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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated October 24, 2025, in which claims 1 and 11 were amended, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (U.S. Pub. 2023/0194998) in view of Miyasaka (U.S. Pub. 2010/0321705).
Regarding claim 1, Feng [Figs.1-16] discloses a structure for an alignment measurement mark, comprising:
a first overlay mark [12]; and
a second overlay mark [11], comprising a pattern structure to be measured;
wherein a layer [22] where the first overlay mark is located is adjacent to a layer [21] where the second overlay mark is located, and an orthographic projection of the first overlay mark onto the layer where the second overlay mark is located, is located at an inner side of the second overlay mark [Figs.1,8-12], or an orthographic projection of the first overlay mark onto the layer where the second overlay mark is located, is located at a periphery of the second overlay mark [Figs.1,8-12].
Feng fails to explicitly disclose the claimed relative spacing of the overlay marks. However, Miyasaka [Figs.13,16,18] discloses a structure wherein a spacing between the second overlay mark [201,202] and an edge of the orthographic projection of the first overlay mark [101] onto the layer where the second overlay mark is located, is not less than 2 µm [Paras.70-71,82-83] [Looking at the dimensions of the widths and spacing with respect to the overlay marks in Fig.18, it could be determined that the spacing between structures 202a and 101a to be about 3 µm, which is not less than 2 µm].
It would have been obvious to provide the dimensions and relative spacing as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, and 12-13, Feng [Figs.1-16] discloses a structure for an alignment measurement mark, comprising:
wherein the second overlay mark [11] comprises a shape of a circle, a cross or a regular polygon [Figs.1,8-12];
wherein when the orthographic projection of the first overlay mark onto the layer where the second overlay mark is located, is located on the periphery of the second overlay mark, the first overlay mark comprises:
a first alignment pattern [12], wherein an orthographic projection of the first alignment pattern onto the layer where the second overlay mark [11] is located, is located on two opposite sides of the second overlay mark, the first alignment pattern extends in a first direction [at least in Fig.8]; and
a second alignment pattern [12], wherein an orthographic projection of the second alignment pattern onto the layer where the second overlay mark is located, is located on two opposite sides of the second overlay mark, and on outer sides of the first alignment pattern, the second alignment pattern has a spacing from the first alignment pattern, the second alignment pattern extends in a second direction, the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction [at least in Fig.8];
wherein the first alignment pattern comprises a single first alignment structure [12] and the second alignment pattern comprises a single second alignment structure [12];
wherein the single first alignment structure and the single second alignment structure are both in a structure of strip [12];
wherein the single first alignment structure [12] has a length greater than a size of the second overlay mark [11] in the first direction and greater than a size of the second overlay mark in the second direction [At least in Figs.9-10];
wherein the first overlay mark [12] comprises an annular overlay mark [Fig.6];
wherein a center of the first overlay mark is overlapped with a center of the second overlay mark [Fig.8].
Regarding claim 3, Feng discloses a conductive hole [Para.51] but fails to explicitly disclose a through-silicon via. However, it would be obvious to provide wherein the second overlay mark comprises a through-silicon via pattern as claimed. It would have been obvious to apply one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Feng fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claims. However, Miyasaka [Figs.13,16,18] discloses a structure
wherein a size of the second overlay mark [20,201,202] in the first direction or the second direction is not less than 3 µm, a size of the first overlay mark [10,101] in the first direction or the second direction is 30 µm to 80 µm [Paras.70-71,82-83];
wherein at least one of the first overlay mark or the second overlay mark is located on a surface of a photoresist layer [Para.89].
It would have been obvious to provide the dimensions as claimed and the photoresist layer, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 6, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (U.S. Pub. 2023/0194998) in view of Miyasaka (U.S. Pub. 2010/0321705), as applied above and further in view of Lan (U.S. Pub. 2011/0156285).
Regarding claims 6, 8, and 10, Feng fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first alignment pattern comprises a plurality of first alignment structures arranged in parallel at intervals.
However, Lan [Fig.1C] discloses a structure
wherein the first alignment pattern [121] comprises a plurality of first alignment structures arranged in parallel at intervals, and the second alignment pattern [122] comprises a plurality of second alignment structures arranged in parallel at intervals;
wherein the first alignment structures and the second alignment structures are both in a structure of strip [Fig.1C];
wherein the first alignment structures [12] have a length greater than a size of the second overlay mark [13] in the first direction and greater than a size of the second overlay mark in the second direction [Fig.1C].
It would have been obvious to provide the alignment structures as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant's assertions that Miyasaka fails to disclose wherein a spacing between the second overlay mark and an edge of the orthographic projection of the first overlay mark onto the layer where the second overlay mark is located, is not less than 2 µm, are not persuasive. As presented above, Miyasaka [Fig.18] discloses the dimensions of the widths and spacing with respect to the overlay marks. It could be determined that the spacing between structures 202a and 101a to be about 3 µm. Consequently, Miyasaka discloses wherein a spacing between the second overlay mark and an edge of the orthographic projection of the first overlay mark onto the layer where the second overlay mark is located, is not less than 2 µm.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made Final.
Conclusion
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 BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898