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 .
Claims status: the claims are unchanged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/03/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found references.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2006/0139643 A1; pub. Jun. 29, 2006) in view of Nakaya et al. (US 2005/0129397 A1; pub. Jun. 16, 2005).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses: A method of measuring misalignment between substrates (para. [0006], [0029]), the method comprising:
directing X-rays to a first substrate and to a second substrate in a bonding configuration prior to bonding together, the directing including directing the X-rays to a first alignment mark in the first substrate and to a second alignment mark in the second substrate (para. [0006], [0010], [0014], [0029]).
Chen is silent about: detecting fluorescent X-rays emitted from the first substrate and from the second substrate in response to the X-rays irradiating the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark; and
measuring a first misalignment of the first alignment mark with respect to the second alignment mark based at least in part on a wavelength of the fluorescent X-rays corresponding to a metal in the first alignment mark and in the second alignment mark.
In a similar field of endeavor Nakaya et al. disclose: detecting fluorescent X-rays emitted from the first substrate and from the second substrate in response to the X-rays irradiating the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark (para. [0022], [0144]-[0145]); and
measuring a first misalignment of the first alignment mark with respect to the second alignment mark based at least in part on a wavelength of the fluorescent X-rays corresponding to a metal in the first alignment mark and in the second alignment mark (para. [0022], [0144]-[0145], para. [0144] teach copper alignment marks similar material as that claim in claim 8) motivated by the benefits for a circuit pattern manufacturing process that is accurate and cost effective (Nakaya et al. para. [0022], [0025]).
In light of the benefits for a circuit pattern manufacturing process that is accurate and cost effective as taught by Nakaya et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen with the teachings of Nakaya et al.
Regarding claim 8, Nakaya et al. disclose: discriminating the wavelength to measure the first misalignment based on the metal, wherein the metal comprises at least one of copper (Cu), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), ruthenium (Ru), or molybdenum (Mo) (para. [0022], [0144]-[0145], para. [0144] teaches copper) motivated by the benefits for a circuit pattern manufacturing process that is accurate and cost effective (Nakaya et al. para. [0022], [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Nakaya et al. disclose: the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark comprise a common material (para. [0022], [0144]-[0145], para. [0144] teach copper) motivated by the benefits for a circuit pattern manufacturing process that is accurate and cost effective (Nakaya et al. para. [0022], [0025]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2006/0139643 A1; pub. Jun. 29, 2006) in view of Nakaya et al. (US 2005/0129397 A1; pub. Jun. 16, 2005) and further in view of Shimamura et al. (US 2024/0390965 A1; pub. Nov. 28, 2024).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references are silent about: the first misalignment is detected by a first detector sensitive to the fluorescent X-rays to measure an intensity of the fluorescent X-rays related to a thickness of the metal.
In a similar field of endeavor Shimamura et al. disclose: a detector sensitive to the fluorescent X-rays to measure an intensity of the fluorescent X-rays related to a thickness of the metal (para. [0070]) motivated by the benefits for a metal with adjustable fluorescence.
In light of the benefits for a metal with adjustable fluorescence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen and Nakaya et al. with the teachings of Shimamura et al.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2006/0139643 A1; pub. Jun. 29, 2006) in view of Nakaya et al. (US 2005/0129397 A1; pub. Jun. 16, 2005) in view of Shimamura et al. (US 2024/0390965 A1; pub. Nov. 28, 2024) and further in view of Poole (US 2022/0105572 A1; pub. Apr. 7, 2022).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references are silent about: the first detector is a silicon drift detector (SDD).
In a similar field of endeavor Poole discloses: the first detector is a silicon drift detector (SDD) (para. [0045]) motivated by the benefits for a detector with excellent energy resolution and high count rate.
In light of the benefits for a metal with adjustable fluorescence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen, Nakaya et al. and Shimamura et al. with the teachings of Poole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–6, 13-20, 22-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen discloses: A method of measuring misalignment between substrates (para. [0006], [0029]), the method comprising: directing X-rays to a first substrate and to a second substrate in a bonding configuration prior to bonding together, the directing including directing the X-rays to a first alignment mark and to a third alignment mark in the first substrate and to a second alignment mark and to a fourth alignment mark in the second substrate (para. [0006], [0010], [0014], [0029]).
Amemiya et al. disclose: detecting fluorescent X-rays emitted from the first alignment mark and from the second alignment mark to measure a first misalignment of the first substrate with respect to the second substrate based on a first detected misalignment of the first alignment mark with respect to the second alignment mark (col.1 L56 - 61).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: detecting at least some of the X-rays transmitted through the first substrate and through the second substrate using X-ray Talbot-Lau interferometry to measure a second misalignment of the first substrate with respect to the second substrate based on a second detected misalignment of the third alignment mark with respect to the fourth alignment mark.
Regarding independent claim 12, Nagasawa et al. disclose: A method of measuring misalignment between substrates, the method comprising:
directing X-rays to a first substrate and to a second substrate in a bonding orientation for subsequent bonding to each other (para. [0090]-[0091], [0093]);
transmitting the X-rays through a first alignment mark in the first substrate and through a second alignment mark in the second substrate using an X-ray Talbot-Lau interferometer, wherein the first alignment mark and the second alignment mark comprise a first Moiré interferometric grating pair (para. [0090]-[0091], [0093]).
The prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: measuring a first misalignment of the first substrate with respect to the second substrate based on detecting a first detected misalignment of the first alignment mark with respect to the second alignment mark using a first interferometric pattern and a second interferometric pattern associated with the first Moiré interferometric grating pair, the detecting the first detected
misalignment including measuring a first displacement of the first interferometric pattern in a first direction and a second displacement of the second interferometric pattern in a second direction opposite the first direction.
Regarding independent claim 21, the prior arts alone or in combination fail to teach, disclose, suggest or render obvious: transmitting first X-rays, using an X-ray Talbot-Lau (TL) interferometer, through a first substrate and through a second substrate in a bonding configuration for subsequent bonding to each other, including transmitting the first X-rays through a first alignment mark in the first substrate and through a second alignment mark in the second substrate to generate second X- rays; transmitting the second X-rays through a TL phase grating and through a TL analyzer grating to generate third X-rays; and receiving the third X-rays at an X-ray detector to measure a first misalignment of the first substrate with respect to the second substrate based on detecting a first detected misalignment of the first alignment mark with respect to the second alignment mark using the X-ray detector.
Claims 2-6, 13-20, 22-26 are allowed on the same basis as independent claims 1, 12 & 21 for dependency reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU FAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-0371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/MAMADOU FAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights