Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/296,502

OPTIMIZATION METHOD OF OVERLAY MEASUREMENT DEVICE AND OVERLAY MEASUREMENT DEVICE PERFORMING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Apr 06, 2023
Examiner
MENDOZA, ALEXANDRIA ARELLANO
Art Unit
2877
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Auros Technology Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
5 granted / 7 resolved
+3.4% vs TC avg
Strong +50% interview lift
Without
With
+50.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
57
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.3%
+17.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.2%
-22.8% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 7 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment The amendment filed 11/11/2025 has been entered. The amended claims overcome all prior 112(b) rejections. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 remain pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. 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. Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (US2019285407A1), which incorporates Kolchin (US9709510B2) in its entirety with regards to the method to optimize apertures (Chuang: paragraph [0048]), in view of Marler (Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S. The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: new insights. Struct Multidisc Optim 41, 853–862 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0460-7) and Brunner (US20140168740A1). Regarding claim 1, Chuang and Kolchin teaches a method of optimizing an overlay measurement device by adjusting at least one of locations and aperture shapes of a plurality of diaphragms placed in an optical path of the overlay measurement device (Kolchin: column 2, lines 4-8), the method comprising: a) measuring initial performance indicators of the overlay measurement device using an initial parameter combination based on the locations and the aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms, with respect to at least one location on a semiconductor wafer on which an overlay mark to be measured is formed (Kolchin: column 2, lines 31-44 disclose a method for taking an images generated by the optical element (apertures)); b) automatically obtaining, on the basis of the initial performance indicators, an optimal parameter combination based on the locations and the aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms (Kolchin: column 2, lines 31-44 discloses a method for using initial images taken to determine the best configuration for the aperture); and c) changing the locations (Kolchin: column 19, lines 44-53) and the aperture shapes (Kolchin: column 19, lines 54-67) of the plurality of diaphragms according to the optimal parameter combination (column 2, lines 4-9), wherein in the step b), the automatically obtaining the optimal parameter combination comprises: obtaining performance indicators for each of a plurality of parameter combinations based on the locations and the aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms for each respective parameter combination (Kolchin: column 2, lines 31-44). Chuang and Kolchin fail to teach assigning weightings to the performance indicators of each parameter combination, respectively; and selecting the optimal parameter combination by selecting, among the plurality of parameter combinations, one parameter combination as the optimal parameter combination, wherein the optimal parameter combination minimizes a sum of the performance indicators to which the weightings are assigned, and wherein in the step c), the changing the locations and the aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms includes adjusting the location and the aperture shape of each of the plurality of diaphragms iteratively, so as to obtain the optimal parameter combination having the minimized sum of the performance indicators. Marler, which presents an overview of a method which seeks to determine an optimal parameter combination and thus is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced, teaches assigning weightings to performance indicators (eq. 2), and selecting the optimal combination which minimizes a sum of the weighted parameters (abstract; page 854, column 2, paragraph above equation 2) to provide an optimal parameter combination (page 855, column 1, paragraph 1). Marler discloses the method of minimizing a weighted sum to find an optimal parameter combination is basic and easy to use (page 861, column 1, point number 7). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Chuang and Kolchin with the minimizing sum method of Marler as it is a basic and easy to use method to find an optimal parameter combination. However, in the same field of endeavor of changing aperture parameters for wafer inspection systems, Brunner discloses a method where an algorithm for determining optimal aperture shape for a certain case and an automatic system which quickly changes apertures for use in optical wafer inspection systems based on the determining algorithm (paragraph [0070]). Brunner discloses that by automatically changing the aperture parameters based on an algorithm to achieve optimal parameters, the need for manual installation is reduces, as well as fabrication lead times or inspection downtimes, which overall reduces costs and manufacturing times (paragraph [0070]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method which changes the aperture shape and location based on a minimization of weighted sums as taught in Chuang and Kolchin as modified by Marler with the iterative changing of aperture parameters as taught in Brunner in order to reduce cost and manufacturing time. Regarding claim 8, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the aperture shapes of the diaphragms are selected among circular (Kolchin: column 20, line 13), quadrangular, ring, and cross shapes. Regarding claim 9, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches one or more of the plurality of diaphragms is a variable diaphragm (Chuang: paragraphs [0045] and [0047] disclose varying the diameter of the apertures. The examiner is interpreting this to mean the diaphragm is variable). Regarding claim 10, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 9 but further teaches one or more of the variable diaphragms is an iris-type variable diaphragm of which an aperture diameter varies (Kolchin teaches a flexible aperture mechanism (column 20, lines 56-67) to change the shape and size of the aperture. An iris-type variable diaphragm is a well-known and widely used type of variable aperture diaphragm). Regarding claim 11, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 9, and further teaches one or more of the variable diaphragms is provided with a plate in which a plurality of apertures having different shapes are formed (Kolchin: sliders - column 19, line 59), and is configured to change the aperture placed in the optical path by rotating or linearly moving the plate (Kolchin: sliders move in the x/y direction to change shape and size, column 19, lines 56-62). Regarding claim 12, Chuang and Kolchin teach an overlay measurement device (Chuang: 100, Fig. 1), comprising: an imaging device including a plurality of diaphragms (Chuang: 114, 130, Fig. 1) placed in an optical path for obtaining an overlay mark image (Chuang: Fig. 1); and a controller communicatively coupled to the imaging device (Chuang: 120, Fig. 1), the controller including at least one memory (Chuang: 124, Fig. 1) comprising instructions (Chuang: 126, Fig. 1) and the controller further including at least one processor configured to execute the instructions within the at least one memory to implement (Chuang: 122, Fig. 1): a) measuring initial performance indicators of the overlay measurement device using an initial parameter combination based on locations and aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms, with respect to at least one location on a semiconductor wafer on which an overlay mark to be measured is formed (Kolchin: column 2, lines 31-44 disclose a method for taking an images generated by the optical element (apertures)); b) automatically obtaining, on the basis of the initial performance indicators, an optimal parameter combination based on the locations and the aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms (Kolchin: column 2, lines 31-44 discloses a method for using initial images taken to determine the best configuration for the aperture); and c) changing the locations (Kolchin: column 19, lines 44-53) and the aperture shapes (Kolchin: column 19, lines 54-67) of the plurality of diaphragms according to the optimal parameter combination (column 2, lines 4-9), wherein the at least one memory is further configured to execute the instructions within the at least one memory to implement: obtaining performance indicators for each of a plurality of parameter combinations based on the locations and the aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms for each respective parameter combination (Kolchin: column 2, lines 31-44). Chuang and Kolchin fail to teach assigning weightings to the performance indicators of each parameter combination, respectively; and selecting the optimal parameter combination by selecting, among the plurality of parameter combinations, one parameter combination as the optimal parameter combination, wherein the optimal parameter combination minimizes a sum of the performance indicators to which the weightings are assigned, and wherein the at least one memory is further configured to execute the instructions within the at least one memory to implement adjusting the location and the aperture shape of each of the plurality of diaphragms iteratively, so as to obtain the optimal parameter combination having the minimized sum of the performance indicators. However, Marler teaches assigning weightings to performance indicators (eq. 2), and selecting the optimal combination which minimizes a sum of the weighted parameters (abstract; page 854, column 2, paragraph above equation 2) to provide an optimal parameter combination (page 855, column 1, paragraph 1). Marler discloses the method of minimizing a weighted sum to find an optimal parameter combination is basic and easy to use (page 861, column 1, point number 7). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method of Chuang and Kolchin with the minimizing sum method of Marler as it is a basic and easy to use method to find an optimal parameter combination. Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler fails to teach in the step c), the changing the locations and the aperture shapes of the plurality of diaphragms includes adjusting the location and the aperture shape of each of the plurality of diaphragms iteratively, so as to obtain the optimal parameter combination having the minimized sum of the performance indicators. However, in the same field of endeavor of changing aperture parameters for wafer inspection systems, Brunner discloses a method where an algorithm for determining optimal aperture shape for a certain case and an automatic system which quickly changes apertures for use in optical wafer inspection systems based on the determining algorithm (paragraph [0070]). Brunner discloses that by automatically changing the aperture parameters based on an algorithm to achieve optimal parameters, the need for manual installation is reduces, as well as fabrication lead times or inspection downtimes, which overall reduces costs and manufacturing times (paragraph [0070]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method which changes the aperture shape and location based on a minimization of weighted sums as taught in Chuang and Kolchin as modified by Marler with the iterative changing of aperture parameters as taught in Brunner in order to reduce cost and manufacturing time. Regarding claim 17, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches the aperture shapes of the diaphragms are selected among circular (Kolchin: column 20, line 13), quadrangular, ring, and cross shapes. Regarding claim 18, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 12, and further teaches one or more of the variable diaphragms is an iris-type variable diaphragm of which an aperture diameter varies (Kolchin teaches a flexible aperture mechanism (column 20, lines 56-67) to change the shape and size of the aperture. An iris-type variable diaphragm is a well-known and widely used type of variable aperture diaphragm). Regarding claim 20, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 18, and further teaches one or more of the variable diaphragms is provided with a plate in which a plurality of apertures having different shapes are formed (Kolchin: sliders - column 19, line 59), and is configured to change the aperture placed in the optical path by rotating or linearly moving the plate (Kolchin: sliders move in the x/y direction to change shape and size, column 19, lines 56-62). Regarding claim 19, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 18 and further teaches one or more of the variable diaphragms is an iris-type variable diaphragm of which an aperture diameter varies (Kolchin teaches a flexible aperture mechanism (column 20, lines 56-67) to change the shape and size of the aperture. An iris-type variable diaphragm is a well-known and widely used type of variable aperture diaphragm). Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (US2019285407A1), which incorporates Kolchin (US9709510B2) in its entirety with regards to the programmable apertures described (Chuang: paragraph [0048]) in view of Marler (Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S. The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: new insights. Struct Multidisc Optim 41, 853–862 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0460-7) and Brunner (US20140168740A1) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, in further view of Pandev (US2022404143A1). Regarding claim 2, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 1 but fails to teach in the step b), the optimal parameter combination is obtained by inputting the initial performance indicators to a machine learning model configured to output the optimal parameter combination. However, in the same field of endeavor as overlay metrology, Pandev teaches a machine learning model which uses raw data (initial performance indicators) to measure wafer parameters (paragraphs [0017]-[0020]; paragraph [0038]). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method to find the optimal aperture parameters taught in Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner with the machine learning method taught in Pandev as a method to avoid frequent reevaluation (Pandev: paragraph [0009]) and measure the parameter more accurately (Pandev: paragraph [0038]). Regarding claim 5, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 1 but fails to teach the diaphragms include at least one field stop and at least one aperture stop. However, Pandev teaches an optical system with a field stop (112, Fig. 1) and an aperture stop (114, Fig. 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the method taught in Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner with the field and aperture stops taught in Pandev as a way to control the field of view or the numerical aperture of the system (Pandev: paragraph [0042]). Regarding claim 6, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler, Brunner and Pandev teach the invention as explained above in claim 5, and further teaches the overlay measurement device is an infinity-corrected optical system (Chaung: tube lens - 116, Fig. 1), and the at least one aperture stop (Chuang: 114, Fig. 1) is provided in an infinity-corrected section in which light rays travel in parallel (Chuang: Fig. 1). Regarding claim 7, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler, Brunner and Pandev teach the invention as explained above in claim 6, and further teaches the overlay measurement device further comprises an illumination source to generate light (Chuang: 102, Fig. 1), an objective lens to receive light and direct light toward the semiconductor wafer and to collect light reflected from the semiconductor wafer (Chuang: 108, Fig. 1), and an image detector to detect the overlay mark formed on the semiconductor wafer from the collected light and to generate an overlay mark image of the overlay mark (Chuang: 118, Fig. 1); and the at least one aperture stop is placed between the image detector and the objective lens of the overlay measurement device (Chuang: 130, Fig. 1). Regarding claim 14, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach the diaphragms include at least one field stop and at least one aperture stop. However, Pandev teaches an optical system with a field stop (112, Fig. 1) and an aperture stop (114, Fig. 1). A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the device taught in Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner with the field and aperture stops taught in Pandev as a way to control the field of view or the numerical aperture of the system (Pandev: paragraph [0042]). Regarding claim 15, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler, Brunner and Pandev teach the invention as explained above in claim 14, and further teaches the overlay measurement device is an infinity-corrected optical system (Chuang: tube lens - 116, Fig. 1), and the at least one aperture stop (Chuang: 114, Fig. 1) is provided in an infinity-corrected section in which light rays travel in parallel (Chaung: Fig. 1). Regarding claim 16, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler, Brunner and Pandev teach the invention as explained above in claim 15, and further teaches the overlay measurement device further comprises: an illumination source to generate light (Chuang: 102, Fig. 1); an objective lens to receive light and direct light toward the semiconductor wafer and to collect light reflected from the semiconductor wafer (Chuang: 108, Fig. 1); and an image detector to detect the overlay mark formed on the semiconductor wafer from the collected light and to generate an overlay mark image of the overlay mark (Chuang: 118, Fig. 1), wherein the at least one aperture stop is placed between the image detector and the objective lens of the overlay measurement device (Chaung: 130, Fig. 1). Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang (US2019285407A1), which incorporates Kolchin (US9709510B2) in its entirety with regards to the programmable apertures described (Chuang: paragraph [0048]) in view of Marler (Marler, R.T., Arora, J.S. The weighted sum method for multi-objective optimization: new insights. Struct Multidisc Optim 41, 853–862 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0460-7) and Brunner (US20140168740A1) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, in further view of Levinski (KR20220164003) Regarding claim 4, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the performance indicators include at least one selected from a group of precision, total measurement uncertainty (TMU), tool-induced shift (TIS), move-acquire-measure (MAM) time, and statistic values of the performance indicators. However, Levinski teaches the use of tool-induced shift as the performance indicator (paragraph [0004]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the method taught in Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner with the TIS indicator taught in Levinski as a way to measure and correct for any misalignment in the wafer or metrology device (Levinski: paragraph [0004]). Regarding claim 13, Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner teach the invention as explained above in claim 12, but fails to teach the performance indicators include at least one selected from a group of precision, total measurement uncertainty (TMU), tool-induced shift (TIS), move-acquire-measure (MAM) time, and statistic values of the performance indicators. However, Levinski teaches the use of tool-induced shift as the performance indicator (paragraph [0004]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the device taught in Chuang and Kolchin in view of Marler and Brunner with the TIS indicator taught in Levinski as a way to measure and correct for any misalignment in the wafer or metrology device (Levinski: paragraph [0004]). 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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT. 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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. /ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 07, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 15, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588871
METHOD FOR CALIBRATING EXTERNAL LIGHT FOR BIO-SIGNAL MEASUREMENT, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND STORAGE MEDIUM THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12510608
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING SPIN-ORBIT TORQUE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12510465
GAS DETECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 3 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+50.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 7 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month