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
Applicant's election with traverse of invention II, claim 7-15 in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged. “Applicant traverses all the arguments made in the Office Action that were not specifically addressed above.” This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not specified the error in the restriction requirement.
Claims 1-6, 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 27, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 7-13 recite a method for designing a Moiré metrology target. Each of the claims falls within a statutory category of a process. Nevertheless, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 7 recites the following abstract idea: performing a design of experiments to select a set of target design parameters of the metrology target that provides a Moiré fringe pattern meeting selected design criteria when imaged by the imaging system, wherein the set of target design parameters includes the first pitch and the second pitch.
Performing a design of experiments falls into a mental process because a person having ordinary skill in the art can envision experiments that would mathematically model Fourier optical arrangements and the associated Moiré fringe pattern waveforms. Moiré fringes can be modeled mathematically using pen and paper with only knowledge of the respective pitches and rotation angle of the gratings. The expected waveform that would be imaged can be modeled mathematically by Fourier analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of receiving a design of a metrology target, the metrology target comprising: a working zone including one or more non-overlapping instances of a Moiré pattern, wherein the Moiré pattern includes a first grating structure with a first pitch (p1) along a measurement direction on a first sample layer and a second grating structure with a second pitch (p2) along the measurement direction on a second sample layer, wherein the second pitch is different than the first pitch; and receiving an optical configuration of an imaging system for imaging the metrology target, are mere data gathering, which is an extra insignificant activity and contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(A) and 2106.05(g)). The received data is gathered in order to perform the design of experiments, which is a mental process. The inventive concept lies in the exception and not any combination of the additional elements or the claim as a whole.
There is no particular machine applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The remaining consideration is whether the claim constitutes an improvement to a particular technology (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or whether it just generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field-of-use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim is generally linked to the field of metrology target design. However, no evidence is provided to show that a particular technological process is being improved by the claimed method. The disclosure describes in paragraphs [00104]-[00106] the design of experiments are generated to evaluate test targets. The disclosed design of experiments is not an improvement in the field of experiment design, but is instead a routine operation of associating performance parameters with target design.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as provided in Step 2A, Prong 2.
Dependent claims 8-13 include all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claims 8-13 recite the same abstract idea. The additional limitations recited in claims 8-13 are each functional generic/conventional processing steps which correspond to concepts identified as an abstract idea, or ideas, in the form of a mental process or mathematical formula. Claims 8-13 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claims 8-13 are rejected under 101 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 14 and 15 represent practical application of abstract idea and are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the cross-talk" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 7-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. [US 2019/0219930] in view of Willems et al. [US 2018/0046737].
For claim 7, Yang teaches a method for designing a Moiré metrology target comprising:
receiving a design of a metrology target (establishing pitches of the Moiré target, see item 105, in [0029]-[0030] and Fig. 1),
the metrology target comprising:
a working zone including one or more non-overlapping instances of a Moiré pattern, wherein the Moiré pattern includes a first grating structure with a first pitch (p1) along a measurement direction on a first sample layer and a second grating structure with a second pitch (p2) along the measurement direction on a second sample layer, wherein the second pitch is different than the first pitch (Moiré interference patterns formed by targets in working zone shown in Fig. 6, the targets that form the Moiré fringe have different pitches, see [0029]);
receiving an optical configuration of an imaging system for imaging the metrology target (determining resolution of the measurement system, see item 100, in [0029] and Fig. 1); and
selecting a set of target design parameters of the metrology target that provides a Moiré fringe pattern meeting selected design criteria when imaged by the imaging system, wherein the set of target design parameters includes the first pitch and the second pitch (first and second pitch relative to the resolution, see [0029] and [0030]).
Yang fails to teach performing a design of experiments to select a set of target design parameters of the metrology target.
Willems teaches performing a design of experiments to select a set of target design parameters of the metrology target (determine how various metrology targets respond to various metrology recipes, see [0077]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide performing a design of experiments to select a set of target design parameters of the metrology target as taught by Willems in the Moiré target method as taught by Yang in order to optimize the design parameters for each layer based on process conditions.
For claim 8, Yang teaches the selected design criteria for the Moiré fringe pattern comprise: at least one of a contrast of a Moiré fringe pattern (enhanced contrast, see [0029]-[0030]), overlay accuracy, measurement repeatability, a Moiré fringe period, or generation of a selected Moiré fringe order.
For claim 9, Yang teaches the set of target design parameters further includes at least one of a critical dimension of the first grating structure (see [0026]), a critical dimension of the second grating structure, a segmentation period of the first grating structure, a segmentation period of the second grating structure, a size of the first grating structure (see [0030]), or a size of the second grating structure.
For claim 11, in the combination, Willems teaches the imaging system comprises: a detector to generate an image of the metrology target (inherent for detection, see [0029]) and an optical system (see [0029] and [0081]).
Willems fails to explicitly teach an illumination source to generate illumination; one or more illumination optics to direct illumination from the illumination source to the metrology target; and a detector to generate an image of the metrology target based on the illumination from the illumination source, wherein an optical configuration of the imaging system is configurable, wherein the optical configuration includes a wavelength of the illumination, a polarization of the illumination incident on the metrology target, an angle of the illumination incident on the metrology target, or a focal position of the metrology target with respect to the detector, wherein the set of target design parameters further includes the optical configuration of the imaging system.
Willems teaches an illumination source to generate illumination (source for the beam generated by an metrology apparatus, see [0072]); one or more illumination optics to direct illumination from the illumination source to the metrology target (optics for modifying characteristics of the beam generated by an inspection apparatus, see [0072]); and a detector to generate an image of the metrology target based on the illumination from the illumination source (element for measuring the target and imaging the target, see [0065] and [0072]), wherein an optical configuration of the imaging system is configurable, wherein the optical configuration includes a wavelength of the illumination, a polarization of the illumination incident on the metrology target, an angle of the illumination incident on the metrology target (measurement beam wavelength, measurement beam polarization, measurement beam dose, aperture setting associated with the measurement beam, see [0077]), or a focal position of the metrology target with respect to the detector, wherein the set of target design parameters further includes the optical configuration of the imaging system (recipe selection, see [0078]-[0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the design parameters of the metrology apparatus as taught by Willems in the Moiré target measurement method as taught by Yang in order to optimize the recipe relative to the target to balance precision and accuracy.
For claim 12, in the combination, Willems teaches the design of experiments comprises: simulating images of the metrology target with a plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters (simulation program, see [0077]-[0079]); and selecting a set of target design parameters from the plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters based on the selected design criteria (selection may be perform at multiple stages, see [0080]-[0085] and Fig. 4).
For claim 14, in the combination, Willems teaches the design of experiments comprises: fabricating test metrology targets with a plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters (the one or more metrology target designs are created and measured at each metrology recipe using the inspection apparatus, see [0081]); imaging the test metrology targets (measurement with measurement recipes, see [0081]); analyzing the images of the test metrology targets with the selected design criteria (each metrology target design is evaluated against the plurality of metrology recipes to enable determination of a suitable or optimal recipe, see [0081]); and selecting a set of target design parameters from the plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters based on the analysis of the images of the test metrology targets (selection by a user, or by automatic process, of one or more metrology target designs and/or metrology recipes from the evaluated one or more metrology target designs and/or metrology recipes, see [0081]).
For claim 15, in the combination, Willems teaches design of experiments comprises: simulating images of the metrology target with a plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters (simulation program, see [0077]-[0079]); narrowing the plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters to N sets of target design parameters based on the selected design criteria (One or more of the identified metrology target designs and/or metrology recipes may be selected for use or further evaluation, see [0080]); fabricating test metrology targets with the N sets of target design parameters with a plurality of candidate sets of measurement tool parameters (the one or more metrology target designs are created and measured at each metrology recipe using the inspection apparatus, see [0081]); imaging the test metrology targets (measurement with measurement recipes, see [0081]); analyzing the images of the test metrology targets with the selected design criteria (each metrology target design is evaluated against the plurality of metrology recipes to enable determination of a suitable or optimal recipe, see [0081]); and selecting a set of target design parameters and a set of measurement tool parameters based on the analysis of the images of the test metrology targets (selection by a user, or by automatic process, of one or more metrology target designs and/or metrology recipes from the evaluated one or more metrology target designs and/or metrology recipes, see [0081]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Willems as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Tsiatmas et al. [US 2019/0049859].
For claim 13, in the combination, Willems teaches simulating images of the metrology target with the plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters comprises: simulating images of the metrology target with a plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters (simulation program, see [0077]-[0079]).
Yang and Willems fail to explicitly teach simulating using Maxwell-based simulations.
Tsiatmas teaches simulating using Maxwell-based simulations (target simulated by Maxwell solver, see [0099])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the known optical simulator as taught by Tsiatmas in the simulation testing as taught by the combination of Yang and Willems for computing the simulation of a target using an art recognized model for the same purpose.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Willems as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Tsiatmas and Mehta et al. [US 2022/0260929].
For claim 10, in the combination, Willems teaches simulating images of the metrology target with the plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters comprises: simulating images of the metrology target with a plurality of candidate sets of target design parameters (simulation program, see [0077]-[0079]).
Yang and Willems fail to teach the cross-talk is simulated using at least one of a Maxwell-based simulation or a Kirchoff approximation.
Tsiatmas teaches simulating using Maxwell-based simulations (target simulated by Maxwell solver, see [0099])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the known optical simulator as taught by Tsiatmas in the simulation testing as taught by the combination of Yang and Willems for computing the simulation of a target using an art recognized model for the same purpose.
Mehta teaches the cross-talk is simulated (simulated imaging with cross-talk, see [0057], [0059], and [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the simulation of cross-talk as taught by Mehta in the simulation testing as taught by the combination of Yang and Willems in order to identify cross-talk signatures for removal and more accurate measurement of overlay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights