DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments that the reference to Feler does not disclose determining “focus dependent” measurements, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Attention is brought to the fact that the claims as written merely disclose “a substrate” having “a periodic main feature” and “a periodic reference feature”, wherein the features have different pitches and generate a Moiré pattern. There is no “focus dependent” measurement recited within the claims. The description of the main feature pitch as being “focus dependent”, appears to merely describe an inherent feature or function of the structure. The claims do not recite any structure or method steps which would further define the “focus dependent” function. Further, paragraph 110 of Feler explicitly discloses that the images of the obtained Moiré patterns “may vary based on the optical conditions associated with the generation of the image”, wherein focal position is disclosed as an optical condition of the system.
Attention is now brought to paragraph 63 of Feler, which explicitly discloses that a plurality of separate grating structures may each have a different pitch value (P, Q, S, T) which “may be independently varied”. Further, Figures 2A-C appear to illustrate the plurality of gratings having pitches which differ by less than 20%.
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) 12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by US Publication 2021/0072650 to Feler et al.
In regards to claims 12 and 14-22, Feler discloses and shows in Figures 2a-14, a substrate comprising:
at least one focus target or sub-target (par. 5-6, 34, 58, 60) thereof comprising:
at least a periodic main feature having a main feature pitch (par. 5-6, 34, 60, 63), wherein a center-of-mass and/or the main feature pitch is focus dependent (par. 9, 60, 110, 113; wherein images of the patterns may vary based on “optical conditions”, such as focal position); and
a periodic reference feature having a reference feature pitch different from the main feature pitch (par. 5-6, 34, 60, 63, 100-101),
wherein the main feature and reference feature are arranged such that scattered radiation from the main feature and the reference feature interfere to form a beat signal or Moiré signal (par. 3, 5-6, 34, 58, 60, 63);
[claim 14] wherein the reference feature is comprised in a layer below a layer of interest comprising the main feature of each sub-target (par. 34, 58, 63, 100-101);
[claim 15] wherein the reference feature and the main feature are both comprised within a same layer (par. 58, 96);
[claim 16] wherein: the center-of-mass is a focus dependent center-of-mass, and the center-of-mass of each sub-target is related to a peak position of a first harmonic of a pattern defined focus target when printed par. 5, 9, 60, 110, 113; wherein target design parameters are selected to meet desired design criteria; and wherein images of the patterns may vary based on “optical conditions”, such as focal position);
[claim 17] wherein: each of the main feature is formed with a focus dependent pitch, and the main feature is substantially symmetrical around an axis of symmetry parallel to a direction of periodicity of the main feature (par. 5, 9, 34, 38, 63, 110);
[claim 18] wherein the main feature comprises a periodic array of main feature elements (par. 5, 34, 63);
[claim 19] wherein the focus target is paired on the substrate with a mirrored or 180 degree rotated version of the focus target (par. 38, 58-60, 63);
[claim 20] wherein the focus parameter describes a focus setting of a lithographic exposure process in which the focus target was exposed, wherein the focus target comprises a plurality of sub-targets configured to exhibit different focus-dependent responses, such that a difference between measurement signals obtained from the plurality of sub-targets varies as a function of focus and is indicative of the focus parameter (par. 9, 60, 63, 67 110; wherein the characteristics of one working zone may be compared to the other; wherein the Moiré pitch of each working zone is dependent upon the pitch of each grating structure; wherein each grating structure pitch may be “independently varied” and selected; and wherein the image of each Moiré pattern will vary based upon the “optical conditions” of the system);
[claim 21] a patterning device comprising: target patterning features for forming the focus target on the substrate to obtain the substrate (par. 126-128; wherein a lithography tool is disclosed).
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) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feler.
In regards to claim 13, Feler discloses a plurality of grating structures each having a selectable pitch value (P, Q, S, T), which “may be independently varied” (par. 63) to reduce crosstalk between adjacent patterns (par. 67). Further, Figures 2A-C illustrate gratings with pitch values that appear to differ by less than 20%.
Feler differs from the limitations in that it is silent to the substrate further comprising: wherein the main feature pitch and reference feature pitch differ by less than 20%.
However, it has been held that finding the optimal or working ranges of a variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Further, a mere change in size or design choice of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Feler to include the feature dimensions discussed above for the advantage of obtaining an optimal or desired system configuration, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 JONATHAN M HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
JONATHAN M. HANSEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2877
/JONATHAN M HANSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights