Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/277,583

METROLOGY METHOD AND APPARATUS THEREFOR

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Mar 18, 2021
Examiner
WHITESELL, STEVEN H
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
ASML Netherlands B.V.
OA Round
10 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
11-12
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
781 granted / 954 resolved
+16.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+13.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1001
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
30.5%
-9.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 954 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. [US 2009/0116014] in view of Ogawa et al. [US 2018/0350825] and Sho [US 2017/0263508]. For claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 13, Smith teaches a method comprising: illuminating a target (overlay target may be the structures of any active feature that includes overlying layers, where the displacement of one layer relative to another may be used to determine alignment, see [0056]-[0057] and Figs. 14 and 15) comprising a feature in photoresist (active features may be formed from photoresist, see [0056]) of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit (active features 104), with radiation (illumination from light source, see [0033] and [0054]); detecting diffracted radiation from the target (light reflected from a surface that is incident on the camera, see [0033] and [0054] and Figs. 3, 5, and 6); and determining a parameter of a manufacturing process (overlay) from an asymmetry determined with respect to a central position (asymmetry to overlay error using measured center relative zero, see [0039]-[0050], see Figs. 7-9) in a distribution of optical characteristic values (intensity, see Fig. 10) versus position (X) obtained from the detected radiation, wherein the target comprises a first structure in a first layer (active features may be formed from photoresist, see [0056]); and a second structure in a second layer underlying the first layer (active feature of a bottom layer 108), and wherein the first structure comprises a feature in a photoresist overlying a feature of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit (see [0056]-[0057]). Smith fails to explicitly teach the first structure comprises at least a lithographically formed and to-be-etched-open opening in photoresist overlying a feature of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit and a diffraction structure, wherein a top of the diffraction structure is spaced apart from, and below, a bottom of the feature; wherein the second structure comprises at least two lithographically formed elements of a grating and a top of the elements is spaced apart from, and below a bottom of a groove opening configured to diffract radiation, and wherein the elements of the grating of the second structure are 2 longitudinal bars. Ogawa teaches the target (see Figs. 3A-3C) comprises: a first structure (opening in resist 37, see [0074]-[0075]) in a first layer (37); and a second structure (topmost metal structures 788, see Figs. 3A and 3B) in a second layer underlying the first layer (provided in dielectric 760, see Figs. 3A and 3B), wherein the second structure comprises at least two lithographically formed elements of a grating (metal structures 788 are lines to connect to vias 82 and 84) and a top of the elements is spaced apart from (separated by layers 32, 42), and being below a bottom of a groove (see Figs. 3A and 3B) configured to diffract radiation (light diffraction from structures 788), and wherein the first structure comprises at least a lithographically formed and to-be-etched-open opening in photoresist overlying (opening in photoresist 37, see Fig. 3A and 3B) a feature of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit, the feature configured to diffract radiation, and wherein the elements of the grating of the second structure are 2 longitudinal bars (extension of metal structures 788, see Figs. 3A and 3B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the active structure as taught by Ogawa as the overlay target as taught by Smith in order to determine alignment of the features of the word line region to ensure accurate positioning of the device features to produce an operational device. Smith and Ogawa fail to explicitly teach at least one side of the feature is angled along a thickness of the photoresist Sho teaches a target (see Figs. 2A and 2B) comprising a to-be-etched-open feature in photoresist of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit (forming a 3D memory device, see [0022]) and a diffraction structure( MK1-1), wherein a top of the diffraction structure is below a bottom of the feature (see Fig. 2B) and at least one side of the feature is angled along a thickness of the photoresist (angle of resist layer 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the photoresist side of a target as taught by Sho in the photoresist structure as taught by Smith or Ogawa because process conditions and film stress of the resist introduce asymmetries in the photoresist during manufacturing of the 3D device. For claim 2, Smith teaches the asymmetry is calculated as an integral of the distribution (see equations of Fig. 10 and [0047]-[0050]). For claims 18 and 19, in the combination, Ogawa teaches a plurality of layers between the top of the elements and the bottom of the opening (32, 42, see Fig. 3A) and the integrated circuit comprises a 3D-NAND memory device (see [0002]). Claims 3, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Ogawa and Sho and Manassen [US 2012/0033226]. For claims 3, 14, 15, and 17, Smith teaches a method comprising: illuminating a target (overlay target may be the structures of any active feature that includes overlying layers, where the displacement of one layer relative to another may be used to determine alignment, see [0056]-[0057] and Figs. 14 and 15) with illumination radiation from a radiation source (illumination from light source, see [0033] and [0054]) of an optical instrument, and measuring, based on diffracted radiation from the target, a parameter of a manufacturing process (measurement of target, see [0054]-[0059] and Figs. 3, 5, and 6), wherein the target comprises a first structure in a first layer (active features may be formed from photoresist, see [0056]); and a second structure in a second layer underlying the first layer (active feature of a bottom layer 108), and wherein the first structure comprises a feature in a photoresist overlying a feature of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit (see [0056]-[0057]). Smith fails to explicitly teach the first structure comprises at least a lithographically formed and to-be-etched-open opening in photoresist overlying a feature of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit and a diffraction structure, wherein a top of the diffraction structure is spaced apart from, and below, a bottom of the feature; wherein the second structure comprises at least two lithographically formed elements of a grating and a top of the elements is spaced apart from, and below a bottom of a groove opening configured to diffract radiation, and wherein the elements of the grating of the second structure are 2 longitudinal bars. Ogawa teaches the target (see Figs. 3A-3C) comprises: a first structure (opening in resist 37, see [0074]-[0075]) in a first layer (37); and a second structure (topmost metal structures 788, see Figs. 3A and 3B) in a second layer underlying the first layer (provided in dielectric 760, see Figs. 3A and 3B), wherein the second structure comprises at least two lithographically formed elements of a grating (metal structures 788 are lines to connect to vias 82 and 84) and a top of the elements is spaced apart from (separated by layers 32, 42), and being below a bottom of a groove (see Figs. 3A and 3B) configured to diffract radiation (light diffraction from structures 788), and wherein the first structure comprises at least a lithographically formed and to-be-etched-open opening in photoresist overlying (opening in photoresist 37, see Fig. 3A and 3B) a feature of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit, the feature configured to diffract radiation, and wherein the elements of the grating of the second structure are 2 longitudinal bars (extension of metal structures 788, see Figs. 3A and 3B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the active structure as taught by Ogawa as the overlay target as taught by Smith in order to determine alignment of the features of the word line region to ensure accurate positioning of the device features to produce an operational device. Smith fails to explicitly teach the illumination radiation has a symmetry with regard to an axis. Smith and Ogawa fail to explicitly teach at least one side of the feature is angled along a thickness of the photoresist Sho teaches a target (see Figs. 2A and 2B) comprising a to-be-etched-open feature in photoresist of a formed, or being formed, functional integrated circuit (forming a 3D memory device, see [0022]) and a diffraction structure( MK1-1), wherein a top of the diffraction structure is below a bottom of the feature (see Fig. 2B) and at least one side of the feature is angled along a thickness of the photoresist (angle of resist layer 42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the photoresist side of a target as taught by Sho in the photoresist structure as taught by Smith or Ogawa because process conditions and film stress of the resist introduce asymmetries in the photoresist during manufacturing of the 3D device. Manassen teaches the illumination radiation has a symmetry with regard to an axis (overlay metrology system with illumination symmetry, see [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the symmetric illumination radiation as taught by Manassen in the optical measurement system as taught by Smith in order to reduce metrology tool induced shift (TIS) in overlay metrology measurements caused by optics imperfections. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-9 and 20 remain allowed. Claims 5, 12, and 16 remain objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Sho is relied upon to teach the salient subject matter. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Furumoto [US 2019/0259609] teaches a similar V-groove structure in Fig. 4B formed in a metal layer 7 and not in a photoresist layer. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST). 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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. /Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2021
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 05, 2022
Response Filed
Jun 17, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 22, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 17, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 20, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 02, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 16, 2022
Response Filed
Dec 12, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 09, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 27, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 28, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 01, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 20, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 03, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 08, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 07, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 17, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 07, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 18, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601978
METHOD OF SETTING UP A PROJECTION EXPOSURE SYSTEM, A PROJECTION EXPOSURE METHOD AND A PROJECTION EXPOSURE SYSTEM FOR MICROLITHOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585197
MONITORING UNIT AND SUBSTRATE TREATING APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581585
TILT STAGE, EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT GENERATION APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571680
WAVELENGTH MEASUREMENT APPARATUS, NARROWED-LINE LASER APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547086
PROJECTION EXPOSURE APPARATUS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR LITHOGRAPHY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

11-12
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+13.2%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 954 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month