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 with traverse of Group I (claim 1-7) in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and is therefore not a separate group for unity of purpose. Also, that all the Groups share a special technical feature because Shchegrov makes no reference to the stochastic analysis feature recites in claim 1 and 13. This is not found persuasive because the determination of independent claims under Unity of Invention is based on category, different categories may reference other claims and still be independent (“The examiner should bear in mind that a claim may also contain a reference to another claim even if it is not a dependent claim as defined in PCT Rule 6.4. One example of this is a claim referring to a claim of a different category (for example, "Apparatus for carrying out the process of Claim 1 ...," or "Process for the manufacture of the product of Claim 1 ...").” see MPEP 1850.II). With regard to the subject matter argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in paragraph [0056] of the application publication US 2023/0333485, the stochastic metrics associated with edge placement are monitored with SEM. The claimed repetitions need only be sufficient for stochastic analysis to determine at least one local variation metric. The target 320 of Shchegrov includes repetitive product features 320 and 324 that are measurable by an SEM that are provided to account for process variations (see [0082]), each of which introduce stochastic spatially varying placement error within a single exposure field.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
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 1-20 are 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 “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “sufficient” 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 specification at paragraph [0083] indicates a sufficient number of instances or repetitions is a number for good stochastic analysis. However, it is unclear the number that is necessary for good analysis because “good” is also a term of degree with no standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. Further, the application does not provide any instruction on how the stochastic analysis should be performed such that one of ordinary skill in the art could determine the quality of the analysis. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the degree of “good” and “sufficient” without knowing what type of analysis that is performed.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. [US 10,809,633].
For claim 1, Yang teaches a substrate (11-13, see Fig. 1) comprising a target structure (see Figs. 2 and 5) formed in at least two layers (current and previous layers 12 may be successive layers 12 in a stack of patterned layers produced by respective photomasks 16 used to fabricate a semiconductor device, see col. 4 lines 60-65), the target structure comprising:
a first region comprising periodically repeating features in each of the layers measureable using optical metrology (region for features 54, 58, 64, and 68, dimension on the order of 1-2 microns, see Figs 2-7 and col. 3 lines 15-25) ; and
a second region comprising repetitions of one or more product features in each of the layers (features 52, 56, 62, and 66, dimension of the order of 5-100 nm, see Figs. 2-7 and col. 3 lines 15-25),
the repetitions being sufficient for stochastic analysis to determine at least one local variation metric (may be used to determine random errors, see col. 9 lines 15-30).
For claim 2, Yang 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 (Images of the features 54, 58 of the overlay mark 60 may also be acquired using an optical metrology tool, see col. 5 lines 30-35).
For claim 3, Yang teaches the first region extends at least across a first area corresponding to a spot size of an optical metrology tool (Images of the features 54, 58 of the overlay mark 60 may also be acquired using an optical metrology tool, see col. 5 lines 30-35) and the combined first region 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 (Imaging of the features 52, 54, 56, 58 may be provided by an image-based metrology tool, such as a scanning electron microscope, see col. 4 lines 25-55).
For claim 5, Yang 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 (features 52, 56 may represent device features, such as semiconductor fins, trenches, or gate electrodes, see col. 4 lines 10-15).
For claim 6, Yang 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 (grouped by pitch, critical dimension, product function representation, see col. 3 lines 15 - col 4 lines 55).
For claim 7, 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).
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 Yang in view of Gurevich et al. [US 2019/0049858].
For claim 4, Yang fails to 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/0256465, US 2018/0275523, US 2019/0250504, US 2020/0082523, and US 2021/0066027 each teach methods of stochastic analysis applied to pattern placement.
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