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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 20-25 in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant canceled non-elected claims 12-19. Accordingly, claims 1-11 and 20-33 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 22 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “moire” in line 2 of both claims contains a typographical error and should be moiré. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiss, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0044568, hereafter Weiss.
Regarding claim 1, Weiss discloses a die (Fig. 2, [208]) comprising (par. [0023]-[0024], Figs 2,3):
a first reticle print (par. [0024]);
a second reticle print (par. [0024]);
a first overlay metrology mark [302 or 310] (Fig. 3A) on the first reticle print, the first overlay metrology mark comprising a plurality of parallel lines; and a second overlay metrology mark [304] (Fig. 3B) on the second reticle print, wherein the second overlay metrology mark [304] comprises a plurality of non-uniformly-spaced parallel lines (Fig. 3B, par. [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Weiss further discloses wherein the plurality of parallel lines of the first overlay metrology mark (310 is a plurality of non-uniformly-spaced parallel lines).
Regarding claim 8, Weiss further discloses (par. [0034]) wherein the first overlay metrology mark is above the second overlay metrology mark.
Regarding claim 9, Weiss further discloses (par. [0034], in the embodiments of Figs 3D and 3E this limitation is satisfied because gratings with non-uniformly-spaced parallel lines can be chosen as booth first overlay metrology mark and second overlay metrology mark) wherein the first overlay metrology mark is below the second overlay metrology mark.
Regarding claim 10, Weiss further discloses (par. [0033]) wherein the die is a part of a wafer.
Regarding claim 11, Weiss further discloses (Figs 2A, 2B, the active field [210] corresponds to a single die) wherein the die is singulated from a wafer.
Regarding claim 20, Weiss discloses (Fig. 2, [208]) comprising (par. [0023]-[0026], Figs 2,3): a die comprising:
a first reticle print (Fig. 3D, par. [0026]);
a second reticle print (Fig. 3E, par. [0026], par. [0034]) above the first reticle print; and
overlay metrology marking means [302], [310], [304], [312] to uniquely determine a relative position of the second reticle print relative to the first reticle print (par. [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 21, Weiss further discloses (par. [0026], Figs 3D, 3E) wherein the overlay metrology marking means comprises a first overlay metrology marking means [302] on the first reticle print and a second overlay metrology marking means [304] on the second reticle print.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0044568, hereafter Weiss.
Regarding claim 3, Weiss discloses everything as applied above. Weiss further discloses (Fig. 2B, par. [0022]-[0023]) further comprising: a set of overlay alignment marks [216] with plurality of parallel lines orthogonal to the plurality of parallel lines of the first overlay metrology mark [214] and the second overlay metrology mark (since the second overlay metrology mark runs in the same direction as the first overlay metrology mark).
The limitations
“a third overlay metrology mark on the first reticle print, the third overlay metrology mark comprising a plurality of parallel lines; and
a fourth overlay metrology mark on the second reticle print, wherein the fourth overlay metrology mark comprises a plurality of non-uniformly-spaced parallel lines,
wherein the plurality of parallel lines of the third overlay metrology mark are orthogonal to the plurality of parallel lines of the first overlay metrology mark, wherein the plurality of non-uniformly-spaced parallel lines of the fourth overlay metrology mark are orthogonal to the plurality of non-uniformly-spaced parallel lines of the second overlay metrology mark” merely corresponds to a duplication of the first and second overlay metrology marks in a direction perpendicular to the gratings of the first overlay metrology mark and the second overlay metrology mark.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to include a set of marks identical to first and second and second overlay metrology marks with gratings orthogonal to those of overlay metrology marks because Weiss teaches (par. [0022]-[0023]) that such gratings can be placed so alignment can be measured along both x-axis and orthogonal y-axis.
Regarding claim 4, Weiss discloses everything as applied above. The limitation “wherein a pitch of the first overlay metrology mark is between 200 and 500 nanometers” is further obvious over Weiss because Weiss discloses (par. [0025]) an overlapping range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP, Latest Revision, 2144.05.I)
Regarding claim 5, Weiss discloses everything as applied above. The limitation “wherein a pitch of the second overlay metrology mark is between 200 and 500 nanometers” is further obvious over Weiss because Weiss discloses (par. [0025]) an overlapping range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP, Latest Revision, 2144.05.I)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26-33 are allowed. Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record (Weiss reference, U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0044568 as applied above) discloses a die comprising a first reticle print including a first overlay metrology mark; and a second reticle print, disposed at a different level than the first reticle print, including a second overlay metrology mark.
The prior art of record (Weiss and other references) fails to explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the first and second overlay metrology marks are configured such that, when the die is illuminated and imaged from above, the first and second overlay metrology marks cooperatively generate a moiré response that (i) lacks a constant spatial period over at least a portion of the response, and (ii) varies monotonically with relative displacement between the first and second reticle prints over a displacement range that exceeds one-half of a pitch of at least one of the overlay metrology marks.
Claims 27-33 are allowed because they are dependent claims that contain all limitations of the independent claim 26.
Claims 2, 6, and 22-25 are 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, the prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein, when viewed from above the die, the first overlay metrology mark and the second overlay metrology mark form a moiré pattern without a constant period.
Claims 23-25 are objected to because said claims depend on and contain all limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose or make obvious wherein the plurality of non-uniformly-spaced parallel lines have a spacing that is linearly dependent on position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. General prior art which discloses two overlay metrology marks that are grid like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893