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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 2-17-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examiner has not shown the proper technical feature shared by both of the claims. This is not found persuasive because: The applicant argues that the examiner has not shown the proper technical feature shared by both of the claims and then goes on to state that the examiner hasn’t shown the Moire interference pattern component as well. First it is noted that both claims treat the Moire interference component differently. Just because they share the word Moire and it’s part of both claims doesn’t mean that this is an overlapping claim limitation. Secondly, the art provided has a Moire interference pattern which shows that, even if this needed to be included, this is not a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5, 7-11, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feler et al (PGPub 2021/0072650) (Feler).
Regarding Claims 1 & 16, Feler discloses a method comprising:
determining, for a measurement structure comprising a first grating with a first pitch and a second grating with a second pitch (Paragraph 34), a sensitivity of a Moire interference pattern component with respect to a parameter of interest in a manufacturing process (Paragraphs 81, 88, 89, 125, & 126); and
evaluating the measurement structure for use in measuring the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process based on the sensitivity (Paragraph 126).
As is described the sensitivity to physical overlay errors of the Moire interference pattern depends on such factors as pitch of the gratings. Further, it is disclosed modeling and/or measuring test targets to determine the performance of each set of candidate parameters (such as target design parameters). Thus, from the disclosure one can see that measuring performance is a measurement of sensitivity and thus from that a determination of sensitivity of a Moire interference pattern component with respect to a parameter of interest (Overlay errors) and the modeling is evaluating the measurement structures for use in the parameter of interest based on that sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 2, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses wherein the determining of the sensitivity comprises determining a sensitivity as a function of at least one of the first pitch, the second pitch, or both the first and second pitches a combination thereof (Paragraph 89).
Regarding Claim 5, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses wherein the evaluating of the measurement structure comprises: determining an intensity for the Moire interference pattern component; and evaluating the measurement structure for measurement of the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process based on the intensity of the Moire interference pattern component (Paragraph 126). As disclosed the evaluation is performed by measuring of test targets. Thus, determining an intensity if Moire interfere pattern component is met. Further, the evaluation is based upon metrics such as contrast of a Moiré fringe pattern, a Moiré fringe period, generation of a selected Moiré fringe order; these are all intensity based metrics.
Regarding Claim 7, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the Moire interference pattern component comprises a Moire interference pattern component at a Moire pitch,” is met since a Moire interference pattern comprises light and dark components and the Moire Pitch as defined in equation (1) of the specification would be true for all Moire patterns.
Regarding Claims 8 & 9, the applicant has claimed “wherein the Moire interference pattern component comprises a Moire interference pattern component at a pitch smaller than a Moire pitch,” and “wherein the Moire interference pattern component comprises a Moire interference pattern component at a pitch larger than a Moire pitch,” but these do not serve to further limit the method since this is a physical description of the Moire interference patterns. They do not limit the method steps since these are structural limitations of the patterns being worked upon by the method.
Regarding Claim 10, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses determining a sensitivity of a second Moire interference pattern component with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process; and evaluating the measurement structure for use in measuring the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process based on the sensitivity of the second Moire interference pattern component (Paragraph 126). As stated in the disclosure a series of candidate parameters (including target design parameters) are tested and evaluated. Thus, it is disclosed at least a second Moire interference patterns sensitivity is determined and the measurement structure producing it is evaluated.
Regarding Claim 11, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses comparing the sensitivity of the Moire interference pattern component and the sensitivity of the second Moire interference pattern component; and evaluating the measurement structure for use in measuring the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process based on the comparison (Paragraph 126). As is disclosed the performance of each set of candidate parameters are evaluated and then they are selected based upon that evaluation. This means they are compared with one another based upon the sensitivity of the produced Moire interference patterns of each set and by choosing they have been evaluated for use in measuring the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process.
Regarding Claim 13, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses wherein the determining of the sensitivity of the Moire interference pattern component with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process comprises determining the sensitivity based on at least a first material property of the measurement structure (Paragraph 89). As disclosed the sensitivity of the Moire interference pattern to overlay error is based on the pitches of the grating structures. Thus, this meets the limitation.
Regarding Claim 14, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the manufacturing process comprises at least selected from: of a lithography process, a depositional process, an etch process, an ion implantation process, or a combination selected therefrom thereof,” since the manufacturing process of the object under test is not limiting for a method claim which is determining the sensitivity of a measurement structure for testing that object and evaluating that measurement structure based upon that sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 15, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses wherein the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process comprises at least one selected from: of an overlay offset, an overlay offset error, a measure of focus, a dose, a measure of geometrical variation, a measure of geometric dimension, a measure of symmetry, a measure of asymmetry, or a combination selected therefrom thereof (Paragraph 89). Physical overlay error is an overlay offset error.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feler in view of Moon et al (PGPub 2018/0024054) (Moon).
Regarding Claim 3, Feler discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluating of the measurement structure comprises determining if a phase of the Moire interference pattern component is substantially linear with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process;
However, Moon discloses that phase of the fringe pattern varies linearly with overlay error (Paragraph 131);
Thus, it would be obvious in combination with Feler to evaluate the measurement structure by determining if a phase of the Moire interference pattern component is substantially linear with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Feler with wherein the evaluating of the measurement structure comprises determining if a phase of the Moire interference pattern component is substantially linear with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process because this is functionally equivalent to what is disclosed in Feler and would be chosen based upon what parameter of interest in the manufacturing process that would provide the best information for determining the quality of the manufacturing process.
Regarding Claim 4, Feler discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluating of the measurement structure comprises determining if a phase of the Moire interference pattern component is substantially constant with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process over a range of wavelengths;
However, Moon discloses that phase of the fringe pattern varies linearly with overlay error (Paragraph 131);
Thus, it would be obvious in combination with Feler to evaluate the measurement structure by determining if a phase of the Moire interference pattern component is substantially constant with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Feler with wherein the evaluating of the measurement structure comprises determining if a phase of the Moire interference pattern component is substantially constant with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process over a range of wavelengths because this is functionally equivalent to what is disclosed in Feler and would be chosen based upon what parameter of interest in the manufacturing process that would provide the best information for determining the quality of the manufacturing process.
Regarding Claim 12, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses comparing Moire interference patterns between multiple combinations of candidate parameters (including target design parameters) to determine the optimal one based upon sensitivity and then choosing one based upon this (thus evaluating which is best);
Feler fails to discloses determining, for the measurement structure, at least one selected from: of a phase sensitivity, a phase shift sensitivity, a frequency sensitivity, or a combination selected therefrom, thereof with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process and using one of those parameters for the evaluation;
However, Moon discloses that phase of the fringe pattern varies linearly with overlay error (Paragraph 131). This would be applicant’s phase shift sensitivity;
Thus, it would be obvious in combination with Feler to evaluate the measurement structure by determining, for the measurement structure, at least one selected from: of a phase sensitivity, a phase shift sensitivity, a frequency sensitivity, or a combination selected therefrom given the disclosure of Moon;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Feler with determining, for the measurement structure, at least one selected from: of a phase sensitivity, a phase shift sensitivity, a frequency sensitivity, or a combination selected therefrom, thereof with respect to the parameter of interest in the manufacturing process and using one of those parameters for the evaluation because this is functionally equivalent to what is disclosed in Feler and would be chosen based upon what parameter of interest in the manufacturing process that would provide the best information for determining the quality of the manufacturing process.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feler.
Regarding Claim 6, Feler discloses the aforementioned. Further, Feler discloses evaluating of the measurement is based upon evaluating based upon the parameters of the grating stack (125, & 126);
Feler fails to explicitly disclose that absorbance of at least a first material of the structure is one of the parameters of the grating stack;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Feler with wherein the evaluating of the measurement comprises evaluating the sensitivity based on absorbance of at least a first material of the measurement structure because absorbance of the material of the grating stack would effect the Moire pattern and thus the sensitivity and thus it would be common sense to use this as a parameter for evaluating the measurement structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
June 13, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights