DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 10, 2026 has been entered.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 10-13 and 16 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. [US 2024/0387447].
For claim 10, Chang teaches an overlay metrology target (see Figs. 5, 8, 9A-9C) comprising:
a first set of alignment marks (818/819,858, and 838) arranged on a surface of a wafer (800R); and
a second set of alignment marks (718 and 918) arranged on a surface of a die (700R 900R) disposed on the surface of the wafer (die 100 on the surface of wafer 200, see Fig. 4),
wherein a position of the first set of alignment marks on the surface of the wafer is selected in accordance with a metrology recipe to be outside a geometric shadow of illumination of an overlay metrology system with a known numerical aperture based on the illumination numerical aperture and a known height of the die, wherein the metrology recipe includes a focal position of an objective lens, wherein the focal position of the objective lens is a predetermined distance below a top surface of the die, wherein the predetermined distance is defined by a maximal numerical aperture and the die height of the die (for every alignment mark having a position on the wafer that is not overlapped by the die as taught by Chang there is a corresponding numerical aperture and die height that meet the characteristics of the claimed metrology recipe according to equations 3.1 and 3.2 of Applicant’s specification).
For claim 11, Chang teaches the second set of alignment marks are arranged on a die corner on the surface of the die (see the location of marks 718 and 918, in Figs. 9A-9C).
For claim 12, Chang teaches the first set of alignment marks on the wafer are square alignment marks (see the square pattern of marks of 818, 819, 858, and 838 in Figs. 9A-9C).
For claim 13, Chang teaches the second set of alignment marks on the die are L-shaped alignment marks (L-shaped 918, see [0057]).
For claim 16, Chang teaches the first set of alignment marks arranged on the surface of the wafer and the second set of alignment marks arranged on the surface of the die are simultaneously measured using an overlay metrology sub-system (marks 718 818, 819, 858, 838, and 918 shown in Figs. 9A-9C are all imageable, see [0060], and are therefore structurally capable of being imaged at the same time because they are all exposed at the same time).
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.
Claims 14 and 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Adel et al. [US 2003/0223630].
For claims 14 and 15, Chang fails to teach the first set of alignment marks on the wafer are grating marks and the second set of alignment marks on the die are grating marks.
Adel teaches the first set of alignment marks on the wafer are grating marks (64, see Fig. 6) and the second set of alignment marks on the die are grating marks (70, see Fig.6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gratings as overlay marks as taught by Adel as the alignment marks as taught by Chang because the grating marks are less sensitive to device processing and maintain higher accuracy (see [0181] of Adel).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 17-22 remain allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The previously cited prior art fails to teach “identifying a metrology recipe including a set of measurement parameters, wherein the set of measurement parameters include at least a focal position of an objective lens, wherein the focal position of the objective lens is a predetermined distance below a top surface of the die, wherein the predetermined distance is defined by a maximal numerical aperture and the die height of the die; and measuring overlay of the overlay metrology target including the first set of alignment marks on the surface of the wafer and the second set of alignment marks on the surface of the die in accordance with the identified metrology recipe” as recited in claim 1 and similarly in claim 17.
Claims 2-9 and 18-22 depend therefrom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 10 and 11 that prior art rejection of claim 10 has been overcome because amendment to claim 10 incorporates the allowable subject matter of claims 1 and 17.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 17 are directed to statutorily different classes of invention. Claim 10 is directed to product. The amended limitations recited in claim 10 are directed to a metrology recipe that includes parameters of an optical metrology system that are defined by the die height. The amended subject does not limit the target to a specific die height or position because there are no bounds on the metrology recipe as claimed and because the metrology recipe is not an element of the target.
The Applicant argues on page 11, regarding claim 10, that Chang’s technical approach is structurally different from the claimed target because Chang compensates for shadow effects after the fact while the claimed target does not require calibration because the position is selected by a metrology recipe.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The technical approach of Chang is not relied upon in the rejection. However, as taught in [0053]-[0056] of Chang, mark 838 is a calibration mark that is used to reduce the impact of shadow issues that arise in the measurement of marks 818 and 819. Accordingly, mark 838 is imaged without shadow.
The Applicant argues on pages 11 and 12, regarding claim 10, that the Office Action improperly relies on the equations disclosed for inherency, and that Applicant’s own disclosure is not common knowledge that can be used establish what the prior art teaches.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The equations disclosed by the Applicant are not relied upon to teach inherency but are instead used for interpretation of the claimed subject matter. The position of the marks on the wafer is limited by the die height and a shadow formed thereby. The disclosed equations provide a means by which to understand how the shadow is formed in the claimed target. Chang teaches the claimed structure and plurality of marks on the wafer and plurality of marks on the die. When considered in light of the interpretation based on equation 3.1 and 3.2 because there is necessarily a corresponding optical metrology system described by equations 3.1 and 3.2 when a target structure has a die height and distance between the edge of the die and a mark on the wafer.
The Applicant argues on page 12, regarding claim 10, that Chang’s arrangement does not necessarily meet the requirements of the claimed metrology recipe parameters, because a hypothetical set of parameters would be required to establish a metrology recipe that can measure virtually any target.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The optical metrology system and metrology recipe are claimed as elements that have no defined bounds on the system that limit the numerical aperture or distance from the substrate such that there are any structural limitations on target features. The claim is directed to the target, a product, the position of the set of marks need only be spaced from the die having a different height to meet the limitations of the claim imparted by the wherein clause. There are no claimed values limiting the parameters of the metrology recipe and its relationship with the target. Chang teaches at least Fig. 9A that there is a distance between the one of the marks 818, 819, and 838 on the wafer and the marks of alignment mark 718 on the die. Chang teaches in Fig. 4 that the die that mark 718 is provided on has a height relative to the surface of the wafer. Accordingly, Chang teaches a mark that satisfies the conditions of the equations 3.1 and 3.2 disclosed by the Applicant that defines the relationship between a mark and an optical metrology system because any die height necessarily has a corresponding numerical aperture based on equation 3.1 and because the Applicant has not limited those values in claims. Further, based on equations 3.1 and 3.2, as the numerical aperture approaches zero the die height approaches infinity which results in no structural limitation on the claimed die height.
The Applicant argues on page 13, regarding claim 10, that the target position is selected based on specific parameters of a metrology recipe and not a hypothetical set.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim metrology recipe is open ended; there are no bounds on specific parameters set on the metrology recipe so long as equations 3.1 and 3.2 can be satisfied. The claimed metrology recipe therefore encompasses all values of the variables of equations 3.1 and 3.2 that allow for the measurement of any prior art mark that is spaced apart from a die having a height, including the mark as taught by Chang.
The Applicant argues on page 13, regarding claim 10, that the focal position limitation is not a process step, but instead a structural/functional relationship that defines the use of the target.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The focal position is a setting of the metrology system that is based on the height of the die and does not define a claimed structural die height. Also, the target does not include the metrology system. There is no defined setting recited in the claim that structurally limits the height of the die. Based on equation 3.1, as the maximal numerical aperture approaches zero the die height approaches infinity. As claimed, any die height would meet that limitation. Further, the target may be placed at any distance from optical metrology system such that the focal position is some distance from the top of the die, thus limiting the apparatus, but not the claimed target.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Best et al. [US 2003/0227604] teaches a telecentric alignment system that measure marks in trenches up to 1 mm deep.
Antartis et al. [US 2024/0006332] teaches correcting for the shadowing effect by raising the height of the target relative the die edge (see Figs. 3-6)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
