DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 21 is 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.
The term “similar” in claim 21is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The range encompassed by the term “similar” in unclear. For the purposes of examining, the similar size is understood to be a size range based on a feature described as having features that are on a scale of the product or resolvable by the same tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 5, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laske et al. [US 2019/0179231].
For claims 1 and 21, Laske teaches a substrate (118, see Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a target structure (200 and 300, see Figs. 2A-3) formed in at least two layers (206 and 208), the target structure comprising:
a first region (reference pattern feature regions, see Figs. 2A-3) comprising periodically repeating features (212A, 212B, see Figs. 2A and 2B, 224 and 228, see Fig. 2C) in each of the layers, the features of the first region comprising structures of similar size of product structures (device scale pitch, see [0070]) and having a periodic pattern allowing measurement using optical metrology (by tool 102b, see [0066]-[0072]), wherein at least some of the features in a first layer of the layers overlays at least some of the features in a second layer of the layers (see the arrangement in Figs. 2A-2C); and
a second region (device scale pattern region, see Figs. 2A-3) comprising repetitions of one or more product features (210a and 210b) in each of the layers, the repetitions enabling stochastic analysis to determine at least one local variation metric (device-scale feature patterns to correspond to different device structures thereby enabling device related variation analysis, see [0062], [0078], and [0081]).
For claim 2, Laske teaches the periodically repeating features are formed in the at least two layers such that intensity and/or phase asymmetry in a zeroth order and/or corresponding diffraction orders varies predictably with overlay (tool 102b may be a scatterometry based, see [0052] and [0056]).
For claim 3, Laske teaches the first region extends at least across a first area corresponding to a spot size of an optical metrology tool and the combined first region (a swath 230 of an imaging beam 126 by tool 102a, see Figs. 1C and 2C and [0068]) and second region extend at least partially across a second area corresponding to a field of view of an e-beam based metrology tool suitable to measure the one or more product features (particle beam 112 suitable for resolving device-scale features, see [0040]).
For claim 5, Laske teaches the repetitions of one or more product features comprise representative product features which will not form part of a functioning device, but are representative of product structures forming part of the functioning device (device-scale feature patterns to correspond to different device structures thereby enabling device related variation analysis, see [0062], [0078], and [0081]).
For claim 6, Laske teaches the one or more product features are grouped into groups, the grouping being based on one or more selected from: functionality, criticality and/or geometrical properties (multiple sets of different device-scale feature patterns with varying dimensions, densities, and/or orientations, see [0072]-[0078] and Fig. 3).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laske in view of Gurevich et al. [US 2019/0049858].
For claim 4, Laske fails to explicitly teach the repetitions of each of the one or more product features number more than 1000.
Gurevich teaches in paragraph [0056]-[0064] teaches that minimum number of lines of a target for determining uncertainty is based on the critical dimension and the standard deviation. The number of repetitions of a target is a result effective parameter that provides for identifying statistically relevant stochastic error.
Further, there is no evidence showing the criticality of the claimed number.
According to well established patent law precedent (see, for example, M.P.E.P. §2144.05) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine (for example by routine experimentation) the optimum number of repetitions in order to provide statistically relevant stochastic error.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laske in view of Yang et al. [US 10,809,633].
For claim 7, Laske recognizes forming the pattern with one more lithography steps, Laske fails to explicitly teach a set of at least two reticles comprising reticle features arranged to image the target structure as claimed in claim 1 on the substrate in a plurality of exposures.
Yang teaches a set of at least two reticles comprising reticle features arranged to image the target structure as claimed in claim 1 on the substrate in a plurality of exposures (respective photomasks 16 used to fabricate a semiconductor device, see col. 4 lines 60-65).
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 multiple reticles as taught by Yan in the lithographic steps as taught by Laske in order fabricate different structures at different layers of a semiconductor device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 6, 2026 with respect to claim 1 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.
A rejoinder as described in MPEP 821.04 will be considered upon indication of an allowable claim.
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 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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights