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 .
Acknowledgement
Applicant’s response, dated 04/27/2026, to non-final Office Action, dated 01/28/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 remain pending. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al., CN115954342, hereafter Wang, in view of Ausschnitt et. al., U.S. Pat. 7,879,515, hereafter ‘515.
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses (Fig. 7, claim 4) an alignment structure comprising: a pattern set of alignment shapes [21], [221]-[224] comprising at least three partially overlapping shapes [21], [221]-[224] , on at least two patterned layers [21],[22], wherein the at least three partially overlapping shapes are capable of showing changes between the shapes in X, Y, and rotation (angular (rotational) misalignment is geometrically derivable from differences in X/Y displacement vectors; thus, the structure is capable of showing rotation even if rotation is not expressly reported) and wherein the at least two patterned layers are composed of an electrically conductive material, and the at least two patterned layers are entirely spaced apart and not interconnected to each other (Fig. 7, claim 4).
Wang fails to explicitly disclose the dual function alignment and etch bias structure.
However, ‘515 discloses (Col. 3, lines 19-30) the dual function alignment and etch bias 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 Wang with the post-etch bias analysis of ‘515 to improve process control while minimizing additional test structures and because Wang teaches (abstract) that electrical measurements lead to a more precise alignment.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang further discloses (claims 1, 4) wherein each of the patterned layers are composed of an the electrically conductive material comprises one of an electrically conductive metal, an electrically conductive metal alloy, an electrically conductive metal composite of an electrically conductive semiconductor.
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang further discloses (Fig. 3, claim 4) wherein each of the patterned layer [221]-[224],[21] are aligned with each other.
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang further discloses (Fig. 7) wherein at least one of patterned layers [21], [221]-[224] is misaligned relative to the other patterned layers [21], [221]-[224], and the misalignment is detected electrically (claim 4) or optically.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang further discloses (Fig. 7) wherein the at least two patterned layers comprises three or more patterned layers [21], [221]-[224].
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang further discloses wherein the shape changes are detected electrically or optically (electrically, claims 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang further discloses (Fig. 7, claims 1,4, misalignment) wherein the shape changes are caused by misalignment, under-etching, over-etching or mechanical stress.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al., CN115954342, hereafter Wang, in view of Ausschnitt et. al., U.S. Pat. 7,879,515, hereafter ‘515, and further in view of Ausschnitt, U.S. Pat. 6,137,578, hereafter ‘578.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang in view of ‘515 fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the patterned layers is present in a dielectric layer that is transparent.
However, ‘578 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang to put alignment marks in transparent dielectric material as taught in ‘578, because such material protects the alignment marks from elements while keeping them visible for the purpose of alignment.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et. al., CN115954342, hereafter Wang, 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, Wang in view of ‘515 discloses everything as applied above. Wang in view of ‘515 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 Wang 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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights