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 Apr. 3, 2026 have been fully considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Para 0062 states that both the overlay errors OLa and OLb “become small” when the weight WB is equal to W1 in Fig. 7D. The same term “small” is used in para 0063 regarding Fig. 7E. It is not clear what is meant by “become small”. For F51, the overlay errors seem to be increasing as weight WB is increasing, not becoming small. For F61, the overlay errors seem to be decreasing as weight WB is increasing, but it becomes even smaller beyond W1. F51 has a positive slope and F61 has a negative slope. As one becomes small, and other would become big. Regarding Fig. 7E, does “become small” mean the smallest overlay error without WB going less than 0?
Applicant responded to the objection by stating that curve 51 corresponds to overlay error OLa of substrate a and curve 61 corresponds to overlay error OLb of substrate b. Applicant argues in the response that the value WB = W1 represents a point at which both OLa and OLb are reduced simultaneously.
Applicant is respectfully requested to explain how Fig. 7D shows that the value WB = W1 represents a point at which both OLa and OLb are reduced simultaneously. It is also not clear how restating that OLa being expressed as F51 and OLb being expressed as F61 explains the statement that overlays errors “become small” at W1.
If overlay error OLa becomes small, where was it starting on the curve 51 and if overlay error OLb becomes small where was it starting on the curve 61? Looking at Fig. 7D, OLa becomes small if it is approaching from the right of W1 or larger WB, but OLb does not become small approaching from the same direction. In fact, F61 or OLb becomes large. How are OLa and OLb reduced simultaneously? In the response, applicant states “neither overlay error is excessively increased”. From what point is the overlay error increased? Terms such as “become small” and “increased” are relative terms. Without establishing some basis for relativity, it is not clear what the terms mean.
Regarding Fig. 7E and para 0063 also have similar issue of using the relative term “become small”, but in Fig. 7E both F52 and F62 have positive slopes, so it makes sense that both become small. If becoming small is a criteria for setting WB, and as stated in applicant’s response that weight values are not limited to positive values, why is WB not set with a negative value since OLa and OLb are even smaller when WB is negative?
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Makino et al. (Makino) (2023/0236520).
Regarding claim 1, Makino discloses a measuring method of measuring a position of a measurement mark (72, P1, P2) on a substrate (73, Fig. 1A, 1B, para 0019), the measurement mark including a plurality of marks (P1, P2, 301, 302, Fig. 3A, para 0020, 0036), and the method comprising: capturing images of the plurality of marks (image capturing unit 50, para 0019, 0020) of the measurement mark simultaneously (Fig. 10, para 0067, the first mark and a second mark “simultaneously fall within the image capturing region of the image sensor 75 shown in FIG. 10, the measurement apparatus 100 can determine the position of each of the first mark 72 and the second mark 92 based on the above method”); and processing a plurality of evaluation values indicating positions of the plurality of marks (para 0058, “a method of determining the position of the mark 72, there is provided a method of using the average value of the position (Ax, Ay) of the first pattern P1 and the position (Dx, Dy) of the second pattern P2”), while giving weights to the plurality of evaluation values respectively obtained from the images of the plurality of marks captured in the capturing (para 0058, “the position of the mark 72 may be obtained by weighting each of the position (Ax, Ay) of the first pattern P1 and the position (Dx, Dy) of the second pattern P2 having undergone the conversion processing”), thereby acquiring position information indicating the position of the measurement mark (S207, para 0056-0058).
Regarding claim 2, Makino discloses wherein in the processing, weights different from each other are given to evaluation values respectively obtained from images of the plurality of the measurement marks (P1, P2, para 0058).
Regarding claim 3, Makino discloses wherein the substrate includes a first shot region and a second shot region, and the plurality of marks of the measurement mark are arranged in the first shot region and a plurality of marks of a second measurement mark are arranged in the second shot region (Fig. 2A, 2B, para 0035-0037).
Regarding claim 4, Makino discloses wherein the plurality of marks of the measurement mark arranged in the first shot region are simultaneously captured in the capturing, and the at least two marks arranged in the second shot region are simultaneously captured in the capturing (Fig. 3A, 3B, 10, para 0035, 0036, 0067).
Regarding claim 5, Makino discloses wherein in the processing, weights different from each other are given to evaluation values respectively obtained from images of the plurality of marks of the measurement mark arranged in the first shot region, and weights different from each other are given to evaluation values respectively obtained from images of the plurality of marks of the second measurement mark arranged in the second shot region (para 0035-0037, 0058).
Regarding claim 6, Makino discloses wherein the plurality of marks of the measurement mark arranged in the first shot region are brought into a field of view of one image capturing device (50) in the capturing, and the plurality of marks of the second measurement mark arranged in the second shot region are brought into the field of view in the capturing (Fig. 3A, 3B, 10).
Regarding claim 7, Makino discloses wherein in the processing, weights different from each other are given to evaluation values respectively obtained from images of the plurality of marks of the measurement mark arranged in the first shot region, and weights different from each other are given to evaluation values respectively obtained from images of the plurality of marks of the second measurement mark arranged in the second shot region (para 0058).
Regarding claim 8, Makino discloses wherein the substrate includes a plurality of shot regions, and in each of the plurality of shot regions, a plurality marks are arranged (Fig. 3A, 3B, para 0035-0037, 0067).
Regarding claim 9, Makino discloses wherein in the processing, weights different from each other are given to evaluation values respectively obtained from images of the plurality of marks in each shot region (para 0058).
Regarding claim 15, Makino discloses a pattern forming method of forming a pattern (Fig. 8) on a substrate (73), comprising: measuring the substrate by a measuring method defined in claim 1; and transferring a pattern to the substrate based on a result obtained in the measuring (para 0085, 0086).
Regarding claim 16, Makino discloses an article manufacturing method including: forming a pattern on a substrate (73) in accordance with a pattern forming method defined in claim 15; and processing the substrate with the pattern formed thereon in the forming, thereby obtaining an article (para 0091).
Regarding claim 17, Makino discloses a measurement apparatus (50, Fig. 1A, 1B, para 0019) for measuring a position of a measurement mark (72, P1, P2) on a substrate (73), the measurement mark including a plurality of marks (P1, P2, 301, 302, Fig. 3A, para 0020, 0036), and the apparatus comprising: an image capturing device (75) configured to capture images of the plurality of marks of the measurement mark simultaneously (Fig. 10, para 0067, the first mark and a second mark “simultaneously fall within the image capturing region of the image sensor 75 shown in FIG. 10, the measurement apparatus 100 can determine the position of each of the first mark 72 and the second mark 92 based on the above method”) provided on the substrate (para 0067); and a processor (CU, Fig. 1A, para 0023) configured to process a plurality of evaluation values indicating positions of the plurality of marks (para 0058, “a method of determining the position of the mark 72, there is provided a method of using the average value of the position (Ax, Ay) of the first pattern P1 and the position (Dx, Dy) of the second pattern P2”) while giving weights to the plurality of evaluation values respectively obtained from the images of the plurality of marks captured by the image capturing device (para 0058, “the position of the mark 72 may be obtained by weighting each of the position (Ax, Ay) of the first pattern P1 and the position (Dx, Dy) of the second pattern P2 having undergone the conversion processing”), thereby acquiring position information indicating the position of the measurement mark (para 0058).
Regarding claim 18, Makino discloses a lithography apparatus (Fig. 8) comprising: a measurement apparatus defined in claim 17; and a system configured to align a substrate and an original based on a result obtained by the measurement apparatus, and transfer a pattern of the original to the substrate (para 0085, 0086).
Regarding claim 19, Makino discloses an article manufacturing method comprising: forming a pattern on a substrate by using a lithography apparatus defined in claim 18; and processing the substrate with the pattern formed thereon in the forming, thereby obtaining an article (para 0091).
Regarding claim 20, Makino discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a process (para 0102) of measuring a position of a measurement mark (72, P1, P2) on a substrate (73, Fig. 1A, 1B, para 0019), the measurement mark including a plurality of marks (P1, P2, 301, 302, Fig. 3A, para 0020, 0036) wherein the process includes acquiring images of the plurality of marks of the measurement mark captured simultaneously (Fig. 10, para 0067, the first mark and a second mark “simultaneously fall within the image capturing region of the image sensor 75 shown in FIG. 10, the measurement apparatus 100 can determine the position of each of the first mark 72 and the second mark 92 based on the above method”); and acquiring position information indicating the position of the measurement mark on the substrate by processing a plurality of evaluation values indicating positions of the plurality of marks (para 0058, “a method of determining the position of the mark 72, there is provided a method of using the average value of the position (Ax, Ay) of the first pattern P1 and the position (Dx, Dy) of the second pattern P2”) while giving weights to the plurality of evaluation values respectively obtained from images of the plurality of marks (para 0058, “the position of the mark 72 may be obtained by weighting each of the position (Ax, Ay) of the first pattern P1 and the position (Dx, Dy) of the second pattern P2 having undergone the conversion processing”).
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) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makino et al. (Makino).
Regarding claim 10, although Makino does not disclose deciding a weight based on an overlay error of each of a plurality of shot regions on a second substrate for weight decision, the measuring method would be applied to a second substrate as well as other subsequent substrates for exposure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide a weight based on an overlay error of each of a plurality of shot regions on a second substrate for weight decision based on the method taught by Makino in para 0035, 0036, 0050-0058) to acquire positioning information of subsequent substrates.
Regarding claim 11, although Makino does not disclose a second substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide that the weight is decided such that the overlay error of each of the plurality of shot regions, which is obtained based on evaluation values respectively obtained from images obtained by capturing a plurality of marks in the second substrate for weight decision, meets a target value as taught by Makino in para 0035, 0036, 0050-0058 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 12, although Makino does not disclose a second substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide that the weight is decided such that the overlay error of each of the plurality of shot regions, which is obtained based on evaluation values respectively obtained from images obtained by capturing a plurality of marks in the second substrate for weight decision, becomes minimum based on teaching of Makino in para 0052-0058 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 13, although Makino does not disclose a second substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide that the weight is decided based on a difference between target position information and position information serving as an evaluation value obtained from each of images obtained by capturing a plurality of marks in the second substrate for weight decision based on teaching of Makino in para 0050-0058 for the reasons stated above.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s arguments filed on Apr. 3, 2026, the drawing objection, 112(f) interpretation, 112(b) rejection and the art rejection based on Irie et al. are withdrawn. However, the objections to the specification and the art rejection based on Makino et al. have been modified.
Applicant argues that Makino et al. does not disclose the claimed invention, but it is not clear from applicant’s arguments which claimed limitation is missing from Makino et al. In response, the rejections have been amended with specific sections of the reference quoted in the body of the 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 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 May 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights