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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “S120” has been used to designate both Model Selecting Step and Comparison Step in Figure 5. Comparison Step should be labeled S130 according to Paragraph [0083] line 6 of the originally filed specification.
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. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 13-14: “acquiring CI information of the aligned and sample image and setting model image” should read -- acquiring CI information of the aligned sample image and the setting model image --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the sample image” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, a focus image in line 10 appears to be a sample image, and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment. Claims 2-6 depend upon claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first focus” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, claim 3 appears to be dependent upon claim 2, and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the second focus” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, claim 3 appears to be dependent upon claim 2, and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the first focus” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the second focus” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., claim 7), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “light source unit”, “detection unit”, and “control unit” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claim 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 1, as best understood, and 7, the closest prior art made of record (See for example, Liu et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0313115) teaches the calculation of an overlay by directing an illumination, by a light source unit, to an overlay measurement target (i.e., “illuminating unit 218 may generate light to illuminate the first overlay marker 213a, the second overlay marker 213b and/or the third overlay marker 213c formed on a wafer 210”, Paragraph [0018]) in which a first filling unit formed in a first layer and a second filling unit formed in a second layer stacked on an upper portion or a lower portion of the first layer are positioned (i.e., “forming the first grating 211 in the first dielectric layer 24; forming the second dielectric layer 25 to cover the first dielectric layer 24, and the first grating 211; and forming the second grating 212 in the second dielectric layer 25”, Paragraph [0060]), a lens unit having an objective lens (i.e., “first imaging lens 226 is a regular objective lens of a microscope”, Paragraph [0083]) condensing the illumination on a measurement position of any one point in the overlay measurement target (i.e., “illuminating light generated from the illuminating unit 218 may be reflected by the first surface of the first beam-splitting plate 224; and then converged by the first imaging lens 226 to illuminate the first overlay marker 213a, the second overlay marker 213b and/or the third overlay marker 213c”, Paragraph [0036]), acquiring a focus image by a detection unit at the measurement position through a beam reflected on the measurement position (See for example, “The first measuring unit may receive the reflected light from the first overlay marker. The received reflected light may undergo lateral shifting and shearing to form interference light. The interference light may be received to form a first image”, Paragraph [0046]), and calculating an overlay (i.e., “The first image may be used to determine whether there is an overlay offset, and the specific value of the overlay offset”, Paragraph [0046]). Park et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0326008) teaches the usage of a lens unit having an objective lens and a lens focus actuator controlling a distance between the objective lens and an overlay measurement target (See for example, “an objective lens 31, an actuator 32”, Paragraph [0043]; and “The objective lens 31 is installed on an actuator 32 configured to linearly move the objective lens 31 along an optical axis direction”, Paragraph [0048]).
However, the closest prior art made of record fails to disclose, teach, and/or suggest, inter alia, the calculation of the overlay, by at least, aligning a sample image measured at a measurement position of any one point among overlay measurement targets at which a first filling unit formed in a first layer and a second filling unit formed in a second layer, which is stacked above or below the first layer are positioned, and a prestored setting model image, acquiring CI information of the aligned sample image and the setting model image, measuring a plurality of images by controlling the lens unit with a focus determined according to the CI information, and comparing center points of the plurality of images, and calculating the overlay with a difference value, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 01/09/2026
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664