9DETAILED 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 Invention II, Species III in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the species are independent and distinct and require a different field of search. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. When a generic claim is found allowable, withdrawn claims are re-joined.
Claims 13 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 21, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,803,291, hereafter Fu.
Regarding claim 21, Fu discloses (Figs. 2A-2C) a method of fabricating a semiconductor structure, comprising:
forming a first alignment region (inside guard rings [28A], [28B] defined in a substrate layer [10];
forming a first frame [28A] at edges of the first alignment region; and
forming a first alignment mark [24A]-[24D], [26] in the first alignment region and bordered by the first frame [28A].
Regarding claim 23, Fu further discloses (Figs 2A-2C) further comprising:
forming a second frame [28B] inside the first frame [28A], wherein the first alignment mark[24A-D], [26] is inside the second frame [28B].
Regarding claim 27, Fu further discloses (Figs 2A-2C) wherein a first spacing between the first frame and a first side of the first alignment mark equals a second spacing between the first frame and a second side of the first alignment mark opposite the first side (the layout of Fig. 2A has a center of symmetry, so it satisfies this limitation, all lines [26] are the first alignment mark)
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 11-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroi et. al., U.S. Pat.5,889,335, hereafter Kuroi, in view of Fu et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,803,291, hereafter Fu.
Regarding claim 11, Kuroi discloses (Figs 44-47) a method of fabricating a semiconductor structure, comprising:
forming an isolation structure [2A] over a substrate layer [1] in a first alignment region [11A];
forming a process layer [6],[7],[8] over the isolation structure [2A];
forming a patterned mask [9] over the process layer [6],[7],[8]; and
`patterning the process layer [6],[7],[8] using the patterned mask as a template to form a first alignment mark [14D] in the first alignment region [11A].
Kuroi fails to explicitly disclose patterning the process layer to form a first frame at edges of the first alignment region and a first alignment mark in the first alignment region and bordered by the first frame.
However, Fu discloses (Figs 2A-2C) patterning the process layer to form a first frame [28A] at edges of the first alignment region (Fig.2A) and a first alignment mark [24A-D] in the first alignment region and bordered by the first frame [28A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the structure of Kuroi with guard rings as taught by Fu because guard rings protect against moisture and reduce electric field stress.
Regarding claim 12, Kuroi in view of Fu discloses everything as applied above.
“wherein patterning the process layer comprises: removing material of the process layer to define the first frame and the first alignment mark from raised portion of the process layer” is further obvious over the combination of references because Kuroi teaches the patterning process while Fu teaches the resulting structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the structure of Kuroi with guard rings taught by Fu for the reasons applied in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 14, Kuroi in view of Fu discloses everything as applied above. Fu further discloses (Figs 2A-2C) comprising patterning the process layer to form a second frame [2B] inside the first frame [2A], wherein the first alignment mark [24A-D] is inside the second frame [28B].
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroi et. al., U.S. Pat.5,889,335, hereafter Kuroi, in view of Fu et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,803,291, hereafter Fu, and further in view of Smith et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,573,986, hereafter Smith
Regarding claim 15, Kuroi in view of Fu discloses everything as applied above. Kuroi in view of Fu fails to explicitly disclose wherein patterning the process layer to form the first frame comprises: patterning the process layer to define spaced segments that form the first frame.
However, Smith discloses (Fig. 14, bottom pattern [1404]) a pattern of segmented first and second frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the frame of Fu to multi-segmented frame of Smith because such segmented frame-in-frame alignment marks are well known and used in the art to measure overlay error. The Supreme Court in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 indicated that “obvious to try” is a valid rationale for a finite number of alternatives, and segmented box-in-box alignment marks such as those of Smith are well known and widely used for registration and alignment among a finite number of alternatives.
Regarding claim 16, Kuroi in view of Fu in view of Smith discloses everything as applied above.
“wherein patterning the process layer to define spaced segments comprises:
patterning the process layer to define at least one of rectangular spaced segments or circular spaced segments” is further obvious over the combination of references because Smith teaches (Fig. 14, [1404], bottom) rectangular spaced segments.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,803,291, hereafter Fu.
Regarding claim 26, Fu discloses everything as applied above. Fu fails to explicitly disclose further comprising:
forming a second alignment region defined in the substrate layer adjacent the first alignment region;
forming a second frame at edges of the second alignment region; and
forming a second alignment mark in the second alignment region and bordered by the second frame.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to form a second alignment mark region, a second frame, and a second alignment mark as claimed because such formation can involve a mere duplication of parts, which is normally considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP, latest edition, 2144.04.VI.B and case law therein).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filinf date of the instant application to form the second alignment region adjacent the first alignment region is obvious because a mere rearrangement of parts was held obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP, latest edition 2144.04.VI.C, and case law therein).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,803,291, hereafter Fu, in view of Kuroi et. al., U.S. Pat.5,889,335, hereafter Kuroi.
Regarding claim 22, Fu discloses everything as applied above. Fu further discloses (Figs 3A-3E) wherein the first frame [43B] comprises raised features of a process layer [40].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to combine process features of Figs 2A-2C with process features of Figs 3A-3E because both embodiments share the same plan view (Fig. 2A)
Fu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first alignment mark comprises raised features of a process layer.
However, Kuroi discloses (Figs 44-47) wherein the first alignment mark [14D] comprises raised features of a process layer [6],[7],[8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the process of Fu with patterned alignment marks formed of features of process layer as taught by Kuroi because making alignment mark features of the same process layer as device features, as taught by Kuroi, simplifies the manufacturing process.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et. al., U.S. Pat. 6,803,291, hereafter Fu, in view of Smith et. al., U.S. Pat.6,573,986, hereafter Smith
Regarding claim 24, Fu discloses everything as applied above. Fu fails to explicitly disclose wherein forming the first frame comprises forming the first frame to define spaced segments.
However, Smith discloses (Fig. 14, [1404], bottom mark) an alignment mark comprising a first frame with segments.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to modify the frame of Fu to multi-segmented frame of Smith because such segmented frame-in-frame alignment marks are well known and used in the art to measure overlay error. The Supreme Court in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 indicated that “obvious to try” is a valid rationale for a finite number of alternatives, and segmented box-in-box alignment marks such as those of Smith are well known and widely used for registration and alignment among a finite number of alternatives.
Regarding claim 25, Fu in view of Smith discloses everything as applied above. Smith further discloses wherein the spaced segments comprise at least one of rectangular spaced segments or circular spaced segments (Fig. 14, [1404], bottom, rectangular spaced segments).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28-32 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose or make obvious all claim limitations of claim 28, specifically,
patterning the process layer to form a first frame overlying the isolation structure and a first alignment mark overlying the isolation structure.
Claims 29-32 are allowable because said claims are dependent on claim 28 and include all of its limitations.
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