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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments filed on Jan. 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
Priority
A copy of foreign priority document was filed on Jan. 15, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman et al. (Huisman) (WO 2019/034318 in IDS) in view of Chang-Hasnain et al. (Chang-Hanain) (2018/0073987).
Regarding claim 1, Huisman discloses a method (Fig. 2B) for measuring a target (4) located on a substrate (6) beneath at least one layer (Fig. 2B, para 00111), the method comprising: exciting said at least one layer with pump radiation (16) comprising at least one pump wavelength (para 00118, 00121), so as to generate an acoustic wave within said at least one layer which reflects of said target thereby generating an acoustic replica of said target at a surface of said substrate (para 00133); and illuminating said acoustic replica with probe radiation (20) comprising at least one probe wavelength (para 00128-00130) and capturing resultant scattered probe radiation, scattered from the acoustic replica (para 00117, 0128-00130). However, Huisman does not disclose wherein one or both of said exciting and said illuminating comprises generating Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPPs) on residual topography of said at least one layer resultant from said target. Chang-Hasnain discloses in Fig. 1 and para 0052 that the use of metallic surface structure can lead to SPPs and assist in improving detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate SPPs as taught by Chang-Hasnain with the invention of Huisman in order to enhance detection signal and to improve detection results.
Regarding claim 6, Huisman does not disclose wherein an angle of incidence of said probe radiation and said probe wavelength are such that said SPPs are generated by said probe radiation on said residual topography. Chang-Hasnain discloses in Fig. 1, wherein an angle of incidence of said probe radiation and said probe wavelength are such that said SPPs are generated by said probe radiation on said residual topography (para 0052, 0053). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide appropriate angle of incidence and wavelength of probe radiation to generate SPPs as taught by Chang-Hasnain to the invention of Huisman for the reasons state above.
Regarding claim 7, Huisman does not disclose wherein said SPPs alter reflectivity characteristics of said at least one layer corresponding to first portions of said target with respect to reflectivity characteristics of said at least one layer corresponding to second portions of said target. Chang-Hasnain discloses generating SPPs and altering the reflectivity characteristics (para 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide SPPs to alter reflectivity characteristics as taught by Chang-Hasnain to alter reflectivity at least one layer corresponding to first portions of said target with respect to reflectivity characteristics of said at least one layer corresponding to second portions of said target of Huisman in order to improve detection results.
Regarding claim 8, Huisman discloses wherein an angle of incidence of said probe radiation is different to an angle of incidence of said pump radiation (Fig. 2B, para 0143).
Regarding claim 9, Huisman discloses wherein said pump wavelength is different to said probe wavelength (para 00131 and 00132, both the pump wavelength and probe wavelength may have any suitable wavelength desired).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Huisman does not disclose wherein said pump wavelength and/or said probe wavelength is within 30 nm or within 15 nm of a resonance wavelength for generation of said SPPs. Chang-Hasnain discloses in para 0065 that the pump wavelength and/or said probe wavelength is near a resonance wavelength. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide said pump wavelength and/or said probe wavelength is within 30 nm or within 15 nm of a resonance wavelength since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Huisman does not disclose configuring an angle of incidence of said probe radiation and/or a geometry of said target to adjust a resonance wavelength for generation of said SPPs. Chang-Hasnain discloses in Fig. 3E and para 0060, configuring a geometry of the target such that a resonance wavelength comprises a resonance wavelength for generation of SPPs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the geometry of the target of Huisman as taught by Chang-Hasnain in order to improve the quality of the detection signal.
Regarding claim 13, Huisman discloses wherein said target comprises an alignment mark and said exciting and illuminating form part of an alignment measurement (para 00144, 00146).
Regarding claim 14, although Huisman does not disclose performing an initial illuminating to illuminate said at least one layer above said target prior to said exciting said at least one layer and capturing the resultant scattered probe radiation, scattered from said at least one layer above said target; and the method further comprises: determining a difference value for a parameter of interest as a difference of a first parameter of interest value obtained from said illuminating said acoustic replica performed subsequent to said excitation said at least one layer and a second parameter of interest value obtained from said initial illuminating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure scattered radiation before and after excitation to obtain the difference in signal in order to further improve the quality of the signal by making adjustment to excitation process to increase the quality of the detection signal.
Regarding claim 15, Huisman discloses wherein said at least one layer is opaque to said pump radiation and/or probe radiation (para 00128, 00133).
Regarding claim 16, Huisman (Fig. 2B, para 00110, 00117, 00118) in view of Chang-Hasnain (Fig. 1, para 0052) discloses a metrology device operable to perform the method of claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Huisman a pump source (10) for generating said pump radiation and a probe source for generating said probe radiation (Fig. 2B, para 00110).
Regarding claim 18, Huisman wherein said metrology device is an alignment sensor (para 00144, 00146).
Regarding claim 19, Huisman discloses a lithographic apparatus (Fig. 1A, para 0072) comprising the alignment sensor of claim 18.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman et al. (Huisman) in view of Chang-Hasnain et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goorden et al. (Goorden) (WO 2018/206177 in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Huisman is wherein said target comprises a periodic structure, said periodic structure comprising a periodic sub-segmentation of first portions of said periodic structure. Regarding claim 3, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Huisman is wherein said periodic structure comprises repetitions of a line and a space and said first portions comprising a periodic sub-segmentation comprise either said lines or said spaces. Goorden discloses a method for measuring a target on a substrate (Fig. 7, 8), the target comprising a periodic structure, said periodic structure comprising a periodic sub-segmentation of first portions of said periodic structure and said periodic structure comprises repetitions of a line and a space and said first portions comprising a periodic sub-segmentation comprise either said lines or said spaces (Fig. 7, 8, para 0079, 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the target comprising a periodic structure with repetitions of a line and a space and a periodic sub-segmentation of first portions of said periodic structure and the periodic sub-segmentation comprise either said lines or said spaces to the invention of Huisman in order to achieve a greater efficiency as taught by Goorden in para 0079.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Huisman discloses a target (4) for use in claim 1. However, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Huisman is wherein the target comprises a periodic structure, said periodic structure comprising at least a first portion having a periodic sub-segmentation and wherein the periodic structure of the target comprises a second portion having a periodic sub-segmentation. Goorden discloses wherein the target comprises a periodic structure, said periodic structure comprising at least a first portion having a periodic sub-segmentation and wherein the periodic structure of the target comprises a second portion having a periodic sub-segmentation (para 0079, 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the target comprising a periodic structure, said periodic structure comprising at least a first portion having a periodic sub-segmentation and wherein the periodic structure of the target comprises a second portion having a periodic sub-segmentation to the invention of Huisman in order for greater efficiency as taught by Goorden.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huisman et al. (Huisman) in view of Chang-Hasnain et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Enschut et al. (Van Enschut) (WO 2018/233951 in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Huisman is wherein an angle of incidence of said pump radiation and said pump wavelength are such that said SPPs are generated by said pump radiation on said residual topography. Van Enschut discloses in Fig. 11, wherein an angle of incidence of said pump radiation and said pump wavelength are such that said SPPs are generated by said pump radiation on said residual topography (Fig. 11(b), para 0091). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the appropriate angle of incidence to generate SPP to the invention of Huisman in order to improve detection signal.
Regarding claim 5, the further difference between the claimed invention and the modified Huisman is wherein said SPPs increase absorption of at least some of said pump radiation into said at least one layer. Van Enschut discloses wherein said SPPs increase absorption of at least some of said pump radiation into said at least one layer (Fig. 11(b) and 11(c), para 0091, 0092, reflected radiation is reduced). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the generating of SPP to increase absorption of pump radiation to the invention of Huisman for the reasons stated above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the device of Chang-Hasnain relies on a phenomenon that has no apparent relationship with the system of Huisman. Applicant argues that Chang-Hasnain does not relate to acoustic wave imaging of some buried shape, nor even to detecting a spatial shape. Huisman discloses in para 00128 that the top surface 8 of the substrate 6 is formed from metal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be aware from the prior art such as Chang-Hasnain or Pang et al. (2012/0105853, cited in the previous Office Action) that the use of a metallic surface structure can lead to SPPs which enhances detection signal strength (see Chang-Hasnain, para 0052 and Pang et al., para 0053).
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 PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 February 6, 2026