IP Library Granted Patent US 12,423,486
Granted Patent B2
US 12,423,486 · App. 16/870,518 · Granted Sep 23, 2025

System and method for process window optimization in a virtual semiconductor device fabrication environment

Inventors: William J. Egan (Framingham, MA); Anshuman Kunwar (Jamaica Plain, MA); Kenneth B. Greiner (Arlington, MA); David M. Fried (South Salem, NY)
Assignee: Coventor, Inc.
G06F30/20G06F2111/08G06F2119/22
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,423,486
App. No.
16/870,518
Granted
Sep 23, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A virtual fabrication environment for semiconductor device fabrication that includes an analytics module for performing process window optimization is discussed.

Claims (56)

1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium holding computing device-executable instructions for performing process window optimization in a virtual fabrication environment for semiconductor device fabrication, the instructions when executed causing at least one computing device equipped with one or more processors to:

receive, for a Design of Experiment (DOE) for a semiconductor device structure to be virtually fabricated in a computing device-generated virtual fabrication environment, a selected deck of 2D design data and a process sequence that includes a plurality of process steps;

receive one or more input factors for one or more selected variable parameters for one or more of the plurality of process steps in the DOE;

perform, based on the DOE, a simulation with a uniform or approximately even type of distribution in the virtual fabrication environment, the simulation including a plurality of virtual fabrication runs, the plurality of virtual fabrication runs building a plurality of 3D models of the semiconductor device structure;

receive, via a user interface in the virtual fabrication environment, a user selection of one or more virtual metrology optimization targets, each selection of the one or more virtual metrology optimization targets accompanied by a minimum and maximum virtual metrology value;

identify in the virtual fabrication environment an optimized result indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters by limiting a search space to results satisfying the minimum and maximum virtual metrology values for the virtual metrology optimization targets, wherein the yield is determined based on a percentage of the plurality of virtual fabrication runs that result in corresponding 3D models satisfying the minimum and maximum virtual metrology values; and

display or export the optimized result associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters, wherein the displayed or exported optimized result includes an indication of a sensitivity of the yield to each of the one or more selected variable parameters and a sensitivity of the yield to a width of an input window used for selecting values of each of the one or more selected variable parameters in the plurality of virtual fabrication runs, the input window centered on a nominal value for the one or more selected variable parameters and the width of the input window indicative of an acceptable variability of the one or more selected variable parameters.

2. The medium of claim 1 wherein the simulation is a Monte Carlo simulation and receiving the one or more input factors includes receiving an upper and lower limit value and a specification of a process of record (POR) nominal value for each of the one or more selected variable parameters, the instructions when executed further causing the at least one computing device to:

display the optimized result indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters when varying its value between its upper and lower limit value while holding the remaining parameters of the one or more selected variable parameters at their respective POR nominal values.

3. The medium of claim 2 , wherein the instructions when executed further cause the at least one computing device to:

display a pre-optimization result from results of the Monte Carlo simulation indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters when using the respective POR nominal values, the pre-optimization result displayed before displaying the optimization result.

4. The medium of claim 1 , wherein the one or more selected variable parameters are programmatically identified in the virtual fabrication environment prior to the receipt of the one or more input factors.

5. The medium of claim 1 wherein the one or more selected variable parameters are user-selected and received via a user interface generated in the virtual fabrication environment.

6. The medium of claim 1 , wherein the instructions when executed further cause the at least one computing device to:

display a confidence interval for the yield indicated in the optimized result.

7. The medium of claim 1 , wherein the instructions when executed further cause the at least one computing device to:

receive a user-selected number of virtual fabrication runs for the DOE.

8. The medium of claim 1 wherein the virtual metrology optimization targets are selected from a displayed list of a plurality of available virtual metrology targets based on and following the performance of the simulation.

9. The medium of claim 1 wherein the optimized result for each of the one or more selected variable parameters is displayed in a tabular or plot format.

10. The medium of claim 1 wherein the optimized result for each of the one or more selected variable parameters is displayed in a histogram format.

11. A computing device implemented method for performing process window optimization in a virtual fabrication environment for semiconductor device fabrication, the method perform with at least one computing device including one or more processors, the method comprising:

receiving, for a Design of Experiment (DOE) for a semiconductor device structure to be virtually fabricated in a computing device-generated virtual fabrication environment, a selected deck of 2D design data and a process sequence that includes a plurality of process steps;

receiving one or more input factors for one or more selected variable parameters for one or more of the plurality of process steps in the DOE;

performing, based on the DOE, a simulation with a uniform or approximately even type of distribution in the virtual fabrication environment, the simulation including a plurality of virtual fabrication runs, the plurality of virtual fabrication runs building a plurality of 3D models of the semiconductor device structure;

receiving, via a user interface in the virtual fabrication environment, a user selection of one or more virtual metrology optimization targets, each selection of the one or more virtual metrology optimization targets accompanied by a minimum and maximum virtual metrology value;

identifying in the virtual fabrication environment an optimized result indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters by limiting a search space to results satisfying the minimum and maximum virtual metrology values for the virtual metrology optimization targets, wherein the yield is determined based on a percentage of the plurality of virtual fabrication runs that result in corresponding 3D models satisfying the minimum and maximum virtual metrology values; and

displaying or exporting the optimized result associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters, wherein the displayed or exported optimized result includes an indication of a sensitivity of the yield to each of the one or more selected variable parameters and a sensitivity of the yield to a width of an input window used for selecting values of each of the one or more selected variable parameters in the plurality of virtual fabrication runs, the input window centered on a nominal value for the one or more selected variable parameters and the width of the input window indicative of an acceptable variability of the one or more selected variable parameters.

12. The method of claim 11 wherein the simulation is a Monte Carlo simulation and receiving the one or more input factors includes receiving an upper and lower limit value and a specification of a process of record (POR) nominal value for each of the one or more selected variable parameters, the method further comprising:

displaying the optimized result indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters when varying its value between its upper and lower limit value while holding the remaining parameters of the one or more selected variable parameters at their respective POR nominal values.

13. The method of claim 12 , further comprising:

displaying a pre-optimization result from results of the Monte Carlo simulation indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters when using the respective POR nominal values, the pre-optimization result displayed before displaying the optimization result.

14. The method of claim 11 , wherein the one or more selected variable parameters are programmatically identified in the virtual fabrication environment prior to the receipt of the one or more input factors.

15. The method of claim 11 wherein the one or more selected variable parameters are user-selected and received via a user interface generated in the virtual fabrication environment.

16. The method of claim 11 , the method further comprising:

displaying a confidence interval for the yield indicated in the optimized result.

17. The method of claim 11 , the method further comprising:

receiving a user-selected number of virtual fabrication runs for the DOE.

18. The method of claim 11 wherein the virtual metrology optimization targets are selected from a displayed list of a plurality of available virtual metrology targets based on and following the performance of the simulation.

19. The method of claim 11 wherein the optimized result for each of the one or more selected variable parameters is displayed in a tabular or plot format.

20. The method of claim 11 wherein the optimized result for each of the one or more selected variable parameters is displayed in a histogram format.

21. A virtual fabrication system, comprising:

at least computing device equipped with one or more processors and configured to generate a virtual fabrication environment for semiconductor device fabrication that includes an analytics module, the virtual fabrication environment:

receiving, for a Design of Experiment (DOE) for a semiconductor device structure to be virtually fabricated, a selected deck of 2D design data and a process sequence that includes a plurality of process steps;

receiving one or more input factors for one or more selected variable parameters for one or more of the plurality of process steps in the DOE;

performing, based on the DOE, a simulation with a uniform or approximately even type of distribution, the simulation including a plurality of virtual fabrication runs, the plurality of virtual fabrication runs building a plurality of 3D models of the semiconductor device structure;

receiving, via a user interface, a user selection of one or more virtual metrology optimization targets, each selection of the one or more virtual metrology optimization targets accompanied by a minimum and maximum virtual metrology value;

identifying an optimized result indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters by limiting a search space to results satisfying the minimum and maximum virtual metrology values for the virtual metrology optimization targets, wherein the yield is determined based on a percentage of the plurality of virtual fabrication runs that result in corresponding 3D models satisfying the minimum and maximum virtual metrology values; and

displaying or exporting the optimized result associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters, wherein the displayed or exported optimized result includes an indication of a sensitivity of the yield to each of the one or more selected variable parameters and a sensitivity of the yield to a width of an input window used for selecting values of each of the one or more selected variable parameters in the plurality of virtual fabrication runs, the input window centered on a nominal value for the one or more selected variable parameters and the width of the input window indicative of an acceptable variability of the one or more selected variable parameters; and

a display surface in communication with the at least one computing device, the display surface configured to display the plurality of 3D structural models in a 3D view and the optimized result.

22. A non-transitory computer-readable medium holding computing device-executable instructions for performing process window optimization in a virtual fabrication environment for semiconductor device fabrication, the instructions when executed causing at least one computing device equipped with one or more processors to:

receive, for a semiconductor device structure to be virtually fabricated in a computing device-generated virtual fabrication environment, a selected deck of 2D design data and a process sequence that includes a plurality of process steps;

receive one or more input factors for one or more selected variable parameters for one or more of the plurality of process steps;

perform, using the one or more input factors, a simulation with a uniform or approximately even type of distribution in the virtual fabrication environment, the simulation including a plurality of virtual fabrication runs, the plurality of virtual fabrication runs building a plurality of 3D models of the semiconductor device structure;

receive, via a user interface in the virtual fabrication environment, a user selection of one or more virtual metrology optimization targets;

identify in the virtual fabrication environment an optimized result corresponding to an optimized process window indicating a yield associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters, each associated with one or more of the plurality of process steps, by limiting a search space for optimized process parameters to results satisfying the minimum and maximum virtual metrology values for the virtual metrology optimization targets; and

display or export the optimized result associated with each of the one or more selected variable parameters, wherein the displayed or exported optimized result includes an indication of a sensitivity of the yield to each of the one or more selected variable parameters and a sensitivity of the yield to a width of an input window used for selecting values of each of the one or more selected variable parameters in the plurality of virtual fabrication runs, wherein the input window is a subset of the search space, wherein the yield is determined as a percentage of the virtual fabrication runs that fall within the input window that produce models that meet the virtual metrology optimization targets, and wherein the width of the input window indicates an acceptable variability of the one or more selected variable parameters.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 9, 2020
From: KUNWAR, ANSHUMAN; GREINER, KENNETH B.; FRIED, DAVID M.
To: COVENTOR, INC.
Reel/Frame 053723/0644 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 9, 2020
From: EGAN, WILLIAM J.
To: COVENTOR, INC.
Reel/Frame 053723/0689 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 62846402 · May 10, 2019
Related Publication 20200356711A1 · Nov 12, 2020
References Cited (153)
US 5416729A · Leon et al. · 1995 [cited by applicant]
US 5473710A · Jaw et al. · 1995 [cited by applicant]
US 6116766A · Maseeh et al. · 2000 [cited by applicant]
US 7492364B2 · Devarajan et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7526739B2 · McIlrath · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 8032857B2 · McIlrath · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8209649B2 · McIlrath · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8266560B2 · McIlrath · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8285412B2 · Kyoh · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8606774B1 · Makadia et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8691599B2 · Guo et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8832620B1 · Fried · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 8959464B2 · Greiner et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9317632B2 · Faken et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9965577B2 · Kamon et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10242142B2 · Greiner et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11144701B2 · Egan et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11861289B2 · Egan et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20020037596A1 · Yamaguchi · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20050076316A1 · Pierrat et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050198602A1 · Brankner · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050240895A1 · Smith et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060054088A1 · Jagawa et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070031745A1 · Ye et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070035716A1 · Yoshii et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070100487A1 · Cheng et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070118349A1 · Jakatdar et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070198114A1 · Hashima et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080058978A1 · Cain et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080104562A1 · Ichinose · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090006039A1 · Watanabe · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090024377A1 · Min · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090055789A1 · McIlrath · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090064058A1 · McIlrath · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090144042A1 · Lorenz et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090249263A1 · Arimoto · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100005437A1 · McIlrath · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100180241A1 · Asai · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110138343A1 · Granik · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110153271A1 · Tiwary et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110185323A1 · Hogan et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110289472A1 · Finkler et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110314437A1 · McIlrath · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120129301A1 · Or-Bach et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120239178A1 · Wu et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120248595A1 · Or-Bach et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120264237A1 · Shearn et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120264514A1 · Lee et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120317528A1 · McIlrath · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130130498A1 · Feustel et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130275937A1 · Joshi et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130339918A1 · Clark · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140278266A1 · Faken et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140282324A1 · Greiner et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140282328A1 · Fried et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150195091A1 · Kubota et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20170039308A1 · Moroz et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180095936A1 · Bonnecaze et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180365370A1 · Egan et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190065630A1 · Kim et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190163075A1 · Theeuwes et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20220019724A1 · Egan et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220198333A1 · Pack et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230252211A1 · Egan et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20240070373A1 · Egan et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
CN 103823917A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
CN 103970954A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
CN 105830069 · 2016 [cited by examiner]
GB 2482076A · 2012 [cited by applicant]
JP H0536832A · 1993 [cited by applicant]
JP H07115071A · 1995 [cited by applicant]
JP H08107050A · 1996 [cited by applicant]
JP 2002305253A · 2002 [cited by applicant]
JP 2003324041A · 2003 [cited by applicant]
JP 2003345854A · 2003 [cited by applicant]
JP 2005019524A · 2005 [cited by applicant]
JP 2006178907A · 2006 [cited by applicant]
JP 2006268558A · 2006 [cited by applicant]
JP 2007507889A · 2007 [cited by applicant]
JP 2007535135A · 2007 [cited by applicant]
JP 2008034714A · 2008 [cited by applicant]
JP 2011082562A · 2011 [cited by applicant]
JP 2011113291A · 2011 [cited by applicant]
JP 2016004421A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
JP 2016512641A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
JP 2017037441A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
JP 2017090947A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
JP 2021504743A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
KR 20220125208A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
TW 200849052A · 2008 [cited by applicant]
TW 200912888A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
TW I342469B · 2011 [cited by applicant]
TW 201500949A · 2015 [cited by applicant]
TW 201500950A · 2015 [cited by applicant]
TW 201539226A · 2015 [cited by applicant]
TW 201913849A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2011078930A1 · 2011 [cited by examiner]
WO WO2015112979A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
AP_Stats_Guide_2017 (ilearnacademy.net stat review notes) (Year: 2017). [cited by examiner]
Science_Direct_2018 (Completion Rate) (Year: 2018). [cited by examiner]
Miller_2008 (Statistical Design an Opt for Amplifiers, Sep. 10, 2008). (Year: 2008). [cited by examiner]
Genesys_2010 (Genesys Apr. 2009 User Guide: Yield/Monte Carlo) (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
Miller_2014 (Using Statistical Design May 27, 2014). (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Kagaiwalla_2010 (Design-Aware Mask Inspection, Dec. 2010) (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
ECE723_Lec5_2014 (Lecture 5: Lithography MAPUA Institute of Technology, 2014). (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Autoform_2019 (Sensitivity Analysis downloaded from Web.archive.org dated Apr. 3, 2019) (Year: 2019). [cited by examiner]
Clark et al., A million wafer, virtual fabrication approach to determine process capability requirements for an industry-standard 5nm BEOL two-level metal flow. Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices. IEEE, p… [cited by applicant]
Conover, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. pp. 442-447, (1999). [cited by applicant]
Czitrom, One-factor-at-a-time versus designed experiments. The American Statistician. May 1, 1999;53(2):126-31. [cited by applicant]
Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, Eighth Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 11-21, 183-189, (2013). [cited by applicant]
Neter et al., Applied Linear Statistical Models, Fourth Edition. Irwin, Chicago. pp. 288-295, 347-352, (1996). [cited by applicant]
Davies R H., et al., “Building 3-D statistical Shape Models by Direct Optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 29(4), Apr. 2010, pp. 961-981. [cited by applicant]
Egan J W et al., “Measurement of Carboxyhemoglobin in Forensic Blood Samples Using UV-Visible Spectrometry and Improved Principal Component Regression,” Applied Spectroscopy. Feb. 1, 1999 vol. 53(2), pp. 218-225. [cited by applicant]
Fisher, “Design of Experiments,” Hafner Publishing Company, New York. p. 94, (1971). [cited by applicant]
Greenwood et al., “Sample size required for estimating the standard deviation as a per cent of its true value,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Jun. 1, 1950 vol. 45(250), pp. 257-260. [cited by applicant]
JMP, Design of Experiments Guide, Version 13. JMP Statistical Discovery From SAS. 708 pages, Sep. 2016. [cited by applicant]
Jones et al., “Definitive screening designs with added two-level categorical factors,” Journal of Quality Technology, Apr. 1, 2013, vol. 45(2), pp. 121-129. [cited by applicant]
Jones et al., “A class of three-level designs for definitive screening in the presence of second-order effects,” Journal of quality Technology, Jan. 1, 2011, vol. 43(1), pp. 1-5. [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated Mar. 22, 2023, in application No. JP 2022-103142 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated May 31, 2022, in application No. JP 2018-115285 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
KR Office Action dated Mar. 14, 2023, in application No. KR 10-2018-0069418 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
KR Office Action dated Sep. 14, 2022, in application No. KR 10-2018-0069418 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
Martinez et al., “Computational Statistics Handbook with MATLAB, Second Edition, Computer Science and Data Analysis Series,” Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2008, pp. 126-132. [cited by applicant]
Rasmussen et al., “Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning,” The MIT Press, www.GaussianProcess.org/gpml, 2006, pp. 1-266 pages. [cited by applicant]
Riffenburgh, “Statistics in Medicine,” Third Edition. Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2012, pp. 150-151. [cited by applicant]
Rousseeuw, “Tutorial to robust statistics,” Journal of Chemometrics. Jan. 1991, vol. 5(1), pp. 1-20. [cited by applicant]
Schropfer et al., “Novel 3D Modeling Methods for Virtual Fabrication and EDA Compatible Design of MEMS Via Parametric Libraries,” J Micromech Microeng. Jun. 2010, vol. 20(6), pp. 1-15. [cited by applicant]
Spallek et al., “Modelling and Simulating the Selective Epitaxial Growth of Silicon under Consideration of Anisotropic growth Rates,” ESSDERC '03, 33rd Conference on European Solid-State Device Research, 2003, pp. 387-3… [cited by applicant]
Synopsys, “Sentaurus Workbench Comprehensive Framework Environment,” Data Sheet. Synopsys, Inc., 2005, www. ynopsys.com. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Feb. 24, 2022, in application No. TW20180120904 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Nov. 4, 2022, in application No. TW111136832with English translation. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Final office Action dated May 24, 2023 in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 8, 2023, in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2020, in U.S. Appl. No. 16/010,537. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 9, 2021 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/010,537. [cited by applicant]
Xiao et al., “Constructing definitive screening designs using conference matrices,” Journal of Quality Technology, 2012 an 1, vol. 44(1), pp. 2-8. [cited by applicant]
Guler, S et al., “Bayesian Optimization for Tuning Lithography Processes,” IFAC—PapersOnLine, 2021, vol. 54(7), pp. 827-832. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Aug. 21, 2023 in Application No. TW112119637 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Jul. 31, 2023 in Application No. TW109115374 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Nov. 21, 2023 in TW Application No. 112119637 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 7, 2023 in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 22, 2023 in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jan. 23, 2024 in PCT Application No. PCT/US2023/033955. [cited by applicant]
CN Office Action dated May 12, 2024 in CN Application No. 201810629679.9 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated May 21, 2024 in JP Application No. 2023-066796 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated May 20, 2024 in TW Application No. 113100510 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion dated Jan. 26, 2023 in PCT Application No. PCT/US2021/041700. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 27, 2021 in PCT Application No. PCT/US2021/041700. [cited by applicant]
Ahn Nguyen Duc, “Are 200 replicates per scenario enough for a simulation study?”, ResearchGate, Jun. 4, 2014, 3 pages, retrieved on Dec. 6, 2024, from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are-200-replicates-per-scenario-e… [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated Nov. 5, 2024 in JP Application No. 2023-066796, with English Translation. [cited by applicant]
Koehler, E., et al., “On the Assessment of Monte Carlo Error in Simulation-based Statistical Analyses,” The American Statistician, 2009, vol. 63(2), pp. 155-162. [cited by applicant]
KR Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2024 in KR Application No. 10-2024-0052031, with English Translation. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 27, 2024 in U.S. Appl. No. 18/503,718. [cited by applicant]
Cited By (1)
US 12,711,299