DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0057388 A1).
As to claim 1, Sun discloses and shows in figure 1, an overlay target, the overlay target comprising ([0026], ll. 1-8):
one or more measurement regions (region defined by each individual die CR under test (i.e. the blown-up portion of figure 1), each measurement region corresponding to a die, wherein each measurement region comprises ([0026], ll. 1-8):
one or more die marks (300) located on one or more dies ([0026], ll. 1-8); and
substrate marks (300’) located on one or more substrates (i.e. wafer 100), wherein the substrate marks are unobstructed by the one or more dies (i.e. within the scribe lines SR), wherein the substrate marks comprise ([0026], ll. 16-18):
a first direction substrate mark aligned along a first direction relative (i.e. marks 300’ aligned along the X-axis relative to the page in the scribe line region SR) to a die mark ([0026], ll. 16-18); and
a second direction substrate mark aligned along a second direction relative to the die mark (i.e. marks 300’ aligned along the Y-axis relative to the page in the scribe line region SR), wherein the second direction is different than the first direction ([0026], ll. 16-18).
As to claims 7, and 8, Sun discloses and shows in figure 1, an overlay target, wherein the overlay target is configured to be contained within a single field of view having a width and a height no greater than 2000 microns or having a width no greater than 600 microns ([0054], ll. 29-34; even assuming the drawings aren’t exactly to scale, if mark 400 is disclosed at 1 micron in size, the overlay mark of figure 1 is well below 600 microns in the width and height dimension).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liao et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2025/0096146 A1).
As to claim 1, Liao discloses and shows in figure 1, and 2A labeled below, an overlay target, the overlay target comprising ([0044]):
one or more measurement regions (explicitly labeled below, where the examiner notes for clarity of record that the measurement regions are simply areas of the overlay mark, but not actual structural distinctions of the overlay mark itself, in the prior art alignment mark regions 202 essentially define four measurement regions explicitly labeled below), each measurement region corresponding to a die, wherein each measurement region comprises ([0019], ll. 5-11):
one or more die marks (202C) located on one or more dies (110) ([0021], ll. 9-11); and
substrate marks (202A and 202B) located on one or more substrates (100), wherein the substrate marks are unobstructed by the one or more dies (i.e. they are in the scribe lines 120), wherein the substrate marks comprise ([0019], ll. 1-4; [0021], ll. 1-4):
a first direction substrate mark aligned along a first direction (i.e. along the X-axis relative to the page, which corresponds to mark 202A) relative to a die mark ([0021], ll. 1-6); and
a second direction substrate mark aligned along a second direction (i.e. along the Y-axis relative to the page, which corresponds to mark 202B) relative to the die mark, wherein the second direction is different than the first direction ([0021], ll. 1-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
1085
1002
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Liao discloses an overlay target, wherein the substrate marks of each measurement region further comprise an acquisition mark (labeled in figure 2A above), wherein the acquisition mark is aligned along the first direction relative to the second direction substrate mark, and aligned along the second direction relative to the first direction substrate mark (explicitly shown in figure 2A above, the noted mark intersects and thus is aligned with both direction marks) ([0021], ll. 1-6).
As to claim 3, Liao discloses an overlay target, wherein the one or more measurement regions comprises two or more measurement regions corresponding to two or more dies, wherein at least one substrate mark of each measurement region is commonly shared between multiple measurement regions ([0021], ll. 1-6; where applicant is simply defining how the target is measured, not any actual structural distinction of the overlay target itself, clearly Liao shows a measurement region that comprises the first and second measurement region, with shared marks between the regions).
As to claim 4, Liao discloses an overlay target wherein the two or more measurement regions comprises four or more measurement regions corresponding to four or more dies ([0021], ll. 1-6; where the examiner can draw arbitrary boxes within boxes to meet the noted limitation, as again applicant is simply defining measurement areas of the overlay target that can be measured by a system not claimed, without actually structurally distinguishing the overlay target in any manner).
As to claim 5, Liao discloses and shows in figure 2a above, an overlay target wherein the at least one substrate mark of each measurement region that is commonly shared between multiple measurement regions comprises: the acquisition mark; the first direction substrate mark; and the second direction substrate mark ([0021], ll. 1-6; where the acquisition mark is commonly shared by all four measurement regions in the figure noted above).
As to claim 6, Liao discloses and shows in figure 2B an overlay target, wherein the overlay target comprises a three by three grid of marks configured for four dies in a two by two arrangement with space between each die for the substrate marks, wherein a center mark of the three by three grid of the marks comprises the acquisition mark and wherein the center mark is configured to be commonly shared between the four or more measurement regions corresponding to the four dies, wherein each corner of the three by three grid of the marks comprises a respective die mark of a respective die of the four or more dies (explicitly shown in figure 2B below) ([0021], ll. 1-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
1095
967
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. in view of Devilliers (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0051951 A1).
As to claim 9, Liao does not explicitly disclose an overlay target, wherein the die mark of the die comprises a see-through mark comprising die structures of the die that are above substrate structures of the one or more substrates.
However, Devilliers does disclose in ([0043]) that see-through wafer alignment is known, specifically using alignment marks that are beneath the surface of the wafer. In doing so as disclosed allows reliable reference and repeatedly access marks that provide for accurate registration of subsequent patterns. Obviously, some marks in Liao can be formed in such a manner to allow such detection. The examiner notes that the mark itself is less important and simply as disclosed using an appropriate light source to enable such detection.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liao does not explicitly disclose an overlay target, wherein the die mark of the die comprises a see-through mark comprising die structures of the die that are above substrate structures of the one or more substrates in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, as explicitly noted in using see-through based imaging of marks one can provide accurate alignment of subsequent patterns during circuit creation.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. in view of Chen (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0312454 A1).
As to claim 10, Liao does not explicitly disclose an overlay target, wherein the overlay target comprises at least one of: an advance imaging metrology (AIM) style target, or a box in box style target.
However, Chen does disclose and show in figure 4 and in ([0025]) both that box-in-box and AIM type overlay targets are well-known in the art and obvious suitable shapes for overlay assessment of a die under test.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liao with an overlay target, wherein the overlay target comprises at least one of: an advance imaging metrology (AIM) style target, or a box in box style target in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using one of many common and well-known predictable overlay target shapes one can accurately measure layer shifts during lithographic processing of dies. Further evidence that the two target configurations are obvious is simply shown by them both being known named overlay targets types (i.e. BIB and AIM).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to applicant’s first argument that Sun fails to disclose “Nowhere does Sun identify a measurement region corresponding to a die that itself comprises the claimed die mark together with first-and second-direction substrate marks aligned in different directions relative to that die mark”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner firstly makes note that it is not entirely clear what aspect applicant finds Sun to fail to disclose. Applicant also states that the office relies on Sun’s chip region CR as the measurement region, while also relying on the scribe-line marks 300’ as substrate marks and this interpretation somehow does not show the claimed measurement region, however the examiner is unclear what is specifically lacking from the claimed measurement region. The examiner believes the confusion or disagreement comes down to the phrase “corresponding to a die”. The definition of the word corresponding is “similar to, connected with, or caused by something else” from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corresponding. also “associated in a working or other relationship.” from https://www.dictionary.com/browse/corresponding. In other words, the term “corresponding” is exceedingly broad and at most requires merely some association or connection of the measurement region with the die. As such all of the parts from Sun in figure 1 are clearly associated with or connected with the die (CR). Specifically, line 300’ although in a scribe line, clearly under the broadest reasonable interpretation corresponding to the measurement region of the die (CR) shown in figure 1, as it is entirely the purpose for its existence (overlay analysis for anything within die region CR). The examiner makes note that the word “die” is not explicitly used in Sun, however a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize each chip region CR surrounded by scribe lines is a die. For these reasons the examiner fails to find any aspect of the claimed limitations lacking in Sun, as such the rejection is being maintained.
As to applicant’s argument that Liao fails to teach or disclose “Liao does not expressly disclose the claimed measurement-region arrangement in which the identified die mark and first- and second-direction unobstructed substrate marks are disclosed together as a measurement region corresponding to a die. At most, the rejection selects different Liao alignment mark regions from chip and scribe-line locations and labels them as claim elements”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner believes again this argument is relying on an improperly narrow interpretation of the term “corresponding”. The examiner believes applicant is reading the claim to require that all of the marks claimed have to be geometrically within the die itself. However, this is not the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. The “substrate marks” as claimed are explicitly “on one or more substrates”. In other words, they can be interpreted to be in any location on a wafer and merely need to have some association with a measurement region of a die. Nothing in the claim prevents the claimed marks from being either within geometrically a die, or within a scribe line, they merely need to exist on a substrate. For this reason, the rejection is maintained. The examiner suggests for compact prosecution that applicant narrow the claim to more clearly distinguish the exact geometric location of each of the claimed marks to potentially overcome the prior art of record.
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 MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights