DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to amendment filed on 02/18/2026.
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 Amendments
1. Applicant’s amendments filed 02/18/2026 to the claims are accepted and entered. In this amendment:
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
Claims 1-11 are examined.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/18/2026 have been fully considered.
The arguments of the prior art rejection are not persuasive for the reason below:
Applicant argues that Okamoto solely discloses that the overlay displacement
inspection apparatus calculates the coordinates of the lower layer side marks 41XR and 41XL and the coordinates of the upper layer side marks 42XR and 42 XL to measure the overlay displacement amount in the X direction (see Okamoto, lines 5-10 of [0155]), thereby merely determining lateral overlay displacement based on image coordinates, without detecting a height difference between overlay marks formed on different layers. The Examiner further alleges that Okamoto's Figs. 10A-10C showing peak portions that are symmetrically disposed with each other teaches or suggests the claimed feature. (See OA, page 3). However, while Figs. 10A-10C of Okamoto illustrate waveforms having differences in the X-Y plane, such illustrations do not disclose or suggest detecting a height difference between overlay marks formed on different layers.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Okamoto discloses comparing the difference between overlay displacement in X-direction [0043] and in Y-direction [0044]-[0045], however, the lower/upper layer side marks 41/42XR and 41/42XL are line and space patterns formed by arranging a plurality of line pattern regions, which extend in the X direction, in parallel in the Y direction [0116]-[0117], i.e., Fig 10C (similar to Figs 10A-B) shows waveforms 66A-B each peak portion has a different height [0159], [0163]. Okamoto discloses the overlay displacement can be corrected/reduced [0055], [0061], [0087], [0112], [0167]. It is noted “overlay displacement” is considered “misalignment”.
Further, Applicant argues that the Examiner's allegation that the microscope can
be considered the claimed telecentric imaging optical system for adjusting a length of optical path is conclusory. In Okamoto, the microscope is used to cause a substrate, such as a wafer, to be irradiated with the illumination light, and the lower layer side marks and the upper layer side marks are formed by the irradiated illumination light. (See Okamoto, lines 8-13 in [0022]). While Okamoto instructs that the microscope is used for radiating lights, it cannot be considered the telecentric imaging optical system adjusting the length of the optical path, and therefore, Okamoto does not teach the claimed feature. Assuming arguendo that Okamoto's microscope teaches or suggests the telecentric imaging optical system configured to adjust a length of an optical path, Okamoto fails to teach or suggest the optical path adjusting unit configured to adjust the length of the optical path based on the height difference, and thus, claim 1 is patentably distinguishable.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As addressed in the response above, Okamoto discloses the waveforms in X-direction and parallel with Y-direction and the difference height as shown in Figs 10A-C can be reduced/corrected. In addition, Okamoto discloses the “focusing reflected light” that is considered adjusting the light path, see [0023], i.e., the overlay displacements of waveforms 64A-B, 65A-B, and 66A-B (height differences) in Figs 10A-C, see [0156]-[0159] can be reduced or suppressed because the space widths having different dimensions, occurrence of a spurious peak in a correlation of reflectance can be suppressed, see [0061], [0055], [0087], i.e., reduced erroneous measurement, see [0005]-[0006], [0043]-[0050]. Thus, it is apparently, Okamoto discloses the reduction of overlay displacement (or misalignment) between layers considered optimizing or reduction the optical path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over US 2013/0148120 of Okamoto et al., hereinafter “Okamoto” (of record) in view of US 2018/0106731 of Rim et al, “Rim” (of record).
As per Claims 1 and 7, Okamoto teaches an apparatus and method for measuring overlay, which is configured to measure an inter-layer overlay error in a sample with an overlay mark, the overlay mark including a first overlay mark and a second overlay mark respectively formed on different layers (Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a height difference detection optical system configured to measure a height difference between the first overlay mark and the second overlay mark (the overlay displacement inspection apparatus 1 considered “a height difference detection system, measures the displacement between a lower of marks 11 “first overlay mark” and an upper of marks 12 “second overlay mark” [0155], i.e., each peak portion is asymmetric as shown in Figs 10A-10C, [0157]-[0159]);
an illumination optical system ([0022]- optical microscope considered an illumination optical system to irradiate illumination light) configured to irradiate the overlay mark on the sample with an illumination light ([0018]- the overlay mark is irradiated with illumination light); and
a telecentric imaging optical system including an optical path adjusting unit configured to adjust a length of an optical path of the second beam based on the height difference ([0022]- an optical microscope 4 considered a telecentric optical system. It is noted a telecentric optical system can effectively reduce the height difference from an overlay mark, i.e., when the space widths of a lower layer side marks 11 and upper layer side marks 12 have different dimensions, occurrence of spurious peak corresponds to the reflectance can be suppressed [0061], see also [0057]-[0060]. Please see “response to argument above”).
Okamoto does not teach a main beam splitter configured to split a light reflected from the overlay mark into a first beam and a second beam; a first detector configured to receive the first beam and to generate a first overlay mark image in which a focus is made on the first overlay mark; a second detector configured to receive the second beam and to generate a second overlay mark image in which a focus is made on the second overlay mark; an imaging optical system configured to allow the first beam to be imaged on the first detector; and a telecentric lens disposed between the main beam splitter and the second detector to allow the second beam to be imaged on the second detector.
Rim teaches a main beam splitter configured to split a light reflected from the overlay mark into a first beam and a second beam (Fig 8 shows beam splitter 230 considered a main beam splitter that splits a reflected light from pattern mark 15 into 2 beams [0098]);
a first detector configured to receive the first beam and to generate a first overlay mark image in which a focus is made on the first overlay mark (Fig 8- a photodetector 240 “first detector” receives first beam, i.e., a bright-field image [0103], last 2 lines of [0007], p.8 line 7. It is noted a first beam that passes through a first image optical system 220 that generates an image signal forming a first overlay mark image on the first photodetector 240, see [0101]. Fig 8 shows imaging optical systems 220 or 320 collecting and focusing light reflecting from measurement mark 15 to form an image, i.e., on photodetector 330);
a second detector configured to receive the second beam and to generate a second overlay mark image in which a focus is made on the second overlay mark (Fig 8: detector 330 “second” receives second beam, i.e., dark-field image [0103], last 2 lines of [0007], p.8 line 7. It is noted a second beam that passes through a second image optical system 320 that generates an image signal forming a second overlay mark image on the second photodetector 330, see [0101]);
an imaging optical system configured to allow the first beam to be imaged on the first detector (Fig 8 shows image optical system 220 “first”. It is noted a first beam that passes through a first image optical system 220 that generates an image signal forming a first overlay mark image on the first detector 240); and
a telecentric lens disposed between the main beam splitter and the second detector to allow the second beam to be imaged on the second detector (Fig 8: second image optical system 320 considered a telecentric lens that disposed between main splitter 230 and second detector 330. It is noted an image optical system/ telecentric lens is considered forming an image on the detector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Okamoto to implement a splitter, detectors, and telecentric imaging optical systems as taught by Rim that would enhance a semiconductor device inspection apparatus [0018] comprising the imaging optical system to increasing the quality of an image and improving the image obtained from the substrate (Rim [0029]).
5. Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over US Okamoto in view of Rim and further US patent 8248593 of Yamauchi et al., hereinafter “Yamauchi” (of record).
As per Claim 2, Okamoto in view of Rim teaches an apparatus for measuring overlay of claim 1, Okamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the optical path adjusting unit comprises: at least one mirror disposed between the main beam splitter and the second detector, such that the second beam is reflected toward the second detector; a mirror stage configured to adjust a length of the optical path of the second beam by linearly moving the at least one mirror; and a controller configured to control the mirror stage based on the height difference. Rim teaches the optical path adjusting unit comprises: at least one mirror disposed between the main beam splitter and the second detector, such that the second beam is reflected toward the second detector (Fig 8: image optical system 320 disposed between main beam splitter 230 and second detector 330, optical system can be considered a mirror. It is noted image optical systems including mirrors, are capable of forming images by reflecting light and image optical system can adjust the length of optical path). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Okamoto to implement the optical image system as a beam path adjusting disposed between bean splitter and second detector as taught by Rim that would enhance the imaging optical system to increasing the quality of an image and improving the image obtained from the substrate (Rim, [0029]).
Okamoto and Rim do not disclose a mirror stage configured to adjust a length of the optical path of the second beam by linearly moving the at least one mirror; and a controller configured to control the mirror stage based on the height difference
Yamauchi teaches a mirror stage configured to adjust a length of the optical path of the second beam by linearly moving the at least one mirror, and a controller configured to control the mirror stage based on the height difference (col 2 lines 42-55, i.e., the distance x2 is adjusted by the moving operation by the actuator 71, see col 7 lines 17-19. Actuator 71 is driven by the drive unit 72 to move the mirror 73 in direction parallel to optical axis of the optical system, see col 6 lines 30-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Okamoto and Rim to implement a moving mirror by a control unit as taught by Yamauchi that would facilitate with a high position accuracy of the moving operation of the actuator, i.e., to match each target value with a high accuracy (Yamauchi, col 8 line65 to col 9 line 4 and col 1 lines 59-61).
As per Claim 3, Okamoto in view of Rim and Yamauchi teaches the apparatus for measuring overlay of claim 2, Rim further teaches a magnification of the second overlay mark image (magnifying obtained image [0028]. It is noted image obtained from pattern 15 considered a second overlay mark image. Fig 8 shows a pattern 15 includes a plurality marks [0048]. It is noted a pattern 15 includes plural markers or overlay marks as it includes multiple alignment marks, i.e., overlay mark 1, overlay mark 2, and so on). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Okamoto having a magnification of overlay image as taught by Rim that would have a structure for increasing the quality of the image and/or improving a magnification of the image obtained from the substrate 10 and the semiconductor pattern 15 (Rim [0029]).
Yamauchi further teaches wherein the controller controls the mirror stage so that the optical path of the second beam is lengthened in proportion to the height difference, and the lengthened optical path of the second beam becomes longer than an optical path of the first beam (see Figs 2-3. The optical path length difference ∆L between two optical path lengths, a relatively long coherent length λ2 considered “first beam” and a relatively short coherent length λ1 considered “second beam”, see col 5 lines 36-53). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Okamoto and Rim having a second beam longer than a first beam as taught by Yamauchi that would facilitate a high position accuracy of the moving operation of the actuator, i.e., to match each target value with a high accuracy (Yamauchi, col 8 line65 to col 9 line 4 and col 1 lines 59-61).
Claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale as in claim 3.
6. Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Okamoto in view of Rim and further JP 2015-104058A of Kodama (of record).
As per Claims 4 and 9, Okamoto in view of Rim teaches the apparatus and method for measuring overlay of claims 1 and 7, Okamoto teaches the first detector for obtaining the first overlay mark image (imaging optics 5 considered “first detector”. It is noted image signals of reflected overlay mark “first overlay mark” from the optics 5 are processed to form an image on the first detector that can be analyzed as shown in Fig 1, [0018]).
Okamoto and Rim do not teach wherein the imaging optical system further comprises a first optical filter which is disposed in front of the first detector to adjust a central wavelength and a band width of the first beam for obtaining the first overlay mark image; and wherein the telecentric imaging optical system further comprises a second optical filter which is disposed in front of the second detector to adjust a central wavelength and a band width of the second beam for obtaining the second overlay mark image. Kodama teaches the imaging optical system further comprises a first optical filter which is disposed in front of the first detector to adjust a central wavelength and a band width of the first beam (Fig 2 shows optical array 25 includes a plurality of optical filter 26a “first optical filter”, 26b “second optical filter”, and so on. Fig 3 shows an image sensor has a detection surface 36 and the lens array 30 has a conjugate relationship with the optical filter array 25, and image sensor 35 that detects light from the lens array 30, see Abstract. Each microlens 31 on the detection surface 36 of the image sensor 35 as shown in Fig 3, is considered a detection surface unit and thus, each optical filter, i.e., 26a “first optical filter”, …26i are considered disposed in front of each corresponding detection surface unit. Since optical filter 26a…26i are band-pass filter having 9 types of wavelengths as central wavelengths, see p.6, para 1 and Fig 4. It is noted band-pass filter can adjust both wavelength and frequency “bandwidth” of the beam it passed through); and wherein the telecentric imaging optical system further comprises a second optical filter which is disposed in front of the second detector to adjust a central wavelength and a band width of the second beam for obtaining the second overlay mark image (microlens considered a telecentric optical system, and optical filter 26b in Fig 2 considered “a second optical filter” which is disposed in front of its corresponding detection surface unit).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Okamoto and Rim having first and second optical filter disposed in front of first and second detection unit and adjust wavelength and bandwidth as taught by Kodama that would provide obtaining a highly accurate image for multiple wavelength band image (Kodama, p.6 last para).
As per Claim 5, Okamoto in view of Rim and Kodama teaches the apparatus for measuring overlay of claim 4, Okamoto and Rim do not teach wherein the first optical filter and the second optical filter are linearly or rotationally variable. Kodama teaches the first optical filter and the second optical filter are linearly or rotationally variable (bandpass filters, see p.6, para 1, various optical filters, i.e., polarizing filter, see p.10, para 5. It is noted bandpass filter considered linearly “a linear operator” in signal processing and optics. It is noted polarizer filter is an optical filter includes two types of polarizers: linearly and circular). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Okamoto and Rim to implement a bandpass filter “optical filter” as taught by Kodama that would provide obtaining a highly accurate image for multiple wavelength band image (Kodama, p.6 last para).
As per Claim 10, Okamoto in view of Rim and Kodama teaches the method for measuring overlay of claim 9, Kodama further teaches wherein the central wavelength of the first beam and the central wavelength of the second beam are different from each other (different wavelengths are shown in Fig 4, p.6 para 1). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Okamoto and Rim to implement a bandpass filter having different wavelengths as taught by Kodama that would provide obtaining a highly accurate image for multiple wavelength band image (Kodama, p.6 last para).
7. Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Okamoto in view of Rim and further US patent 9116163 of Arimitsu, hereinafter “Arimitsu”.
As per Claims 6 and 11, Okamoto in view of Rim teaches the apparatus and method for measuring overlay of claims 1 and 7, Okamoto teaches wherein the first overlay mark image and the second overlay mark image are generated simultaneously (the lower and the upper layer side marks “first and “second overlay marks” are imaged at the same time [0021]). Okamoto does not teach the first and second detector are synchronized. Arimitsu teaches the first and second detector are synchronized (Fig 6 shows first detector and second detector are synchronized, see col 4 lines 47-63). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teachings of Okamoto and Rim to implement a synchronization of first and second detectors as taught by Arimitsu that would facilitate a time-sharing manner based on detection signals 1 and 2, i.e., as shown in Fig 19 (Arimitsu, col 2 lines 63-65).
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 PM-6 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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights