DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
General Remarks
2. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
3. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with paragraph numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
4. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The preamble for claims 1-9 and 11-19, i.e. “An alignment mark comprising:” is rendered indefinite because the preamble does not clearly define the invention’s scope. The structure of the preamble allows for multiple interpretations to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, one may read the claim as an alignment mark for a device other than a semiconductor device. Therefore, applicant is advised to amend the preamble for claims 1-9 and 11-19 such that it may be interpreted clearly by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art Mitsuyasu, Masaki et al. (Pub No. US 20210072638 A1) (hereinafter, Mitsuyasu) and Mitsugi, Satoshi et al. (Pub No. US 20190080899 A1) (hereinafter, Mitsugi) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“An imprinting method using an alignment mark, the alignment mark including:
a first mark that is arranged in a first film having optical transparency of a first substrate on which a device is manufactured;
a second mark that is arranged in a second substrate having a first pattern to be transferred to the first substrate side, and is used for alignment with the first mark; and
a second pattern that is arranged in at least any of the first and second substrates at a position overlapping a peripheral region of the first mark when viewed from the second substrate side, the first substrate and the second substrate being arranged at positions where the first and second marks vertically overlap each other, the second pattern having a random dimensional distribution,
the imprinting method comprising:
arranging the first substrate and the second substrate at positions where the first and second marks vertically overlap each other; and
performing alignment of the first substrate and the second substrate while observing the first and second marks from the second substrate side, and then transferring the second pattern to the first substrate side,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
Regarding claim 20, the closest prior art Mitsuyasu, Masaki et al. (Pub No. US 20210072638 A1) (hereinafter, Mitsuyasu) and Hayashi, Tsunehito (Pub No. JP 2002169266 A) (hereinafter, Hayashi) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“An imprinting method using an alignment mark, the alignment mark including:
a first mark that is arranged in a first film having optical transparency of a first substrate;
a second mark that is arranged in a second substrate having a first pattern to be transferred to the first substrate side, and is used for alignment with the first mark; and
a second pattern that is arranged in at least any of the first and second substrates at a position overlapping a peripheral region of the first mark, when viewed from the second substrate side, the first substrate and the second substrate being arranged at positions where the first and second marks vertically overlap each other, the second pattern having
a first line-and-space pattern extending in a first direction along the first film,
a second line-and-space pattern extending in a second direction that is along the first film and intersects the first direction,
in the first line-and-space pattern, each of a line width, a pitch between lines, a space width, a pitch between spaces in the second direction varies by taking a dispersed value, and
in the second line-and-space pattern, each of a line width, a pitch between lines, a space width, a pitch between spaces in the first direction varies by taking a dispersed value,
the imprinting method comprising:
arranging the first substrate and the second substrate at positions where the first and second marks vertically overlap each other; and
performing alignment of the first substrate and the second substrate while observing the first and second marks from the second substrate side, and then transferring the second pattern to the first substrate side,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, Re claim 10, Mitsuyasu in view of Mitsugi does not teach a second pattern arranged on the first or second substrate overlapping the peripheral region, wherein the second pattern has a random distribution. Additionally, the prior art of record does not disclose said second pattern over a peripheral region with a random distribution. The distribution of patterns on the periphery of both Mitsuyasu and Mitsugi are not disclosed to be random, therefore claim 1 is found to be allowable in view of the prior art of record.
Re claim 20, Mitsuyasu in view of Hayashi does not teach “in the first line-and-space pattern, each of a line width, a pitch between lines, a space width, a pitch between spaces in the second direction varies by taking a dispersed value, and in the second line-and-space pattern, each of a line width, a pitch between lines, a space width, a pitch between spaces in the first direction varies by taking a dispersed value.” Further, although Hayashi teaches first and second line-and-space patterns, they do not have a line width, pitch between lines, and space width which varies by taking a dispersed value.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
[1] Tsuchiya, Hideo et al. (Pub No. US 20150332452 A) discloses a substrate to be inspected includes a first pattern constructed with a repetitive pattern that is not resolved by a wavelength of a light source, and at least one alignment mark that is arranged on the same plane as the first pattern. The alignment mark includes a second pattern constructed with a repetitive pattern that is not resolved by the wavelength of the light source, and a programmed defect that is provided in the second pattern and not resolved by the wavelength of the light source. A focus offset is adjusted such that the strongest signal of the programmed defect is obtained with respect to a base value of a gradation value in an optical image of the programmed defect by capturing the optical image while changing a focal distance between the surface in which the first pattern is provided and an optical system.
[2] Tsuchiya, Hideo et al. (Pub No. KR20160124029A) discloses an inspection method and a template which adequately adjust a focus offset to detect a defect of a pattern smaller than a resolution limit of an optical system of an inspection device at high accuracy. A first, second and third pattern are provided on a transfer surface of a template.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY EDWARD DUREN whose telephone number is (703)756-1426. The examiner can normally be reached 07:30 - 17:00 PST.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.E.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817