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 .
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, “irradiating a first light associated with the first pattern pitch” and “irradiating a third light associated with the second pattern pitch” obfuscate what is being claimed. The term “irradiating” of “irradiates” is used to the light being directed to the pattern such as beam 542 in Fig. 5B, para 0038. Para 0062 and 0064 also uses the term to mean applying coherent beam of light towards the first and third patterns. However, in the claim, the term seems to be directed towards generating a first and third diffraction light. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that the patterns are irradiated and “a first light associated with the first pattern pitch” and “a third light associated with the second pattern pitch” are generated.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is directed to a second pattern disposed over the first pattern, which means the claimed second pattern is the pattern disposed in the upper layer and the first pattern is disposed in the lower layer. However, the claim is further directed to the second pattern pitch being smaller than the first pattern pitch and the second pattern is formed among the first pattern, which means the second pattern is the pattern formed in the lower layer and formed among the first pattern. This arrangement seems to contradict what’s disclosed in the specification, especially the embodiments in Fig. 7A and 8. Further, the claim is directed to the third pattern arranged with the first pattern pitch. In the specification, the pattern disposed in the upper layer has the pitch same as the first pattern, which is why the diffracted lights from the first pattern in the lower layer and the third pattern in the upper layer having the same pitch are used to determine overlay error. In order to expedite prosecution, it is assumed that “a third pattern is disposed over the first pattern and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern”.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is directed to the second pattern is disposed as a photo resist pattern. The specification discloses that the pattern that is in the upper layer is disposed as a photo resist pattern. In order to expedite prosecution and to be consistent with the assumption in claim 8, it is assumed that the third pattern is “disposed as a photo resist pattern”.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,852,981. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the patent is directed to a method of overlay error measurement for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a first pattern over a substrate (“a lower-layer pattern over a substrate”, “a first pattern having a first plurality of first sub-patterns”), wherein the first pattern extends in a first interval along a first direction(“extending in a first interval along a first direction”) and arranged with a first pattern pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction (“with a first pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction”); and forming a second pattern over the substrate (“a second pattern having a second plurality of second sub-patterns”), wherein the second pattern is formed among the first pattern (“interleaved between the first sub-patterns”) and extends in a second interval along the first direction and arranged with a second pattern pitch different from the first pattern pitch (“with a second pitch, smaller than the first pitch”), in the second direction crossing the first direction (“the second direction crossing the first direction”); disposing a third pattern over the first pattern (“an upper-layer pattern comprising a third pattern”), the third pattern having the first pattern pitch (“having the first pitch”) and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern (“at least partially overlapping with the lower-layer pattern”); irradiating a first light associated with the first pattern pitch at a first angle and a second light associated with the third pattern at the first angle (“generating a first reflected first order diffraction light associated with the first pitch… at a first angle”); irradiating a third light associated with the second pattern pitch at a second angle (“generating a third reflected first order diffraction light associated with the second pitch… at a third angle”), wherein the second angle is larger than the first angle (“the third angle is between 2 to 4 times larger than the first angle”); and calculating an overlay error between the first pattern and the third pattern based on diffraction of the first light and diffraction of the second light (“determining an overlay error between the lower-layer pattern and the upper-layer pattern based on a combination of the first reflected first order diffraction light and the second reflected first order diffraction light”). The claim of instant application is broader than the claim of the patent and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 1 of the patent is further directed to the generating first order diffraction light.
Claims 2-5 correspond to claims 2-5 of the patent, respectively.
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 7 of the patent.
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 6 of the patent.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the patent is directed to an overlay error measurement structure, comprising: a first pattern disposed over a substrate (“a lower-layer pattern disposed over a substrate”); a third (assumption, see 35 USC rejection above) pattern disposed over the first pattern and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern (“an upper-layer pattern disposed over the lower-layer pattern and at least partially overlapping with the lower-layer pattern”), wherein the first pattern extends in a first length along a first direction and arranged with a first pattern pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction (“a first pattern having a plurality of first sub-patterns extending in a first length along a first direction and being arranged with a first pitch”, and a second pattern extends in a second length along the first direction and arranged with a second pattern pitch in the second direction crossing the first direction (“a second pattern having a plurality of second sub-patterns extending in a second length along the first direction and being arranged with a second pitch”), wherein the second pattern is formed among the first pattern (“wherein the second sub-patterns are disposed interleaved between the first sub-patterns”), and wherein the second pattern pitch is smaller than the first pattern pitch to separate a first reflected light from the first pattern pitch from a second reflected light from the second pattern pitch (“wherein the second pitch is smaller than the first pitch to separate a first reflected first order diffractions from the first pitch of the lower-layer pattern from a second reflected first order diffractions from the second pitch of the lower-layer pattern”); and a third pattern extending in the first direction and arranged with the first pattern pitch in the second direction (“a third pattern having a plurality of third sub-patterns extending in the first direction and being arranged with the first pitch”). The claim of instant application is broader than the claim of the patent and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 8 of the patent is further directed to first and second sub-patterns and first order diffractions.
Claims 9 and 10 correspond to claims 9 and 10 of the patent, respectively.
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 12 of the patent.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 13 of the patent.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of the patent is directed to a method of overlay error measurement for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a first pattern extending in a first interval along a first direction and arranged with a first pattern pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction (“a first pattern having a first plurality of first sub-patterns extending in a first interval along a first direction and being arranged with a first pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction”); and forming a second pattern extending in a second interval along the first direction and arranged with a second pattern pitch, smaller than the first pattern pitch, in the second direction crossing the first direction (“a second pattern having a second plurality of second sub-patterns extending in a second interval along the first direction and being arranged with a second pitch, smaller than the first pitch in the second direction crossing the first direction”), wherein the second pattern is disposed among the first pattern (“the second sub-patterns are disposed interleaved between the first sub-patterns”); and filtering a reflected first light associated with the second pattern pitch from the second pattern (”blocking reflected first order diffracted light associated with the second pitch”); disposing a third pattern over the first pattern, the third pattern having the first pattern pitch and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern (“an upper-layer pattern comprising a third pattern having the first pitch and at least partially overlapping with the lower-layer pattern”); and calculating an overlay error between the first pattern and the third pattern based on light reflected from the third pattern and light reflected from the first pattern (“determining an overlay error between the lower-layer pattern and the upper-layer pattern based on a combination of reflected first order diffracted light from the upper-layer pattern and reflected first order diffracted light associated with the first pitch from the lower-layer pattern”). The claim of instant application is broader than the claim of the patent and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 14 of the patent is further directed to first and second sub-patterns and first order diffractions.
Claims 15-20 correspond to claims 15-20 of the patent, respectively.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,412. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the patent is directed to a method of overlay error measurement for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a first pattern over a substrate, wherein the first pattern extends in a first interval along a first direction and arranged with a first pattern pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction (“the first pattern having a plurality of first sub-patterns extending in a first interval along a first direction and being arranged with a first pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction”); and forming a second pattern over the substrate, wherein the second pattern is formed among the first pattern and extends in a second interval along the first direction and arranged with a second pattern pitch different from the first pattern pitch, in the second direction crossing the first direction (“ second pattern over the substrate having a plurality of second sub-patterns disposed among the first sub-patterns and extending in a second interval along the first direction and being arranged with a second pitch different from the first pitch, in the second direction crossing the first direction”); disposing a third pattern over the first pattern, the third pattern having the first pattern pitch and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern (“a third pattern over the first pattern, the third pattern having the first pitch and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern”); irradiating a first light associated with the first pattern pitch at a first angle and a second light associated with the third pattern at the first angle (“a first diffraction light associated with the first pitch at a first angle and a second diffraction light associated with the third pattern at the first angle”); irradiating a third light associated with the second pattern pitch at a second angle (“a third diffraction light associated with the second pitch at a second angle”), wherein the second angle is larger than the first angle (“wherein the second angle is between 2 to 4 times larger than the first angle”); and calculating an overlay error between the first pattern and the third pattern based on diffraction of the first light and diffraction of the second light (“determining an overlay error between the first pattern and the third pattern based on the first diffraction light and the second diffraction light”). The claim of instant application is broader than the claim of the patent and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 1 of the patent is further directed to diffraction lights.
Claims 2-5 correspond to claims 2-5 of the patent, respectively.
Claim 6 corresponds to claim 7 of the patent.
Claim 7 corresponds to claim 6 of the patent.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of the patent is directed to an overlay error measurement structure, comprising: a first pattern disposed over a substrate (“a first pattern disposed over a substrate”); a third (assumption, see 35 USC rejection above) pattern disposed over the first pattern and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern (“a second pattern disposed over the first pattern and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern”), wherein the first pattern extends in a first length along a first direction and arranged with a first pattern pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction (“first sub-patterns extending in a first length along a first direction and being arranged with a first pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction”), and a second pattern extends in a second length along the first direction and arranged with a second pattern pitch in the second direction crossing the first direction (“second sub-patterns extending in a second length along the first direction and being arranged with a second pitch in the second direction crossing the first direction”), wherein the second pattern is formed among the first pattern (“wherein the second sub-patterns are disposed among the first sub-patterns”), and wherein the second pattern pitch is smaller than the first pattern pitch to separate a first reflected light from the first pattern pitch from a second reflected light from the second pattern pitch (“the second pitch is smaller than the first pitch to separate a first reflected light from the first pitch from a second reflected light from the second pitch”); and a third pattern extending in the first direction and arranged with the first pattern pitch in the second direction (“second pattern comprises a plurality of third sub-patterns extending in the first direction and being arranged with the first pitch in the second direction”). The claim of instant application is broader than the claim of the patent and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 8 of the patent is further directed to first and second sub-patterns.
Claims 9 and 10 correspond to claims 9 and 10 of the patent, respectively.
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 12 of the patent.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 11 of the patent.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 13 of the patent.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of the patent is directed to a method of overlay error measurement for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a first pattern extending in a first interval along a first direction and arranged with a first pattern pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction (“a first pattern… extending in a first interval along a first direction and being arranged with a first pitch in a second direction crossing the first direction”); and forming a second pattern extending in a second interval along the first direction and arranged with a second pattern pitch, smaller than the first pattern pitch, in the second direction crossing the first direction (“a second pattern… extending in a second interval along the first direction and being arranged with a second pitch, smaller than the first pitch, in the second direction crossing the first direction”), wherein the second pattern is disposed among the first pattern (“wherein the second sub-patterns are disposed among the first sub-patterns”); and filtering a reflected first light associated with the second pattern pitch from the second pattern (“blocking a reflected first light associated with the second pitch from the second pattern”); disposing a third pattern over the first pattern, the third pattern having the first pattern pitch and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern (“a third pattern over the first pattern, the third pattern having the first pitch and at least partially overlapping with the first pattern”); and calculating an overlay error between the first pattern and the third pattern based on light reflected from the third pattern and light reflected from the first pattern (“determining an overlay error between the first pattern and the third pattern based on diffracted light from the third pattern and diffracted light associated with the first pitch from the first pattern”). The claim of instant application is broader than the claim of the patent and is fully met. No further analysis is necessary. For example, claim 14 of the patent is further directed to first and second sub-patterns and first order diffractions.
Claims 15-20 correspond to claims 15-20 of the patent, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims would be allowable if the double patenting rejections and the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are overcome.
Hsieh et al. (Hsieh) (10,990,023) discloses first pattern (208) arranged with a first pitch in the lower layer (204) and another pattern (206) in the upper layer (202). However, Hsieh does not disclose a second pattern interleaved between the first pattern in the lower layer and Hsieh does not disclose that the pattern in the upper layer overlaps the lower layer pattern.
Den Boef (2010/0328655) discloses a lower layer pattern (112) and an upper layer pattern (121) overlapping the lower layer pattern. However, Den Boef does not disclose a second pattern interleaved between the first pattern in the lower layer.
Marie Kiers et al. (2008/0311344) discloses in Fig. 7a, a first pattern (shaded) with a first pitch, and a second pattern (unshaded) interleaved between the first pattern and having a second pitch. However, Marie Kiers et al. does not disclose an upper layer pattern comprising a third pattern having the first pitch and least partially overlapping with the lower-layer pattern over the lower-layer pattern.
Tsiatmas et al. (Tsiatmas) (2019/0354024 U.S. equivalent of TW201830160 in IDS) discloses in Fig. 13, a lower layer pattern (42) and an upper layer pattern (44). However, Tsiatmas does not disclose a first lower layer pattern having a first pitch and a second lower layer pattern having a second pitch.
Hsieh et al. (2023/0359135) discloses in Fig. 4A, a lower layer (1300) comprising compound gratings (130) having different gratings with various widths and an upper layer (1400) comprising a plurality of gratings (140). Hsieh et al. also discloses that the width and the pitch of the upper layer gratings (140) are the same as some of the lower layer gratings (130B). However, Hsieh et al. does not disclose a second sub-patterns among the lower gratings (130B), and does not disclose light associated with the patterns generating angles and filtering of the light reflected from the second patterns.
Levinski et al. (2021/0200106) discloses a lower layer (312) with first sub-pattern (350) and second sub-pattern (352) and an upper layer (302) comprising first sub-pattern (330) and a second sub-pattern (332). However, Levinski et al. does not disclose that the second sub-pattern in the lower layer are disposed among the first sub-pattern. In fact, Levinski et al. disclose that the second sub-patterns and the first sub-patterns are separated and disposed next to each other or side-by-side. Levinski et al. also does not disclose the light angles and filtering of the light reflected from the second patterns.
Zwier (2019/0219931) discloses a first pattern in the lower layer (700, Fig. 7, para 0115) and a second pattern in the upper layer (710, para 0115). However, Zwier does not disclose a third pattern among the first pattern having a different pitch from the first pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights