DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to applicant’s communication filed 06/16/2026.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Claims 5-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-22 are objected to for minor informalities.
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claims 2 and 18 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-17, and 19-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13, and 21 should indicate that “m” and “n” are integers. For example, line 3 of claim 1 should read “m x n detectors, wherein m and n are integers, where m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 1”. Claims 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 18, 20, and 22 are objected to due to their dependencies.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
The new title is accepted. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Due to the amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and the objections to the claims for minor informalities made in the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments over the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections made in the previous office action have been fully considered but are respectfully moot in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims. Applicant generally argues that a combination of Yamaguchi and Slotboom does not teach the amended limitations. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons detailed in the 103 rejections below.
Claims 9 and 16 have been indicated as allowable due to their amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “further comprising 1 x n intermediate frames.” Since n is at least 1, the BRI of the claim is that there is one intermediate frame. However, claim 1 recites that m is at least 2 and that there are (m-1) x n intermediate frames, so claim 1 already requires that there is at least one intermediate frame. The BRI of each of the claims is therefore the same, so claim 3 does not further limit claim 1. Furthermore, in all cases where (m-1) ≥ 1, claim 3 would require less than or equal to the number of intermediate frames recited in claim 1, which both contradicts and does not further limit claim 1.
Note: If applicant intends for the frames and/or detectors to be arranged in a rectangular array, matrix of rows and columns, lattice, or other configuration, such a configuration should be positively recited by the claims, assuming there is support in the specification. The phrases “m x n” or “1 x n” do not imply a particular physical arrangement on their own.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 5-6 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 5 recites the limitation "wherein each of the one or more second or first frames comprises a positioning assembly". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 previously recites “a positioning assembly” in line 7. It is unclear if the positioning assembly recited in claim 5 is referring to the same or to (a) different positioning assembly(/assemblies) than the one recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites a similar limitation in line 2 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 20 recites a similar limitation in line 2 (“a positioning assembly” is first recited in line 10 of claim 13) and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Note: The independent claims should recite a “first” or “primary” positioning assembly. Then the dependent claims where it is relevant can recite “a second” or “a secondary” 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 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17, and 19-22 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 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≥2 and n≥1; (The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that m = 2 and n = 1. In such an embodiment, there are therefore two detectors, a first frame, no second frames, and one intermediate frame. In other words, there are two detectors and two 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: two detector… a first frame… an intermediate frame; and a positioning assembly to provide relative movement between (i) the intermediate frame and (ii) the first frame, wherein each detector is connected to one of the intermediate or first frames, and wherein each intermediate frame is connected to the first frame”.)
(See ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: Three detectors are arranged along an X-direction, but two are movable (detectors 22a and 22c). In this example, m = 2 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 since n = 1.)
… intermediate frames… and wherein each intermediate frame is connected to one of the first or second frames. (¶ 34: “the detection apparatus 100 includes a plurality of driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c that hold the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c”. The detectors are attached to the first frame 23 via the driving mechanisms as shown in Fig. 2A. Since the detectors are both being held and are movable (see below), there is an intermediate “frame” that is holding them with respect to the first frame so that they are also movable along the frame. Each driving mechanism therefore functions as an intermediate frame that holds each of the movable detectors (namely, detectors 21a and 21c) as well as a positioning assembly.)
and a positioning assembly to provide relative movement between (i) one or more of the (m-1) x n intermediate frames and (ii) the first frame and one or more of the (n-1) second frames, wherein each detector is connected to one of the intermediate or first or second frames, (¶ 34, Fig. 2A, 3B-3D: “driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c that hold the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and can drive the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c with respect to a frame 23 in the X direction… 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 driving mechanisms 22a and 22c are a positioning assembly that moves the detectors at least along the X-direction of the first frame 23 relative to one another. Each detector 21a-c is connected to a driving mechanism that is connected to the first frame 23.)
YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach that for two detectors (i.e. m = 2 and n = 1), there is a single intermediate frame. In other words, YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach the limitation (m-1) x n intermediate frames.
However, SLOTBOOM, which is similarly directed to aligning detectors with a substrate in a metrology apparatus, teaches a configuration having a single intermediate frame that moves relative to a first frame and a second frame. The combination of YAMAGUCHI and SLOTBOOM therefore teaches (m-1) x n intermediate frames that are connected to the first and second frames. While not required by the claim, SLOTBOOM also teaches the limitation (n-1) second frames, namely at least one second frame for the case n = 2. (¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: The Y-axis stator 604 is a first frame, the measuring stage 602 is an intermediate frame, and the X-axis stator (618, see ¶ 68) that carries the measuring stage 602 is a second frame. The intermediate frame is movable along the second frame in a first direction (X-direction) and the second frame is movable with respect to the first frame in a second direction (Y-direction). It would have been obvious for the measurement stage to host a plurality of detectors, such as the detectors 21a-c of Fig. 2A of YAMAGUCHI.)
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 an intermediate frame and a second frame for positioning one or more measurement devices in two directions 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 single frame to move a plurality of detectors in a first direction and another frame movable in another direction, in order to improve the alignment of a plurality of measurement devices. YAMAGUCHI (¶ 34) at least suggests movement in the Y and Z directions, so including intermediate and/or second frames that are movable in those directions would have been an obvious adjustment to the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 3, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches further comprising 1 x n intermediate frames. (The BRI of this claim is that there is one intermediate frame, since n= 1. Since m = 2, there must be two detectors. One intermediate frame also satisfies “(m-1) x n intermediate frames”. The BRI of claim 3 is therefore the same as the BRI of claim 1 and claim 3 does not further limit claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 for how the prior art teaches these limitations.)
Regarding Claim 4, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein n≥2 and wherein the first frame comprises one or more positioning assemblies configured to position each of the one or more second frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (SLOTBOOM teaches a second frame that holds a measuring device 602 and is movable with respect to a first frame 604 in ¶ 67-68 and Fig. 6. The frame is movable using a linear motor, i.e. a positioning assembly: “Y-axis stators 604, 606 in combination with the Y-movers 612, 614 form a Y-axis linear motor for driving the measurement stage 602 in the Y direction”.
YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: The movable driving mechanisms that also hold the detectors 21a and 21c are intermediate frames that are connected to the first frame 23.
In the combination of YAMAGUCHI and SLOTBOOM it would have been obvious for the plurality of intermediate frames and detectors taught by YAMAGUCHI to be held by the second frame, namely the X-axis stator taught by SLOTBOOM. This would amount to the same movement mechanisms for the detectors taught by YAMAGUCHI to be attached to the second frame that is then moved with respect to the first frame.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 4. Such a configuration would further aid a person of ordinary skill in the art in improving the alignment of multiple measurement devices with multiple substrates.
Regarding Claim 5, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein each of the one or more second or first frames comprises a positioning assembly configured to position each of the one or more intermediate frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 34: The driving mechanisms, which must have an “intermediate frame” for holding the detector, 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.
SLOTBOOM, ¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: The positioning assembly that moves the measurement stage, i.e. intermediate frame, with respect to the second frame is “a moving magnet type X-axis linear motor” and the positioning assembly that moves the measurement stage in the Y-direction are “Y-movers 612, 614 [that] form a Y-axis linear motor for driving the measurement stage 602”.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, YAMAGUCH in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein each of the one or more intermediate frames comprises a positioning assembly configured to position the one or more detectors in a first direction and/or in a second direction. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 34: The driving mechanisms, which must have an “intermediate frame” for holding the detector, 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 in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches further comprising a substrate positioning system configured to position the substrate relative to the first frame. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 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 8, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
YAMAGUCHI further teaches further comprising a control unit configured to drive a first 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 second positioning system.
However, SLOTBOOM, which is similarly directed to aligning a detector with a substrate in a metrology apparatus, teaches a second 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.)
In addition to the motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 1, it would have been further 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. 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 10, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to drive the first 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 first 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 11, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM 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. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 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 in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches a lithographic system comprising the metrology apparatus according to claim 1. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 27-32, Fig. 1: exposure apparatus 1 is a lithographic system comprising the metrology apparatus 100.)
Regarding Claim 13, YAMAGUCHI teaches a method 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≥2 and n≥1, the method comprising (The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is that m = 2 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 using a metrology apparatus comprising two detectors, the method comprising providing first relative movement of… a first frame of the metrology apparatus; positioning a substrate relative to the first frame… providing, by a positioning assembly, second relative movement between (i) an intermediate frame and (ii) the first frame, wherein each detector is connected to one of the intermediate or first frames, and wherein the intermediate frame is connected to the first frame; and measuring a parameter of interest of the target using one or more of the detectors.”)
(See ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: Three detectors are arranged along an X-direction, but two are movable (detectors 22a and 22c). In this example, m = 2 and n = 1.)
positioning a substrate relative to the first frame and the (n-1) second frames; (Again, the BRI of this limitation reads, “positioning a substrate relative to the first frame”. In YAMAGUCHI: ¶ 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.)
…wherein each intermediate frame is connected to one of the first or second frames; (¶ 34: “the detection apparatus 100 includes a plurality of driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c that hold the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c”. The detectors are attached to the first frame 23 via the driving mechanisms as shown in Fig. 2A. Since the detectors are both being held and are movable (see below), there is an intermediate “frame” that is holding them with respect to the first frame so that they are also movable along the frame. Each driving mechanism therefore functions as an intermediate frame that holds each of the movable detectors (namely, detectors 21a and 21c) as well as a positioning assembly.)
providing, by a positioning assembly, second relative movement between (i) one or more of (m-1) x n intermediate frames and (ii) the first frame and one or more of the (n-1) second frames, wherein each detector is connected to one of the intermediate or first or second frames… (¶ 34, Fig. 2A, 3B-3D: “driving mechanisms 22a, 22b, and 22c that hold the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c, respectively, and can drive the plurality of detectors 21a, 21b, and 21c with respect to a frame 23 in the X direction… 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 driving mechanisms 22a and 22c are a positioning assembly that moves the detectors at least along the X-direction of the first frame 23 relative to one another. Each detector 21a-c is connected to a driving mechanism that is connected to the first frame 23.)
and measuring a parameter of interest of the target using one or more of the detectors. (¶ 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.)
YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach providing first relative movement between (n-1) second frames of the metrology apparatus and a first frame of the metrology apparatus
YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach that for the case m = 2 and n = 1, there is a single intermediate frame. In other words, YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach the limitation (m-1) x n intermediate frames.
However, SLOTBOOM, which is similarly directed to aligning detectors with a substrate in a metrology apparatus, teaches a configuration having a single intermediate frame that moves relative to a first frame and a second frame. The combination of YAMAGUCHI and SLOTBOOM therefore teaches (m-1) x n intermediate frames that are connected to the first and second frames. While not required by the claim, SLOTBOOM also teaches the limitation (n-1) second frames, namely at least one second frame for the case n = 2. (¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: The Y-axis stator 604 is a first frame, the measuring stage 602 is an intermediate frame, and the X-axis stator (618, see ¶ 68) that carries the measuring stage 602 is a second frame. The intermediate frame is movable along the second frame in a first direction (X-direction) and the second frame is movable with respect to the first frame in a second direction (Y-direction). It would have been obvious for the measurement stage to host a plurality of detectors, such as the detectors 21a-c of Fig. 2A of YAMAGUCHI.)
SLOTBOOM also teaches providing first relative movement between (n-1) second frames of the metrology apparatus and a first frame of the metrology apparatus; (Again, the BRI of this limitations reads, “providing first relative movement of… a first frame of the metrology apparatus;”. However, SLOTBOOM teaches relative movement between a first frame and a second frame: ¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: The second frame, which is the X-axis stator that holds the measurement stage, is movable in a Y-direction relative to a first frame 604.)
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 an intermediate frame and a second frame for positioning one or more measurement devices in two directions 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 single frame to move a plurality of detectors in a first direction and another frame movable in another direction, in order to improve the alignment of a plurality of measurement devices. YAMAGUCHI (¶ 34) at least suggests movement in the Y and Z directions, so including intermediate and/or second frames that are movable in those directions would have been an obvious adjustment to the apparatus.
Claim 21 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium but otherwise recites the same limitations as claim 13. Claim 21 is therefore rejected for the same reasoning discussed above.
Regarding Claim 14, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein the parameter of interest comprises overlay and/or a critical dimension. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 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.
Also see SLOTBOOM, ¶ 54: Parameters of interest being measured include overlay errors and critical dimensions.)
Claim 22 recites the same limitations as claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasoning.
Regarding Claim 15, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein the providing first relative movement and the providing second relative movement are carried out once per one or more substrates (Since a second frame is not required for the case m = 2, n = 1, there would be no positioning of a second frame.) (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 34: The driving mechanisms, which must have an “intermediate frame” for holding the detector, 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 (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 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 17, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches further comprising positioning at least one detector relative to a respective intermediate frame. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 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 detector that remains fixed in its frame, i.e. a respective intermediate frame.)
Regarding Claim 19, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein n≥2 and 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. (SLOTBOOM teaches a second frame that holds a measuring device and is movable with respect to a first frame 604 in ¶ 67-68 and Fig. 6. The frame is movable using a linear motor, i.e. a positioning assembly: “Y-axis stators 604, 606 in combination with the Y-movers 612, 614 form a Y-axis linear motor for driving the measurement stage 602 in the Y direction”.
YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 34, Fig. 2A: The movable driving mechanisms that also hold the detectors 21a and 21c are intermediate frames that are connected to the first frame 23.
In the combination of YAMAGUCHI and SLOTBOOM it would have been obvious for the plurality of intermediate frames and detectors taught by YAMAGUCHI to be held by the second frame, namely the X-axis stator taught by SLOTBOOM. This would amount to the same movement mechanisms for the detectors taught by YAMAGUCHI to be attached to the second frame that is then moved with respect to the first frame.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 1 applies to claim 4. Such a configuration would further aid a person of ordinary skill in the art in improving the alignment of multiple measurement devices with multiple substrates.
Regarding Claim 20, YAMAGUCHI in view of SLOTBOOM further teaches wherein each of the one or more second or first frames comprises a positioning assembly configured to position each of the one or more intermediate frames in a first direction and/or a second direction. (YAMAGUCHI, ¶ 34: The driving mechanisms, which must have an “intermediate frame” for holding the detector, 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.
SLOTBOOM, ¶ 67-68, Fig. 6: The positioning assembly that moves the measurement stage, i.e. intermediate frame, with respect to the second frame is “a moving magnet type X-axis linear motor” and the positioning assembly that moves the measurement stage in the Y-direction are “Y-movers 612, 614 [that] form a Y-axis linear motor for driving the measurement stage 602”.)
The same motivation to combine discussed in the rejection of claim 13 applies to claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In claim 9, since m x n ≥ 3 and m ≥ 2, either 1) n is at least 2 and there are four detectors, a second frame, and two intermediate frames or 2) m is at least 3 while n is 1 and there are three detectors and two intermediate frames that are positioned with respect to the first frame to set a pitch for the detectors. Such a configuration is not taught by the prior art or made reasonably obvious by a combination of their teachings. Therefore, the prior art or record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggests the limitations:
“wherein m x n ≥ 3 and wherein the control unit is configured to drive the second positioning system such that prior to a measurement of a target of a substrate, a pitch between intermediate frames is set using the second positioning system, which pitch is held for at least two measurements.”
In claim 16, since m x n ≥ 3 and m ≥ 2, either 1) n is at least 2 and there are four detectors, a second frame, and two intermediate frames or 2) m is at least 3 while n is 1 and there are three detectors and two intermediate frames that are positioned with respect to the first frame to set a mutual distance between he detectors. Such a configuration is not taught by the prior art or made reasonably obvious by a combination of their teachings. Therefore, the prior art or record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggests the limitations:
“wherein m x n ≥ 3, wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of fields with a specific field size, and wherein the providing first relative movement and the providing second relative movement set a mutual distance between the intermediate frames to match the field size or a multiple thereof.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aoki (US 2020/0004166 A1) teaches a measurement apparatus with a substrate holder that is movable in the X and Y directions. (Abstract, ¶ 7)
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 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
Prosecution Insights