DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim 18 recites “correcting the overlay of the layers of the wafer and forming a pattern based on the measured overlay, measuring an overlay of the pattern based on the overlay measurement recipe by performing overlay measurement using the representative wavelengths”, but said limitation is not supported in the original disclosure. Specifically, performing measuring an overlay of the pattern derived from the corrected overlay is not supported. Looking at Fig. 11, as an example, there is no additional step of measuring after the patterns are formed from the correction.
Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed n 04/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 (hereinafter Gellineau)
Regarding Claim 1. Gellineau discloses multi-wavelength selection method for overlay measurement in semiconductor device manufacturing (Abstract), comprising:
measuring an overlay of layers of a test wafer (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more targets, where targets are overlay, and targets include multiple layers; Fig. 3A) at multiple positions on the test wafer (Fig. 3A, 302, positions of targets; Paragraph [0042], measurement of the composition of one or more layers) the measuring comprising performing a measurement of the overlay at each of a plurality of wavelengths within a set first wavelength range to obtain a plurality of overlay measurements for the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraph [0053], [0058], wavelengths; Paragraphs [0084], Fig. 3A, measurement collected from different positions on a wafer),
selecting, from the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraph [0038], wavelengths varying from about 120 nm to 3 microns), using the plurality of overlay measurement, a subset of representative wavelengths that simulate the plurality of overlay measurements for the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Fig. 3A, 306, selecting subset of components; Paragraph [0077], subset of signals is further adjusted by either growing or shrinking the signals in the subset of signals; [0091], Paragraph [0040], more than one targets and measurements); and allocating weights to the representative wavelengths (Paragraphs [0068]-[0069], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively, and configuring overlay measurement equipment to perform overlay measurement during semiconductor device manufacturing of one or more wafers using the representative wavelengths and the allocated weights (Paragraph [0077], subset of signals selected is utilized to take measurements of the target; Paragraph [0085], subset of selected signals used to collect measurements)
Regarding Claim 2. Gallineau discloses the selecting of the representative wavelengths is performed based on principal component analysis (PCA) (Paragraph [0086], PCA).
Regarding Claim 3. Gallineau discloses the selecting of the representative wavelengths is performed based on singular value decomposition (SVD) (Paragraph [0064], using singular value decomposition).
Regarding Claim 10. Galleneau discloses, before the selecting of the representative wavelengths, filtering all of the plurality of wavelengths, wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises selecting the representative wavelengths among all of the filtered wavelengths (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering).
Regarding Claim 11. Galleneau discloses the filtering is performed using a key parameter index (KPI) in which the characteristics of an overlay mark are reflected (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering. Note, the Specification does not define what KPI, and it is also not a known term; Paragraph [0048], overlay).
Regarding Claim 12. Gallineau discloses an overlay measurement for semiconductor device manufacturing (Paragraph [0048]), comprising:
selecting, from a plurality of wavelengths in a set wavelength range, a subset of representative wavelength for overlay measurement that simulate overlay measurement performed for the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraph [0063]; Fig. 3A, 306, selecting subset of components; [0091]; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance), setting up an overlay measurement recipe that configure overlay measurement to be performed using the representative wavelengths and measuring an overlay of a wafer by performing overlay measurement using the wavelengths based on the overlay measurement recipe (Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], measurement configuration or recipe, including selection of wavelengths, polarization, azimuth and/or incidence parameters; subset of wavelengths chosen; Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]; Fig. 3B, 354, measurement based on determined integration times is also part of the recipe; Paragraph [0077], subset of signals selected is utilized to take measurements of the target; Paragraph [0085], subset of selected signals used to collect measurements), wherein the selecting of representative wavelengths comprises:
measuring an overlay (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more target, where targets are overlay) at multiple positions on a test wafer (Fig. 3A, 302, positions of targets; Paragraph [0040], certain regions, etc.) at each of a plurality of wavelengths within the set first wavelength range to obtain a plurality of overlay measurements for the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraph [0053], wavelengths); selecting, using the plurality of overlay measurements for the plurality of wavelengths, the representative wavelengths that simulate the overlay of the plurality of wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Fig. 3A, 306, selecting subset of components; Paragraph [0077], subset of signals is further adjusted by either growing or shrinking the signals in the subset of signals; [0091], Paragraph [0040], more than one targets and measurements); and allocating weights to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4, 14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554.
Regarding Claim 4. Gallineau discloses obtaining an overlay for each of the multiple positions with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraphs [0040], overlay targets; [0053], wavelengths; Fig. 3A), and wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises:
extracting T eigenvectors corresponding to a total number of the plurality of wavelengths through SVD, where T is an integer greater than 1 (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0063], Jacobian matrix to generate an initial subset of signals to optimize performance metric; Paragraphs [0064]-[0067], singular value decomposition and eigenvectors);
selecting n representative eigenvectors from the T eigenvectors based on weights of the T eigenvectors, where n is greater than or equal to 1 and less than T (Paragraph [0068], weights added to the selection process);
with respect to the representative eigenvectors, selecting and fitting n wavelength combinations of ones of the plurality of wavelengths, and calculating fitting scores (Paragraph [0061], fitting. Although Gellineau does not explicitly disclose fitting score calculation, it would have been obvious to find the signal values that are closest fit to the curve, as score is merely a numerical indication of how well the signals fit), and
selecting a wavelength combination of the n wavelength combinations having a smallest fitting score, identifying ones of the plurality of wavelengths included in the selected wavelength combination correspond to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0063], Fig. 2, 208).
Regarding Claim 14. Gallineau discloses obtaining an overlay for each of the multiple positions with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraphs [0040], overlay targets; [0053], wavelengths; Fig. 3A), and wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises:
extracting T eigenvectors corresponding to a total number of the plurality of wavelengths through SVD, where T is an integer greater than 1 (Paragraphs [0064]-[0067], eigenvectors);
selecting n representative eigenvectors from the T eigenvectors based on weights of the T eigenvectors, where n is greater than or equal to 1 and less than T (Paragraph [0068], weights added to the selection process);
with respect to the representative eigenvectors, selecting and fitting n wavelength combinations of ones of the plurality of wavelengths and calculating fitting scores (Paragraph [0061], fitting. Although Gellineau does not explicitly disclose fitting score calculation, it would have been obvious to find the signal values that are closest fit to the curve, as score is merely a numerical indication of how well the signals fit), and
selecting a wavelength combination of the n wavelength combinations having a smallest fitting score, wherein ones of the plurality of wavelengths included in the selected wavelength combination correspond to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0063], Fig. 2, 208).
Regarding Claim 16. Gellineau discloses before the selecting of the representative wavelengths, filtering all of the plurality of wavelengths, wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises selecting the representative wavelengths among all of the filtered wavelengths, and
wherein the filtering is performed using a key parameter index (KPI) in which the characteristics of an overlay mark are reflected (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering. Note, the Specification does not define what KPI, and it is also not a known term; Paragraph [0048], overlay)
Regarding Claim 17. Gellineau discloses setting up the overlay measurement recipe based on the representative wavelengths and the weights of the representative wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths; subset of wavelengths chosen, Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 in view of Kang et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0179302 (hereinafter Kang)
Regarding Claim 5. Gellineau discloses the representative eigenvectors are selected in an order of highest weight (Paragraph [0068]) and fitting with respect to the representative eigenvectors (Paragraphs [0061], [0086])
Gellineau does not disclose the fitting scores are calculated by a sum of fitting scores.
Kang discloses the fitting scores are calculated by a sum of fitting scores (Paragraphs [0066]-[0069])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Kang in Gellineau and have the fitting scores are calculated by a sum of fitting scores, so as to accurately perform semiconductor corrections and processing.
10. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 in view of Hulsebos et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0284621 (hereinafter Hulsebos)
Regarding Claim 7. Gellineau discloses fitting and selecting a wavelength combination having a smallest fitting score (Paragraphs [0061]-[0063]; [0086]; Fig. 2).
Gellineau does not disclose calculating a radial basis function (RBF) fitting score for each combination of a combination rCn for selecting n from T, and wherein selecting the wavelength combination, comprises: selecting a wavelength combination having a smallest RBF fitting score.
Hulsebos discloses radial basis function fitting score that is used to reduce overlay deviation (Abstract; Paragraph [0083]; [0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to use the teaching of Hulsebos in Gellineau and calculate a radial basis function (RBF) fitting score for each combination of a combination rCn for selecting n from T, and wherein selecting the wavelength combination, comprises: selecting a wavelength combination having a smallest RBF fitting score, so as to improve the overlay performance in semiconductor process.
Claims 18-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallineau et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0025554 in view of Lee et al., US-PGPUB 2015/0294455 (hereinafter Lee) and Kobayashi, US-PGPUB 2010/0159617 (hereinafter Kobayashi)
Regarding Claim 18. Gallineau discloses selecting, from a plurality of wavelengths, a subset of representative wavelengths for overlay measurement that simulate overlay measurement performed for the plurality of wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Fig. 3A, 306, selecting subset of components; Paragraph [0077], subset of signals is further adjusted by either growing or shrinking the signals in the subset of signals; [0091], Paragraph [0040], more than one targets and measurement)
setting up an overlay measurement recipe that configures overlay measurement to be performed using the representative wavelengths (Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], measurement configuration or recipe, including selection of wavelengths, polarization, azimuth and/or incidence parameters, Fig. 3B, 354, measurement based on determined integration times is also part of the recipe;
measuring an overlay of layers of a wafer based on the overlay measurement recipe by performing overlay measurement using the representative wavelengths (Fig. 3A, 302; (Paragraph [0077], subset of signals selected is utilized to take measurements of the target; Paragraph [0085], subset of selected signals used to collect measurements));
correcting the overlay of the layers of the wafer (Paragraphs [0040], [0042], multiple layers; Paragraph [0096], reduction of statistical variations) and forming a pattern based on the measured overlay (Paragraph [0097], overlay map; Paragraph [0073]);
Gellineau does not disclose measuring an overlay of the pattern based on the overlay measurement recipe by performing overlay measurement using the representative wavelengths, and determining whether an overlay of the pattern is within a set reference range, and when the overlay of the pattern is within the set reference range, performing a subsequent semiconductor process on the wafer.
Kobayashi discloses correcting the overlay, forming a pattern and measuring the pattern (Fig. 14, Paragraphs [0037]-[0039])
Lee discloses disclose determining whether an overlay of the pattern is within a set reference range, and when the overlay of the pattern is within the reference range, performing a subsequent semiconductor process (Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], unreliable pattern if greater than a reference degree of damage; Figs. 1, 6 and 8; Paragraphs [0019], selecting a reliable overlay mark based on evaluated degrees of damage; [0053] patterns used to test accuracy, [0059], [0078], [0101], [0107], improve yield of the semiconductor process)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Lee and Kobayashi in Gellneau and measuring an overlay of the pattern based on the overlay measurement recipe by performing overlay measurement using the representative wavelengths, and determine whether an overlay of the pattern is within a set reference range, and when the overlay of the pattern is within the reference range, perform a subsequent semiconductor process, and therefore improve the yield of the semiconductor process.
Regarding Claim 19. Gellineau discloses the selecting of the multi- wavelengths comprises: measuring an overlay (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more target, where targets are overlay) at multiple positions on a wafer (Fig. 3A, 302, positions of targets) at each of a plurality of wavelengths within a set first wavelength range (Paragraph [0053], wavelengths);
selecting representative wavelengths that simulate the overlay of the plurality of wavelengths from among the plurality of wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]); and allocating weights to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process), respectively.
Regarding Claim 20. Gallineau discloses the selecting of the representative wavelengths is performed based on singular value decomposition (SVD) (Paragraph [0064], single value decomposition), and wherein the measuring of the overlay, comprises: obtaining an overlay for each of the multiple positions with respect to each of the plurality of wavelengths (Paragraph [0040], measure one or more targets, where targets are overlay; Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths, subset of wavelengths); and
wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises:
extracting T eigenvectors corresponding to a total number of the plurality of wavelengths through SVD, where T is an integer greater than 1 (Paragraphs [0064]-[0067], eigenvectors);
selecting n representative eigenvectors from the T eigenvectors based on weights of the T eigenvectors, where n is greater than or equal to 1 and less than T (Paragraph [0068], weights added to the selection process);
with respect to the representative eigenvectors, selecting and fitting n wavelength combinations of ones of the plurality of wavelengths and calculating fitting scores (Paragraph [0061], fitting. Although Gellineau does not explicitly disclose fitting score calculation, it would have been obvious to find the signal values that are closest fit to the curve, as score is merely a numerical indication of how well the signal fit), and
selecting a wavelength combination of the n wavelength combinations having a smallest fitting score, wherein ones of the plurality of wavelengths included in the selected wavelength combination correspond to the representative wavelengths (Paragraph [0063], Fig. 2, 208).
Regarding Claim 22. Gellineau discloses before the selecting of the representative wavelengths, filtering all of the plurality of wavelengths, wherein the selecting of the representative wavelengths comprises selecting the representative wavelengths among all of the filtered wavelengths, and
wherein the filtering is performed using a key parameter index (KPI) in which the characteristics of an overlay mark are reflected (Paragraph [0044], Kalman filtering. Note, the Specification does not define what KPI, and it is also not a known term; Paragraph [0048], overlay)
Regarding Claim 23. Gellineau discloses setting up of the overlay measurement recipe, comprises: setting up the overlay measurement recipe based on the representative wavelengths and the weights of the representative wavelengths (Fig. 2, 208, selected from the simulated set of signals or wavelengths; Paragraph [0053]-[0054], selecting signals that provide the best performance; Paragraph [0063]; Paragraphs [0006]-[0007], selection of wavelengths; subset of wavelengths chosen, Paragraph [0068], weights may be added to the selection process),
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection and the updated rejection.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights