chamberspecific constants.
`
`FIGS. 20 and 21 are examples of screen displays as may be presented to a user
`
`in order to force a manualtransition or to modify data in the tracking database,
`
`respectively.
`
`FIG. 22 is an example of a screen display as may be presented to a user during
`
`live monitoring of tools in the semiconductorfabrication system.
`
`DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
`
`This application is filed with a Technical Appendix containing further details for
`
`implementing a system in accordance with various embodiments as disclosed herein.
`
`The Technical Appendix is herebyincorporated by reference asif set forth fully herein.
`
`FIG.
`
`1
`
`is a top-level diagram illustrating an example of a semiconductor
`
`20
`
`fabrication system 100 in which an automated monitoring and assessment computer
`
`maybeincorporated. Asillustrated in FIG. 1, a manufacturing execution system 102 is
`
`connected to a system bus 105, along with a plurality of semiconductor fabrication tools
`
`115 (simply labeled “equipment”in FIG. 1), which mayinclude processing tools and/or
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`11
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 12
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 12
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`metrology tools. The manufacturing execution system 102 controls the manufacture of
`
`semiconductor wafers or other products according to a programmedrecipe, by sending
`
`commands to the various semiconductor fabrication tools 115 and monitoring their
`
`activity. Also connected to the system bus 105 is an automated monitoring and
`
`5
`
`assessment system 107, which may comprise one or more computers, servers and
`
`databases, as further described herein. A bus controller 109 is also connected to the
`
`system bus 105, for controlling communication thereover.
`
`
`
`Preferably, the system bus 105 comprises a standard communication bus, such
`
`as, for example, a Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA)bus,in which
`
`case messagessentoverit are packaged as CORBAobjects. Messages are preferably
`
`transmitted over the system bus 105 according to a common standard, such as the
`
`Semiconductor Equipment Communication Standard (SECS), which is very well known
`
`in the semiconductorindustry. The bus controller 109 controls the routing of information
`
`over the system bus 105, and the automated monitoring and assessment system 107
`
`preferably “subscribes” to the information needed for performing the monitoring and
`
`assessment functions as described later herein. The bus controller 109 may route
`
`some, but notall, of the information in each message to the automated monitoring and
`
`assessment system 107, by excluding any non-pertinent
`
`information. When the
`
`automated monitoring and assessment system 107first becomes actively connected to
`
`20
`
`‘the system bus 105, it indicates to the bus controller 109 what type of informationit is
`
`interested in, according to well-known techniques associated with the CORBAstandard.
`
`Messages (e.g., SECS messages) transmitted or published over the system bus
`
`105 from the various semiconductor fabrication tools 115 to the manufacturing
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`12
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 13
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 13
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`execution system 102 may include,
`
`for example, various alarm messages, event
`
`messages, parameter updates (e.g., SVID messages), symptom (ortrigger) messages,
`
`and the like.
`
`The automated monitoring and assessment system 107 receives
`
`information from the transmitted or published messages, and usesthat information to
`
`5
`
`track the operation states of the various semi-conductor fabrication tools 115, according
`
`to techniques described in more detail herein.
`
`FIG. 2 is a top-level diagram illustrating another example of a semiconductor
`
`
`
`fabrication system 200 in which an automated monitoring and assessment computer
`
`may be incorporated.
`
`In FIG. 2, similar to FIG. 1, a manufacturing execution system
`
`202 connects to a system bus 205, along with a plurality of semiconductor fabrication
`
`tools 215 (labeled “equipment” in FIG. 2), which may include processing tools and/or
`
`metrology tools. Preferably, the system bus 205 comprises a standard communication
`
`bus, such as a Distributed Common Object Module (DCOM) bus, but it may also
`
`comprise a non-standard or proprietary communication bus.
`
`The DCOM bus is
`
`commonly used in connection with the Windows NT® operating system. As further
`
`shownin FIG. 2, also connected to the system bus 205, via a software bridge 208, is an
`
`automated monitoring and assessment system 207, which may comprise one or more
`
`computers, servers and databases, as further described herein.
`
`In a preferred embodiment, the automated monitoring and assessment system
`
`20
`
`207 comprises a CORBAinterface by which messages packaged as CORBA objects
`
`are received from the software bridge 208.
`
`The software bridge 208 preferably
`
`translates messages transmitted or published over the system bus 205 (e.g., DCOM
`
`messages) into a CORBAformat, so that the automated monitoring and assessment
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`13
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 14
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 14
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`system 207 can receive them. Thus,
`
`in one aspect, the automated monitoring and
`
`assessment system 207 in FIG. 2 can be configured identically to the automated
`
`monitoring and assessment system 107 shown in FIG. 1, since the automated
`monitoring and assessment system either (as in FIG. 1) receives messages from a
`
`5
`
`system bus 105 in the monitoring and assessment system's native configuration, or else
`
`(as in FIG. 2) receives messagesthrough a software bridge 208 from a system bus 205
`
`which is not otherwise compatible with the monitoring and assessment system’s native
`
`configuration.
`
`
`
`
`As with the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, messages transmitted or published
`
`over the system bus 205 from the various semiconductor fabrication tools 215 to the
`
`manufacturing execution system 202 may be sent as SECS messages, and may
`
`include, for example, various alarm messages, event messages, parameter updates
`
`(e.g., SVID messages), symptom (or trigger) messages, and the like. The automated
`
`monitoring and assessment system 207 receives information from the transmitted or
`
`published messages, and uses that information to track the operation states of the
`
`various semi-conductorfabrication tools 215, according to techniques described in more
`
`detail herein.
`
`FIG. 3 is a top-level diagram illustrating yet another example of a semiconductor
`
`fabrication system 300 in which an automated monitoring and assessment computer
`
`20.
`
`~—maybeincorporated.
`
`In FIG. 3, similar to FIG. 2, a manufacturing execution system
`
`302 connects to a first system bus 305, along with a plurality of semiconductor
`
`fabrication tools 315 (labeled “equipment” in FIG. 3), which may include processing
`
`tools and/or metrology tools. Thefirst system bus 305 preferably comprises a standard
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`14
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 15
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 15
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`or non-standard communication busof a first type, such as a DCOM bus. Unlike the
`
`system 200 shownin FIG. 2, the system 300 shownin FIG. 3 includes a second system
`
`bus 306, which preferably comprises a standard communication bus of a secondtype,
`
`such as a CORBAbus. An automated monitoring and assessment system 307, which
`
`5
`
`may comprise one or more computers, servers and databases, as further described
`
`herein,
`
`is connected to the second system bus 306. The various semiconductor
`
`fabrication tools 315 are connected to the second system bus 306 as well as to thefirst
`
`system bus 305. Preferably, the semiconductor fabrication tools 315 include low-level
`
`drivers 316 which transmit or publish information on the second system bus 306 at
`
`essentially the same time the information is transmitted or published on the first system
`
`bus 305. In a preferred embodiment, the automated monitoring and assessment system
`
`
`307 comprises a CORBAinterface by which messages packaged as CORBAobjects
`
`are received via the second system bus 306. A bus controller (not shown in FIG. 3)
`
`may also be connected to the second system bus 306, to manage communications
`
`thereover.
`
`In one aspect, the automated monitoring and assessment system 307 in
`
`FIG. 3 can be configured identically to the automated monitoring and assessment
`
`systems 107 and 207 shown in FIGS.
`
`1 and 2, respectively, since the automated
`
`monitoring and assessment system either (as in FIGS. 1 or 3) receives messages from
`
`20
`
`a system bus 105 or 306 in the monitoring and assessment system’s native
`
`configuration, or else (as in FIG. 2) receives messages through a software bridge 208
`
`from a system bus 205 which is not otherwise compatible with the monitoring and
`
`assessment system’s native configuration.
`
`LA-162377.1
`
`15
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 16
`
`Petitioner STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Ex. 1009, IPR2022-00681, Pg. 16
`
`

`

`Patent
`257/140
`
`Messagestransmitted or published over the system buses 305 or 306 from the
`
`various semiconductorfabrication tools 315 to the manufacturing execution system 302
`
`or automated monitoring and assessment system 307 may be sent as SECS messages,
`and may include, for example, various alarm messages, event messages, parameter
`
`5
`
`updates (e.g., SVID messages), symptom (or trigger) messages, and the like. The
`
`
`
`automated monitoring and assessment system 307 receives information from the
`
`transmitted or published messages, and uses that information to track the operation
`
`states of the various semi-conductor fabrication tools 315, according to techniques
`
`described in mor