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 species I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. The original Election/Restriction requirement dated 09/04/2025 included a typographical error, species I (Figs 1, 2A, 2B) corresponds to claims 1-9. Claim 10 is included in Species II (Figs 10, 10A, 10B).
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (Species II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following claim interpretation is applied under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI):
“Alignment and etch bias structure”: a patterned metrology structure usable for alignment/overlay measurement and for detecting process-induced positional bias, including etch bias.
“Pattern set”: a plurality of patterned features acting together as a metrology target.
“Partially overlapping shapes”: nested, superposed, or spatially interacting features whose relative positions are compared.
“Capable of showing changes in X, Y, and rotation”: structures from which translational and angular misalignment can be determined from relative feature displacement.
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 1, 3-4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausschnitt, U.S. Pat. 6,137,578, hereafter ‘578, in view of Ausschnitt et. al., U.S. Pat. 7,879,515, hereafter ‘515.
Regarding claim 1,’578 discloses (e.g., Fig. 40) an alignment and process bias structure (abstract, Figs. 40,41) comprising: a pattern set alignment (BIB target of Fig. 40) and etch biasing (abstract critical dimension bias) shapes comprising at least three partially overlapping shapes [256], [258a-f], [252], [254a-f] on at least two patterned layers (Level A and level B), wherein the at least three partially overlapping shapes are capable of showing changes between the shapes in X, Y, and rotation (Col. 36, lines 14-48, angular (rotational) misalignment is geometrically derivable from differences in X/Y displacement vectors; this, the structure is capable of showing rotation even if rotation is not expressly reported)
‘578 fails to explicitly disclose the process bias being etch bias and dual function structure. However, ‘515 discloses (Col. 3, lines 19-30) the process bias being etch bias and dual function structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to combine alignment marks of ‘578 with the post-etch bias analysis of ‘515 to improve process control while minimizing additional test structures.
Regarding claim 3, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘578 further discloses (Fig. 40) wherein each of the patterned layers is present in a dielectric layer (Col. 3, line 64, acid-catalyzed resists are insulating polymers) that is transparent (Col. 18, lines 40-41).
Regarding claim 4, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘578 further discloses (Fig. 40) wherein each of the patterned layer are aligned with each other.
Regarding claim 7, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘515 further discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the at least two patterned layers comprises three or more patterned layers (A-F).
Regarding claim 8, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘578 further discloses (abstract) wherein the shape changes are detected electrically or optically (optical measurement of the critical dimension bias is disclosed).
Regarding claim 9, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘578 further discloses (Col. 12, lines 32-35) wherein the shape changes are caused by misalignment, under-etching, over-etching or mechanical stress (overlay error, which is misalignment).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausschnitt, U.S. Pat. 6,137,578, hereafter ‘578, in view of Ausschnitt et. al., U.S. Pat. 7,879,515, hereafter ‘515, and further in view of Huang et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0132283, hereafter ‘283.
Regarding claim 2, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘578 in view of ‘515 fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the patterned layers are composed of an electrically conductive material.
However, ‘283 discloses (Figs 1, 2) an overlay mark with a plurality of wherein each of the patterned layers [110a-d], [120a-d] are composed of an electrically conductive material (par. [0040]-[0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to combine alignment marks of ‘578 with the teachings of ‘283, because ‘283 teaches (par. [0050]) that when the alignment mark is conductive, overlay can also be tested in an electric test which is less time consuming than an optical test.
Regarding claim 5, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘578 in view of ‘515 fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of patterned layers is misaligned relative to the other patterned layers, and the misalignment is detected electrically or optically.
However, ‘283 discloses (Fig. 3C, par. [0055]) wherein at least one of patterned layers is misaligned relative to the other patterned layers, and the misalignment is detected electrically or optically.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to combine alignment marks of ‘578 with the teachings of ‘283, because ‘283 teaches (par. [0050]) that when the alignment mark is conductive, overlay can also be tested in an electric test which is less time consuming than an optical test.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausschnitt, U.S. Pat. 6,137,578, hereafter ‘578, in view of Ausschnitt et. al., U.S. Pat. 7,879,515, hereafter ‘515, and further in view of Huang, U.S. Pat. 6,087,189, hereafter ‘189.
Regarding claim 6, ‘578 in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. ‘578 discloses (Col. 4, lines 53-67) that the marks control etching, which includes over-etching and under-etching, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of patterned layers is over-etched relative to the other patterned layers, and the over-etching is detected electrically or optically.
However, ‘189 discloses (abstract) wherein at least one of patterned layers is over-etched relative to the other patterned layers, and the over-etching is detected electrically or optically.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to use the structure of ‘578 to monitor over-etching, as taught by ‘189 because ‘189 teaches (Col. 1, lines 17-19) that such over-etching can result in loss of function
Conclusion
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