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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claims 4, 8-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 4, 5, and 19-20 are objected to for minor informalities.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 5, and 19-20 all recite “one or more secondary positioning assemblies” or “a secondary positioning assembly”; however, a first or primary positioning assembly is not recited previously. In terms of claim interpretation, the examiner is not giving weight to the term “secondary”. The examiner suggests using “first”, “primary”, or no qualifier unless multiple positioning assemblies are claimed that must be distinguished from each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13-20 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "positioning the (m -1) x n intermediate frames relative to the first and the (n – 1) second frames" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites in line 3 that there are “m x n intermediate frames”. It is unclear whether the limitation in line 10 is referring to the m x n intermediate frames or to a portion of the m x n intermediate frames equivalent to a value of (m – 1) x n. There is no previous recitation of “(m – 1) x n intermediate frames” before reciting that these frames are positioned relative to the first frame and (n – 1) second frame. Claim 13 is therefore indefinite.
Claims 14-20 are rejected due to their dependencies.
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)(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, 5-7, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by YAMAGUCHI (US 2021/0003930 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, YAMAGUCHI teaches a metrology apparatus for measuring a parameter of interest of a target on a substrate, the metrology apparatus comprising: (Fig. 1, 2B, ¶ 26, 32, 35, 50, 68: A metrology apparatus 100 measures the coordinate position of a target object on a substrate.)
m x n detectors, wherein m≥1 and n≥1; (The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that m = 1 and n = 1. In such an embodiment, there is therefore one detector, a first frame, no second frames, and no intermediate frames. The BRI of the claim therefore reads “A metrology apparatus for measuring a parameter of interest of a target on a substrate, the metrology apparatus comprising: one detector… a first frame… wherein the detector is connected to the first frame”. Note that the claim does not recite or imply any particular physical arrangement of the detectors other than the detectors being connected to some type of frame.)
(See ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: Three detectors are arranged along an X-direction. In this example, m = 3 and n = 1.)
a first frame; (¶ 34, Fig. 2A: A first frame 23.)
(n-1) second frames; and (A second frame is not required by this arrangement.)
(m-1) x n intermediate frames, wherein each detector is connected to one of the intermediate or first or second frames, and wherein each intermediate frame is connected to one of the first or second frames. (¶ 34, Fig. 2A, 3B-3D: “Note that it suffices here as long as the relative positions of the detection regions of the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c can be adjusted at least along the X direction by the plurality of driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c… the detector 21b located at the center among the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c may not be provided with a driving mechanism, and the relative position of the detection region of the detector 21b may be adjusted using the driving mechanism 22a and the driving mechanism 22c.” The examiner is interpreting the driving mechanisms 22a and 22c as the two intermediate frames, since there must be some type of frame or support for each detector to be able to be moved along the X-direction of the first frame 23. Each detector 21a-c is connected either to the driving mechanisms (i.e. the intermediate frames) or the first frame 23. The driving mechanisms are also connected to the first frame 23.)
Regarding Claim 2, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein m x n ≥ 2. (The BRI of this claim is that m = 2 and n = 1 OR m = 1 and n = 2. In one case, there are two detectors, no second frames, and one intermediate frame. In the other case, there is two detectors, one second frame, and no intermediate frames. A prior art reference containing two frames (a first and a second/intermediate) and two detectors would read on the claim.)
(See ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: There are 3 detectors, so m x n is greater than 2. The detection apparatus includes a first frame and a plurality of driving mechanisms, which are intermediate frames that move along the first frame.)
Regarding Claim 3, YAMAGUCHI further teaches further comprising 1 x n intermediate frames. (The BRI of this claim is that there is one intermediate frame, since n= 1. Therefore, there must be two detectors to satisfy “(m-1) x n intermediate frames”. The BRI of claim 3 is therefore the same as the BRI of claim 2.)
(See ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: The driving mechanisms which attach the detectors to the first frame are intermediate frames. There are two or three driving mechanisms so at least one intermediate frames is comprised by the arrangement taught by YAMAGUCHI.)
Regarding Claim 5, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein each of the one or more second or first frames comprises a secondary positioning assembly configured to position each of the one or more intermediate frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (The BRI of the claim includes that there is at least one intermediate frame in order for the apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed function and because it recites “the one or more intermediate frames”. Since there is no previous recitation of a first positioning assembly, the claim reads “the one or more second or first frames comprises a positioning assembly”.)
(¶ 34: The driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate frames) are arranged on the first frame 23. They are used to position each of the intermediate frames at least in a X-direction. Movement in a Y and Z direction is also suggested. The first frame therefore comprises a positioning assembly.)
Regarding Claim 6, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein each of the one or more intermediate frames comprises a primary positioning assembly configured to position the one or more detectors in a first direction and/or in a second direction. (The BRI of the claim includes that there is at least one intermediate frame in order for the apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed function.)
(¶ 34: The driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate frames) are arranged on the first frame 23. They are used to position each of the intermediate frames at least in a X-direction. Movement in a Y and Z direction is also suggested. Each intermediate frame therefore comprises a positioning assembly to position its respective detector in at least a first direction.)
Regarding Claim 7, YAMAGUCHI further teaches further comprising a substrate positioning system configured to position the substrate relative to the first frame. (¶ 33, 68, Fig. 1 stage position controller 1000: A substrate (wafer) is positioned relative to the detection apparatus having frame 23, i.e. relative to the first frame.)
Regarding Claim 11, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the one or more detectors are configured to measure a position of a target on a substrate relative to another target or reference on the substrate and/or a reference external to the substrate. (¶ 32, 38, 48-50, 63-64, Fig. 1: The detectors measure position information, such as coordinate position and height, of target objects on a substrate (wafer) 3 relative to a reference member 39 that is external to the substrate.)
Regarding Claim 12, YAMAGUCHI further teaches a lithographic system comprising the metrology apparatus according to claim 1. (¶ 27-32, Fig. 1: exposure apparatus 1 is a lithographic system comprising the metrology apparatus 100.)
Regarding Claim 13, YAMAGUCHI teaches a method for measuring a parameter of interest of a target on a substrate using a metrology apparatus (Fig. 1, 2B, ¶ 26, 32, 35, 50, 68: A metrology apparatus 100 measures the coordinate position of a target object on a substrate.)
comprising m x n detectors, wherein m≥1 and n≥1, (The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that m = 1 and n = 1. In such an embodiment, there is therefore one detector, a first frame, no second frames, and one intermediate frame. The BRI of the claim therefore reads “A method for measuring a parameter of interest of a target on a substrate using a metrology apparatus comprising one detector, a first frame, and an intermediate frame, wherein the detector is connected to the intermediate frame, and wherein the intermediate frame is connected to the first frame… the method comprising… positioning a substrate relative to the first frame… and measuring the parameter of interest.” Note the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 13. The examiner is assuming “the (m-1) x n intermediate frames” recited in line 10 of the claim is meant to read that a portion “(m-1) x n” of the “the m x n intermediate frames” is positioned. If m = 1, then no intermediate frames are positioned relative to the first frame. Note that the claim does not recite or imply any particular physical arrangement of the detectors other than the detectors being connected to an intermediate frame.)
(See ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: Three detectors are arranged along an X-direction. In this example, m = 3 and n = 1.)
a first frame, (¶ 34, Fig. 2A: A first frame 23.)
(n-1) second frames (A second frame is not required by this arrangement.)
and m x n intermediate frames, wherein each detector is connected to one intermediate frame, and wherein each intermediate frame is connected to one of the first or second frames, (¶ 34, Fig. 2A, 3B-3D: The examiner is interpreting the driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c as the three intermediate frames, since there must be some type of frame or support for each detector to be able to be moved along the X-direction of the first frame 23. Each detector 21a-c is connected to the driving mechanisms (i.e. the intermediate frames). The driving mechanisms are also connected to the first frame 23.)
the method comprising: positioning the (n-1) second frames relative to the first frame; (Since a second frame is not required by this arrangement, a second frame is not positioned relative to a first frame.)
positioning a substrate relative to the first frame and the (n-1) second frames; (¶ 33, 68, Fig. 1 stage position controller 1000: A substrate (wafer) is positioned relative to the detection apparatus having frame 23, i.e. relative to the first frame.)
positioning the (m -1) x n intermediate frames relative to the first and the (n- 1) second frames; (¶ 34: “Note that it suffices here as long as the relative positions of the detection regions of the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c can be adjusted at least along the X direction by the plurality of driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c… the detector 21b located at the center among the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c may not be provided with a driving mechanism, and the relative position of the detection region of the detector 21b may be adjusted using the driving mechanism 22a and the driving mechanism 22c.” Two of the detectors, attached to the first frame by an intermediate frame having a driving mechanism, are movable with respect to the first frame. See Figs. 3B-3D, which illustrate the detectors being moved relative to the first frame and the substrate being imaged.)
and measuring the parameter of interest. (¶ 38, Figs. 3B-D: Position information and correction information, which are parameters of interest, of marks on a wafer are measured simultaneously by the plurality of detectors.)
Regarding Claim 14, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the parameter of interest comprises overlay and/or a critical dimension of a target on the substrate. (¶ 39, 49, 56, 61-63, 74-77: Position information of a plurality of marks on a substrate and correction information correspond to an overlay measurement.)
Regarding Claim 15, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein (Since a second frame is not required in the disclosed arrangement of detectors, there would be no positioning of a second frame.) (¶ 34: The driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate frames) move and individually position the plurality of detectors along the X-direction of the first frame at least one time. See, for example, ¶ 38 and Figs. 3B-3D: Where the detectors remain in the same position while the substrate is moved by the wafer stage relative to the first frame.)
and the positioning the substrate relative to the first frame (¶ 33, 38, Figs. 2B-D: “the controller 1100 controls the wafer stage WS to align the marks 32 on the wafer 3 with the detection regions of the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c of the detection apparatus 100 and obtains the coordinate positions of the marks 32. At this time, the controller 1100 controls the wafer stage WS so as to detect a plurality of marks set as the measurement targets in a shortest possible time.” The wafer stage positions the substrate relative to the first frame of the detection apparatus in order for measurements to be taken by the detectors one or more time per substrate.)
Regarding Claim 16, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of fields with a specific field size, and wherein (Since a second frame is not required in the disclosed arrangement of detectors, there would be no positioning of a second frame.) (¶ 34, 38, Figs. 3A-D: A plurality of marks 32 on a substrate 3 are fields having specific field size. The driving mechanisms 22 (i.e. the intermediate frames) are positioned relative to each other in order to align the detection regions of the plurality of detectors with the marks and match multiple marks simultaneously. Multiple measurements are then taken simultaneously.)
Regarding Claim 17, YAMAGUCHI further teaches further comprising positioning at least one detector relative to a respective intermediate frame. (¶ 34: “Note that it suffices here as long as the relative positions of the detection regions of the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c can be adjusted at least along the X direction by the plurality of driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c… the detector 21b located at the center among the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c may not be provided with a driving mechanism, and the relative position of the detection region of the detector 21b may be adjusted using the driving mechanism 22a and the driving mechanism 22c.” In an embodiment, two of the intermediate frames having the driving mechanisms for moving their respective detectors position their respective detectors relative to a center intermediate frame, which is a respective intermediate frame.)
Regarding Claim 18, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein m x n ≥2. (The BRI of this claim is that m = 2 and n = 1 OR m = 1 and n = 2. In one case, there are two detectors, no second frames, and one intermediate frame. In the other case, there is two detectors, one second frame, and no intermediate frames. A prior art reference containing at least two frames (a first and a second) and two detectors would read on the claim.)
(See ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: There are 3 detectors, so m x n is greater than 2. The detection apparatus includes a first frame and a plurality of driving mechanisms, which are intermediate frames that move along the first frame.)
Regarding Claim 20, YAMAGUCHI further teaches wherein each of the one or more second or first frames comprises a secondary positioning assembly configured to position each of the one or more intermediate frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (The BRI of the claim includes that there is at least one intermediate frame in order for the apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed function and because it recites “the one or more intermediate frames”. Since there is no previous recitation of a first positioning assembly, the claim reads “the one or more second or first frames comprises a positioning assembly”.)
(¶ 34: The driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate frames) are arranged on the first frame 23. They are used to position each of the intermediate frames at least in a X-direction. Movement in a Y and Z direction is also suggested. The first frame therefore comprises a positioning assembly.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 4, 8-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGUCHI (US 2021/0003930 A1) in view of SLOTBOOM (US 2011/0013188 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, YAMAGUCHI teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 4 depends.
While YAMAGUCHI (¶ 34, Fig. 2A) at least suggests that the detectors 21 attached to the first frame 23 via the driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate frames) 22 can be moved in a Y direction, YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach wherein the first frame comprises one or more secondary positioning assemblies configured to position each of the one or more second frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (The BRI of the claim includes that there is at least one second frame in order for the apparatus to be capable of performing the claimed function and because it recites “the one or more second frames”. Since there is no previous recitation of a first positioning assembly, the claim reads “the first frame comprises one or more positioning assemblies”.)
However, SLOTBOOM, which is similarly directed to aligning a detector with a substrate in a metrology apparatus, teaches wherein the first frame comprises one or more secondary positioning assemblies configured to position each of the one or more second frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: The measurement stage 602 is equivalent to an intermediate frame that moves in an X-direction along a stator 618 using a first positioning assembly. The stator 604 is a first frame and Y-axis mover 612 is a secondary positioning assembly configured to position a second frame in the second direction. The stator 618, which the measurement stage is connected to, is a second frame that is moved in the Y-direction.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positioning system for a substrate alignment and measurement apparatus taught by YAMAGUCHI by including a second frame to be moved in a second direction for positioning one or more measurement devices as taught by SLOTBOOM. Since the references are similarly directed to aligning a substrate for a measurement apparatus, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by SLOTBOOM (¶ 5), “with multiple alignment heads, calibration of the alignment head system becomes difficult and so improvements are needed to improve calibration of multiple alignment heads, to improve overlay accuracy and product yield.” A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have been motivated to combine the arrangements taught by YAMAGUCHI and SLOTBOOM, such as by including a frame movable in another direction, in order to improve the alignment of a plurality of measurement devices.
Regarding Claim 8, YAMAGUCHI teaches all the limitations of claim 1, on which claim 4 depends.
YAMAGUCHI further teaches further comprising a control unit configured to drive a primary positioning system configured to position the one or more detectors in a first direction and… configured to position the one or more detectors in a second direction. (¶ 34: The plurality of detectors are individually positioned in an X and a Y direction by a driving mechanism. A positioning system therefore exists for moving the detectors in a first and second direction.)
While YAMAGUCHI (¶ 34, Fig. 2A) at least suggests that the detectors 21 attached to the first frame 23 via the driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate frames) 22 can be moved in a Y direction, YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach that the detectors are moved in a second direction by a secondary positioning system.
However, SLOTBOOM, which is similarly directed to aligning a detector with a substrate in a metrology apparatus, teaches a secondary positioning system for positioning detectors in a second direction. (¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: A first positioning assembly are movers 612/614 having linear motors for moving the measurement device in a Y-direction. A second positioning assembly for moving a measurement stage 602 is a stator 618 having a linear motor that moves the measurement device in an X-direction.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positioning system for a substrate alignment and measurement apparatus taught by YAMAGUCHI by including two positioning assemblies for positioning one or more measurement devices as taught by SLOTBOOM. Since the references are similarly directed to aligning a substrate for a measurement apparatus, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by SLOTBOOM (¶ 5), “with multiple alignment heads, calibration of the alignment head system becomes difficult and so improvements are needed to improve calibration of multiple alignment heads, to improve overlay accuracy and product yield.” A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have been motivated to combine the arrangements taught by YAMAGUCHI and SLOTBOOM, such as by including a frame movable in another direction, in order to improve the alignment of a plurality of measurement devices.
Regarding Claim 9, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to drive the secondary positioning system such that prior to a measurement of a target of a substrate, (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 38, 45, 71, 74, 76: An alignment operation of the plurality of detectors with respect to marks on a substrate is executed before execution of a correction information measurement.)
a pitch between intermediate frames is set using the secondary positioning system, which pitch is held for at least two measurements. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 34, 38, Figs. 3B-D: The pitch, or space, between the driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate heads) is set by individually operating each driving mechanism 22 to move the detectors 21 with respect to each other. A pitch being held for at least two measurements would have been obvious depending on the wafer being measured and the sequence of measurements desired. In the example shown in Figs. 3B-D, the pitch appears the same for multiple measurements. In some substrate positions, two marks may be aligned by the set pitch, such as in Fig. 3B and 3D. The same pitch may also be aligned with three marks, such as in Fig. 3D. Other arrangements and how many measurements to maintain the same position of the detectors with respect to each other (¶ 34) would have been obvious modifications to a person of ordinary skill in the art.)
Regarding Claim 10, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to drive the primary positioning system such that prior to each measurement of a target of the substrate, the one or more detectors are aligned with one or more targets of the substrate using the respective primary positioning system. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 38, 45, 71, 74, 76: An alignment operation of the plurality of detectors with respect to marks on a substrate is executed before execution of a correction information measurement. In another embodiment, the correction information is obtained in the same step as the alignment step, but the alignment would still have to be performed.
Also see SLOTBOOM, ¶ 63, 67-68, 75: The positioning systems align the detectors prior to measurement of a substrate.)
Regarding Claim 19, YAMAGUCHI teaches all the limitations of claim 13, on which claim 19 depends.
While YAMAGUCHI (¶ 34, Fig. 2A) at least suggests that the detectors 21 attached to the first frame 23 via the driving mechanisms (i.e. intermediate frames) 22 can be moved in a Y direction, YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach wherein the first frame comprises one or more secondary positioning assemblies configured to position each of the one or more second frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (The BRI of the claim includes that there is at least one second frame in order for the claimed function to be performed and because it recites “the one or more second frames”. Since there is no previous recitation of a first positioning assembly, the claim reads “the first frame comprises one or more positioning assemblies”.)
However, SLOTBOOM, which is similarly directed to aligning a detector with a substrate in a metrology apparatus, teaches wherein the first frame comprises one or more secondary positioning assemblies configured to position each of the one or more second frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: The measurement stage 602 is equivalent to an intermediate frame that moves in an X-direction along a stator 618 using a first positioning assembly. The stator 604 is a first frame and Y-axis mover 612 is a secondary positioning assembly configured to position a second frame in the second direction. The stator 618, which the measurement stage is connected to, is a second frame that is moved in the Y-direction.)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the positioning system for a substrate alignment and measurement apparatus taught by YAMAGUCHI by including a second frame to be moved in a second direction for positioning one or more measurement devices as taught by SLOTBOOM. Since the references are similarly directed to aligning a substrate for a measurement apparatus, the combination would have yielded predictable results. As taught by SLOTBOOM (¶ 5), “with multiple alignment heads, calibration of the alignment head system becomes difficult and so improvements are needed to improve calibration of multiple alignment heads, to improve overlay accuracy and product yield.” A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have been motivated to combine the arrangements taught by YAMAGUCHI and SLOTBOOM, such as by including a frame movable in another direction, in order to improve the alignment of a plurality of measurement devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (US 2004/0212801 A1) teaches alignment of detector on a wafer, the detectors being arranged in groups. (Figs. 3-5)
Butler (US 2019/0354021 A1) teaches a lithographic apparatus having sub-frames. (¶ 44, 56, 57)
Okudo (US 2009/0267165 A1) teaches a semiconductor wafer having a plurality of sensor units, each of which comprises a frame having an opening, a movable portion held in the opening to be movable relative to the frame. (¶ 8)
Mueller (US 2023/0221658 A1) teaches a primary and secondary positioning assembly for moving a substrate relative to a detection apparatus. (Figs. 1-3, ¶ 34)
Lee (US 9,574,875 B2) teaches a measurement apparatus for a wafer having a plurality of frames. (Fig. 5)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 EST.
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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118