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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/04/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that on all arguments made in the Office action. This is not found persuasive because applicant has failed in any manner to make any clear and precise arguments as to why the restriction mailed 08/04/2025 was improper. Specifically, the examiner fails to find a single argument as to what applicant is actually traversing about the restriction mentioned. The requirement is therefore still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because applicant has multiple instances of two arrows going to the same part with distinct numbers. This makes it unclear as to what applicant is trying to be distinguished between the two arrows. For example 104 and 302, 302 and 304a, 304a and 312, 304b and 310, 304a and 308, 304a and 306, etc. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 5-6 and 9 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.
As to claim 5, the examiner is unclear as to what is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim in question. Specifically applicant claims “wherein the at least one substrate mark” in the singular. Then proceeds to claim that said mark comprises “the acquisition mark; the first direction substrate mark; and the second direction substrate mark”. This would seem to imply that the singular substrate mark is comprised of all three marks, not one of the marks listed in the claim. However, the examiner fails to see how the substrate mark could comprise all three marks as this is not clearly support by the instant disclosure. It would seem that the claim was meant to use “or” in place of “and” in order to define that the substrate mark can be defined as any of the three options and not all of them. As such, since this is the supported configuration of the disclosure the claim will be interpreted to read with an “or” in place of the “and”. Claim 6 is rejected for its dependency on instant claim 5.
As to claim 9, the examiner finds the language “comprising die structures of the die that are above substrate structure of the one or more substrates” unclear. As when linked to the language “see-through mark”, it would seem applicant is referring to a mark below the substrate structure not above it. As a regular mark already claimed and defined in overlay is already above substrate structures if more than one layer is present in the lithographic process. It would seem the language is incorrect is using the term above and should instead refer to mark being below the substrate structures. This also seems to link more clearly with the instant disclosure. Therefore for examination purposes the examiner is interpreting the see-through mark to be below other substrate structures not above them.
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 form 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).
Conclusion
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