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 .
This action is responsive to the request for continued examination of 10/02/2025.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant asserts that claim 12, as amended, is now definite, however, this is not persuasive. The question in the previous action of whether the symmetry of the first and second linear gratings is within each grating or between the two gratings considered as a single system has merely been changed to where such a symmetry must not exist. It is still unclear whether each grating must be asymmetric or if one must be asymmetric with respect to the other. Another amendment to claim 12 repeats the same indefiniteness with respect to the symmetry of the first overlay target and the second overlay target. Claim 12 is still indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
Applicant’s first argument is that Adel does not teach the newly amended limitation of claim 12 that the first and second gratings do not have symmetry, however, this argument is not persuasive. Applicant cites FIG. 2A as supporting the amendments to claim 12. Working zones 222A’ and 222A” in group 224A of FIG. 14 of Adel (cited in Applicant’s remarks and hereinbelow), taken collectively, lack symmetry in the same sense as the half-target shown in FIG. 2A of the present disclosure lacks symmetry (comparing the pair of gratings together against a copy of both gratings together rotated 180° about the collective center of the pair and NOT identifying features in one layer with features in the other. Note that while other interpretations of this particular claim language may be possible, such other interpretations do not appear to be supported in the disclosure as originally filed, including figures.).
Applicant’s second argument is that Adel does not teach the newly amended limitation of claim 12 that the first and second overlay targets have symmetry, however, this argument is not persuasive. Groups 224A and the combination of groups 224B and 224D in FIG. 14 of Adel (cited in Applicant’s remarks and hereinbelow), taken as two separate units, have symmetry in the same sense that the half target in FIG. 2A (or FIG. 3A) and the full target in FIG. 5A (or FIG. 5B) of the present disclosure possess symmetry (comparing one of the half targets with a rotated copy of itself and identifying the features on one layer with the features on the other layer, then performing an analogous comparison with one of the full targets and its rotated image. Note that while other interpretations of this particular claim language may be possible, such other interpretations do not appear to be supported in the disclosure as originally filed, including figures or are only trivially supported (e.g., the claim as currently drafted does not require any components exist in the second part, and taking the second part to be empty and sufficiently small would be necessary to allow the first overlay target to have symmetry with the second overlay target (which contains an identical copy of the first overlay target in just the first part)), so such other interpretations are not considered reasonable in light of the specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 14-15, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12, lines 10-12 state that the first linear grating and the second linear grating do not have rotational symmetry. It is unclear whether this is intended to state that each grating lacks symmetry on its own or that the system consisting of the two gratings together lacks symmetry as a unit. Further, it is unclear whether a feature in one layer should be counted as the same or different as a feature in the other layer when such a system is rotated. Following the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (especially the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 2A, cited by Applicant as supporting the current amendment), the system is taken as a unit and features on one layer are not considered identical to features on the other. Note that this is the interpretation is required for the gratings shown in the figures to fall within the scope of the claim.
Claim 12, lines 15-17 recite that the first and second overlay targets have rotational symmetry. It is unclear whether this is intended to state that each overlay target has symmetry on its own or that the system consisting of the two gratings together has symmetry as a unit (in the latter case, it is additionally unclear how the first overlay target could be rotated in such a way as to match the second overlay target, as the second overlay target comprises a first part identical to the first overlay target and also comprises a second part, unless the second part is trivial, not containing anything substantial enough to be considered to break symmetry). Further, it is unclear whether a feature in one layer should be counted as the same or different as a feature in the other layer when such a system is rotated. The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (especially FIG. 2 or 3 for exemplary embodiments of the first overlay target and FIG. 5 for exemplary embodiments of the second overlay target), the first overlay target and the second overlay target are checked for symmetry separately and features on one layer are considered identical to features on the other. Note that this interpretation is necessary for the half targets and full targets in the figures to fall within the scope of the claims.
Figures 14, 15, and 17 are indefinite due to depending on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adel (US Patent Document 20030021467).
Regarding claim 12, Adel teaches a product (FIG. 19, wafer 324), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (FIG. 19, wafer 324); and
first and second film layers, which are disposed on the semiconductor substrate with the second film layer overlying the first film layer (FIG. 19, the layers containing one or more overlay targets 322), and that are patterned (FIG. 14, overlay mark 220) to define:
a first overlay target (FIG. 14, group 224A) disposed in a first location on the semiconductor substrate and comprising a first target feature (FIG. 14, group 224A, working zones 222A’ and 222B’) formed in the first film layer (paragraph 124 states that the cross hatched working zones 222’ are in the first layer) and a second target feature (FIG. 14, group 224A, working zones 222A” and 222B”) formed in the second film layer (paragraph 124 specifies that working zones 222”, depicted without cross hatching, are in the second layer) in a position adjacent to the first target feature (see FIG. 14),
wherein the first target feature comprises a first linear grating (FIG. 14, working zone 222A’ in group 224A) oriented along a first direction in the first film layer (FIG. 14, parallel to the Y axis), and the second target feature comprises a second linear grating (FIG. 14, working zone 222A” in group 224A) oriented in the first direction in the second film layer (FIG. 14, parallel to the Y axis), wherein the first linear grating and the second linear grating do not have rotational symmetry of 180° around a normal to the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 14, rotating group 224A about its center point maps features on the first layer onto features on the second layer. Since the first layer and the second layer are different, group 224A fits the broadest reasonable interpretation of not having symmetry, similar to FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 of the present disclosure. Also see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above for further details about the interpretation necessary in light of the present disclosure); and
a second overlay target disposed in a second location on the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 14, groups 224B and 224D, taken together as a unit) and comprising a first part (FIG. 14, group 224D), which is identical to the first overlay target (FIG. 14, group 224D is identical to group 224A), and a second part (FIG. 14, group 224B), which is disposed adjacent to the first part such that the first overlay target and the second overlay target have rotational symmetry of 180° around the normal to the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 14, rotating the first overlay target (group 224A) by 180° maps Y-oriented gratings 222A onto each other and X-oriented gratings 222B onto each other. Rotating the second likewise overlay target (group 224A) by 180° maps Y-oriented gratings 222A onto each other and X-oriented gratings 222B onto each other. While some of the gratings 222A and 222B in group 224A are on the first layer and some are on the second layer, group 224A nonetheless fits the broadest reasonable interpretation of having rotational symmetry, similar to FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 of the present disclosure. The pair of groups 224B and D does not require as broad an interpretation to fit the claim limitation, similar to FIG. 5 of the present disclosure. Also see the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above for further details about the interpretation necessary in light of the present disclosure);
wherein the first linear grating and the second linear grating are configured for determination of a center of symmetry during measurement (As described in paragraph 122, the embodiment in FIG. 14 corresponds to the overlay mark in FIG. 9 and is configured to measure overlay in like manner to the embodiment of FIG. 9, which paragraph 102 describes as measuring centers of symmetry).
Regarding claim 14, Adel teaches the product according to claim 12 (as described above), wherein the first overlay target is one of a plurality of the first overlay targets, each comprising the first and second target features, disposed at different, respective locations on the semiconductor substrate (FIG. 14 contains two copies of the first overlay target, group 224A and group 224C).
Regarding claim 17, Adel teaches the product according to claim 12 (as described above), wherein the first target feature further comprises a third linear grating (FIG. 14, working zone 222B’ in group 224B) oriented along a second direction (FIG. 14, parallel to the X axis), which is not parallel with the first direction, in the first film layer, and the second target feature comprises a fourth linear grating (FIG. 14, working zone 222B” in group 224B) oriented in the second direction in the second film layer (FIG. 14, parallel to the X axis).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adel (US Patent Document 20030021467) in view of Shchegrov (US Patent Document 20190271542).
Regarding claim 15, Adel teaches product according to claim 12 (as described above), wherein the semiconductor substrate comprises dies separated by scribe lines (paragraph 162, final sentence), and wherein the second overlay target is disposed in one of the scribe lines (paragraph 162, penultimate sentence).
Adel does not explicitly teach that the first overlay target is disposed in a device area of a die.
In the same field of endeavor of metrology marks on semiconductor wafers, Shchegrov does explicitly teach that the first overlay target is disposed in a device area of a die (FIG. 4, device-scale overlay targets 408). By including overlay targets in the device, rather than just in the scribe lines, Shchegrov is able to more accurately measure the alignment of the wafer and its components.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafers with overlay targets of Adel with the non-scribe-line overlay targets of Shchegrov in order to gain the benefit of better measuring the alignment of the wafer during semiconductor fabrication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877