DETAILED ACTION
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 (for every alignment mark there is a numerical aperture and die height that meet the characteristics of the claim requirement, see equations 3.1 and 3.2 in 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 February 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 9 and 10 of the Remarks, regarding claim 10, that Chang fails to teach 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 as recites in claim 10 because Chang does not teach a calculating feature positions to be outside a geometric shadow of illumination of an overlay metrology system with a known numerical aperture.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The selection step of “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” is based on a calculation or a relationship between known heights and known numerical apertures, which encompasses all the known height values and all known numerical aperture values. The process of choosing the placement of the target based on the known values does not impart any structural limitations when those values are unclaimed. Additionally, the metrology target is a product and not a process (see MPEP 2113). Chang teaches all the structural elements, including the wafer, the first set of marks, the die, and the second set of marks. Chang shows in Figs. 9A-9C a separation between the sets of alignment marks and in Fig. 4 a height of the die. Based on equations 3.1 and 3.2 of the specification of the application, for the height of the die and the separation between the sets of alignment marks as taught by Chang there is a wavelength, a refractive index, and a numerical aperture that satisfies the claimed relationship. Accordingly, the target arrangement as taught by Chang has an inherent characteristic that provides for the claimed relationship.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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