DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is responsive to the amended claims filed on November 10, 2025
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 are under examination. Claims 5 and 18-20 are canceled.
Claim 14 is objected to for minor informalities.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for reciting new matter.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as anticipated by Li.
Response To Arguments/Amendments
Objections – The amendments and arguments appear to overcome the existing objections.
35 USC 112 – The Amendments and arguments appear to overcome the existing 35 USC 112 issues.
35 USC 101 – The amendments and arguments are not persuasive. The arguments presented will be addressed in the order they were presented in the response.
Providing Modified Shape Data To Modify A Design – The Applicant asserts that providing a modified pattern to the simulation can improve accuracy compared to other techniques. However, the modification of the shape is a mental evaluation/process that is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of a pen, paper, and/or calculator. This means that modifying the shape is an element of the abstract idea and is not an additional element that can confer eligibility.
Practical Application – The Applicant asserts that the claim is integrated into a practical application, but that does not appear to be the case. The claims are similar to the eligibility examples Example 47, claim 2, which takes in data, processes the data, and the yields other data that is potentially usable in the application. The claim, resulting in a simulation of an image step, whatever that is, is not integrated into the process of making wafers. It is also not an improvement to computer technology itself.
Claimed Subject Matter As A Whole – The Applicant asserts that the examiner has not considered the claim as a whole in the practical application analysis at Step 2A, Prong 2. Respectfully, this is incorrect. The Applicant states, “The ‘practical application’ is not merely ‘computer implementation’ or ‘storing,’ rather the practical application is an improved computer thick mask simulation to simulate an image of a pattern as expected to be produced by a photolithography system, which is something that cannot be reasonably done in the mind, with pen and pencil, nor requires a mathematical algorithm.” The Applicant appears confident that the determinations for modifying a design reflected in a mask image is not practically performable in the mind but has provided no evidence of that truth. The Applicant merely states that this cannot be conducted mentally or with pen and paper because it is an improvement over existing techniques, which does not make sense, and proves nothing. The Applicant then attempts to rely on a case where computer components operate differently from the prior art as an improvement to computer technology to attempt to discredit the Examiner’s slam dunk assessment that the claims only claim a very clear generic use of the computing elements in the claims, as in “apply it” steps under MPEP 2106.05(f), is sound. The fact is, the Applicant recited the computing elements at a high level and did nothing to improve the components, the computing system to which they belong, or even the operations thereof. Therefore, the computing systems and operations are generic and do not contribute meaning fully as additional limitations.
Conclusion – The Applicant then concludes the 35 USC 101 remarks by repeating that the adjustment of errors in a design before making the mask provides advantages over existing techniques. The old “measure twice, cut once” adage was not invented in August of 2019 by Shayegan Salek in Stamford, Connecticut. As drafted, the claims clearly situate any improvement solely within the abstract idea, so there are no additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the elements of the claim as a whole to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept. The rejections are maintained.
Suggestion – It would be advisable for the Applicant to conduct an interview to better understand the types of amendments that could potentially make the claims eligible. Some suggested amendments include:
Further incorporate the resulting simulation of an image in the wafer production process in a meaningful, non-apply-it way. For example, it would help to better explain what simulating an image is. It would also help if there was some modification of fabrication steps (e.g., a feedback loop) because of a determination of the claims.
Placing the process in lithographic equipment.
Removing the “expected” language in favor of a positively asserted application.
Amend the claims to be more inventive relative to the prior art.
35 USC 102 – The amendments and arguments overcame the existing rejection details. However, the rejection has been updated, and a new rejection under 35 USC 102 with the same Li reference is presented. Because the bases for the rejection are new, the arguments presented in the response are moot.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 includes a status indicator indicating that claim 14 has been amended. However, there are no underlines or strike-through in claim 14, indicating that no amendment has been made.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, independent claims 1, 13, and 15 recite “a polygon or a contour of a target pattern.” However, the specification is silent as to “a polygon.” This feature presents new matter, so the Applicant is advised to remove the new matter by amendment.
35 USC 112(b)
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 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 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.
“Using the thick mask model [with the modified pattern] [as an input to the thick mask model]”
Claims 1, 13, and 15 recite, “using the thick mask model with the modified pattern as input to the thick mask model” The claim is unclear as to what the “as an input to the thick mask model” qualifies. For example, the thick mask model with the pattern as input could be input into the thick mask model. Alternatively, this could be merely stating that the thick mask model is one that has already been modified based on the modified pattern, and that it is not used as an input to the same or another thick mask model. For purposes of examination, the latter interpretation will be applied to the feature. That is, this feature will be interpreted as only one thick mask, the thick mask has previously been modified based on the modified pattern, and that the resulting thick mask that is altered based on the modified pattern is not used as input to the same or another mask model.
“computer simulating […] an image”
Claims 1, 13, and 15 recite, “simulating […] an image of a pattern. However, it is unclear what is meant by simulating an image. An image is so simple a thing, it is unclear what a simulation of an image would be.
“as expected to be produced by the lithographic system”
Claims 1, 13, and 15 recite, “as expected to be produced by the lithographic system.” It is unclear what the metes and bounds of this expectation are. For purposes of examination, this will be interpreted to mean “usable for production of a substrate by a lithographic system.”
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-12, 14, 16-17, and 21-24 are rejected based on their dependency from rejected independent claims.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim 13 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical operation, which are abstract ideas.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Ill): “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, Judgments, and opinions. […] The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation.”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept […] a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a ‘‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’’ are directed to an abstract idea).
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A): “Mathematical Relationships. A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols.”
Claim 13 recites (claim features in italics, paragraph references are to the Applicant’s specification):
[…]
modify the pattern to improve image prediction by a thick mask model, wherein the modification comprises modification of a polygon or contour of a target pattern the pattern to change the shape of the polygon or contour of the target pattern, and
(evaluation, mathematical operation: [0059] “The GDS may be treated as an image, and a graphical low pass filter may be applied to that image. This may be, for example, implemented by averaging nearby pixels in the image. The averaging may be a straight average (e.g., a matrix that is an array of ones divided by the number of elements within the kernel), or a weighted average, where pixels further from the center have a different weight from those near the edges. In either case, higher frequency information in the image is reduced, while low frequency information is maintained.”; This is an evaluation of mathematical operations on a model that is a set of mathematical relationships. These operations, including performing calculations to modify an image, are practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator. Therefore, the features are mental processes and mathematical processes, abstract ideas.)
computer simulate, using the thick mask model with the modified pattern as an input to the thick mask model, an image of the modified pattern as expected to be produced by the photolithography system.
(evaluation, mathematical operation: [0031] “To simulate the near field due to mask thickness and topographical structures, a first principle is to solve Maxwell's equations. Due to a complicated shape of the light source and complex boundary conditions defined by mask patterns, the Maxwell's equations can typically be solved numerically only.”; [0044] “In an Abbe model the specifics of the inputs source model 31, projection optics model 32 and design layout model 35 form the inputs, and a complete computation of the resulting resist pattern can be made. In a Hopkins model, the design layout model 35 is an input into a combined model incorporating the source model 31 and the projection optics model 32, such that a majority of the computations in the modeling reside in the simulation of the optics and source (31 and 32) such that the computational load is largely pattern independent.” - This is an evaluation of mathematical operations on a model that is a set of mathematical relationships. These operations, including performing calculations to render an image, are practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen, paper, and a calculator. Therefore, the features are mental processes and mathematical processes, abstract ideas.)
The modify and simulate steps of claim 13 are elements of an evaluation, a mental process, which can be performed in the mind of a person or with a pen and paper. ([0044], [0059]) Further, the modify and simulate steps of claim 13 as described in the claim and specification include and/or are expressed as mathematical calculations or mathematical relationships, which are mathematical concepts. ([0044], [0059]). Being a mental process and a mathematical concept, the modify an simulate steps are an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Solution?
No.
MPEP 2106.04(d): “[A]fter determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is evaluated using the considerations set forth in subsection I below, in accordance with the procedure described below in subsection II.”
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to […] more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection. For example, an examiner could explain that implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.
MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The additional limitations:
A system for simulating a pattern to be imaged onto a substrate using a photolithography system, the system comprising:
a memory […]; and
a processor configured and arranged to:
The claimed system includes a generic memory and a processor with no specific system alterations to execute the claimed steps. The computer implementation is a recitation of a general purpose computer with no specific configurations to execute the claimed method. As such, the computer implementation implements the recited abstract idea on a generic computer, and, under MPEP 2106.05(f) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two.
[…] for storing a pattern to be imaged onto the substrate;
The storing merely gathers existing information (respective candidate traces) for evaluation. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Mere Data Gathering, an analogous example is provided: “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” Under MPEP 2106.05(g), receiving data for evaluation is not significant in meaningfully limiting the invention, and the receiving of the data is necessary to the evaluations and mathematical operations of the claim. Under MPEP 2106.05(g). The storing adds nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity, so it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 13 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
MPEP 2106.05(I) “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself. […] Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.”
MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “[I]mplementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. […] i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data […] iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”
MPEP 2106.05(g): “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978).”
The additional limitations:
A system for simulating a pattern to be imaged onto a substrate using a photolithography system, the system comprising:
a memory […]; and
a processor configured and arranged to:
The claimed system includes a generic memory and a processor with no specific system alterations to execute the claimed steps. The computer implementation is a recitation of a general purpose computer with no specific configurations to execute the claimed method. As such, the computer implementation implements the recited abstract idea on a generic computer, and, under MPEP 2106.05(f) fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more, and, therefore, fails to confer an inventive concept.
[…] for storing a pattern to be imaged onto the substrate;
This storing is storing and retrieving information from memory and also indicative of sending or reciting data, so it is analogous to the examples cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) representing well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Also, the additional limitation of the storing is insignificant extra-solution activity (as illustrated under Step 2A Prong 2) and a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. Therefore, none of the additional limitations can provide the abstract idea with significantly more to render the combination of the additional limitations an inventive concept, under MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(g) respectively.
Therefore, there are no additional limitations in claim 13 that furnish claim 13 with an inventive concept to ensure that claim 13, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the bolded abstract idea.
Claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Process)
Claim 1 recites the same method steps as the steps in claim 13 that represent the abstract idea. Clam 1 also affirmatively claims an obtaining step that is treated the same way as the storing in claim 13 under the eligibility analysis. Claim 1 also recites that the simulating step is performed “by a hardware computer system,” but this is treated the same way as the generic processor and memory in claim 13 for purposes of subject matter eligibility. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to recite any additional limitations that would render claim eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B for at least the same reasons as claim 13.
Claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 15 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Claim 15 recites a CRM for conducting the method steps recited in claim 13 that are the abstract idea. The CRM is a generic memory device and is treated the same way as the memory in claim 13. Clam 15 also affirmatively claims an obtain step that is treated the same way as the storing in claim 13 under the eligibility analysis. Accordingly, claim 15 recites an abstract idea and fails to recite any additional limitations that would render claim elibigle under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B for at least the same reasons as claim 13.
Claim 15 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-12, 14, and 16-20 are also ineligible for the following reasons.
Claims 2, 14, 16
Claim 16 recites,
apply a low pass filter to the target pattern.
The modifying/modify step is an evaluation and mathematical operation for the reasons demonstrated with respect to claim 13. The apply/applying operation merely qualifies how that abstract idea is performed and is itself an evaluation and mathematical operation on a set of mathematical relationships (model). The apply/applying operation is, therefore, as a mental process and mathematical concept, an element of the abstract idea. This merges with the abstract idea of the claim(s) from which the dependent claim depends. This provides no additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or render the claim inventive by providing significantly more in combination with the rest of the claim elements.
wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to modify the pattern are configured to
These additional limitations merely represent execution on a generic computer, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more and confer an inventive concept.
The features of claim 16 do not provide further additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept. Claims 2 and 14 recite similar features and are treated the same under the eligibility analysis.
Claims 2, 14, and 16 are ineligible.
Claims 3 and 17
Claim 17 recites,
wherein the pattern comprises a plurality of edges and vertices in a staircase pattern; and
The wherein clause specifies elements of the patterns (edges and vertices in a staircase pattern), which are parameters for use in the modify/modifying step and merge with the abstract idea of the claim(s) from which the dependent claim depends.
[…] reduce a number of edges and vertices in the pattern.
The reduce/reduces operation qualifies the evaluation/mathematical operation of the modify/modifying operation of the claim(s) from which the dependent claim depends. Also, the reduce/reduces operation is an evaluation and mathematical operation and merges with the abstract idea of the claim(s) from which the dependent claim depends
The wherein clause and reduce/reduces step merge with the abstract idea of the claim(s) from which the dependent claim depends. This provides no additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or render the claim inventive by providing significantly more in combination with the rest of the claim elements.
wherein the instructions configured to cause the computer system to modify the pattern are configured to […]
These additional limitations merely represent execution on a generic computer, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more and confer an inventive concept.
The features of claim 17 do not provide further additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept. Claim 3 recites similar features and is treated the same under the eligibility analysis.
Claims 3 and 17 are ineligible.
Claims 4 and 21
Claim 4 recites,
wherein the simulating comprises:
modeling […] mask effects on imaging;
modeling source effects on imaging; and
modeling optical effects of an imaging optical system of the photolithography system.
These features merely qualify the simulating step of claim 1, which is part of the abstract idea. Further, the modeling steps are evaluations, which are mental processes, and are mathematical operations on mathematical relationships (models), so the modeling steps are elements of the abstract idea.
three dimensional mask
The modeling of a three-dimensional mask is merely applying a general modeling concept generically, which is tantamount to “apply it” under MPEP 2106.05(f). Because this feature merely “appl[ies] it,” the three dimensional mask fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more and confer an inventive concept.
The features of claim 4 do not provide further additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 21 recites features similar to the features of claim 4.
Claims 4 and 21 are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 22
Claim 6 recites,
wherein the simulating further comprises applying a plurality of edge filters.
This merely qualifies the simulating operation, which is an element of the abstract idea. Further, applying edge filters is an evaluation, which is a mental process, and is achieved by mathematical operations on mathematical relationships (models), so the applying operation is an abstract element that merges with the abstract idea.
The features of claim 6 do not provide additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 22 recites features similar to the features of claim 6.
Claims 6 and 22 are ineligible.
Claims 7 and 23
Claim 7 recites,
wherein each edge filter is selected dependent on a location of an edge to which it is to be applied, and on a geometry of the edge to which it is to be applied.
Edge filter selection is an evaluation, which is a mental process. Further, the edge filter selection qualifies the simulating operation, which is an element of the abstract idea. Therefore, the features of claim 7 are abstract elements that merge with the abstract idea of the claims from which claim 7 depends.
The features of claim 7 do not provide additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 23 recites features similar to the features of claim 7.
Claims 7 and 23 are ineligible.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites,
wherein each edge filter is further selected dependent on a geometry of features proximate the edge to which it is to be applied.
Edge filter selection is an evaluation, which is a mental process. Further, the edge filter selection qualifies the simulating operation, which is an element of the abstract idea. Therefore, the features of claim 8 are abstract elements that merge with the abstract idea of the claims from which claim 8 depends.
The features of claim 8 do not provide additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites,
wherein the applying comprises applying the plurality of edge filters to each horizontal and each vertical edge.
This merely qualifies the simulating operation, which is an element of the abstract idea. Further, applying edge filters is an evaluation, which is a mental process, and is achievable by mathematical operations on mathematical relationships (models), so the applying operation is an abstract element that merges with the abstract idea.
The features of claim 9 do not provide additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites,
wherein the applying comprises applying the plurality of edge filters to all edges.
This merely qualifies the simulating operation, which is an element of the abstract idea. Further, applying edge filters is an evaluation, which is a mental process, and is achievable by mathematical operations on mathematical relationships (models), so the applying operation is an abstract element that merges with the abstract idea.
The features of claim 10 do not provide additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 10 is ineligible.
Claims 11 and 24
Claim 11 recites,
wherein the simulating is used to perform source mask optimization.
This merely qualifies the simulating operation, which is an element of the abstract idea. Further, performing source mask optimization is an evaluation, which is a mental process, and is achieved by mathematical operations on mathematical relationships ([0052]), so the applying operation is an abstract element that merges with the abstract idea.
The features of claim 11 do not provide additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 24 recites features similar to claim 11.
Claims 11 and 24 are ineligible.
Claim 12
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): “Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: […] iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;”
Subject Matter Eligibility; “October 2019 Examples 43-46”; Example 46, Claim 1; Page 35, Third Paragraph; Step 2B: […] “displaying data is well known.” (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_app1.pdf)
Claim 12 recites,
wherein a mask and source resulting from the source mask optimization are used to image the pattern onto the substrate.
Note: Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b), and the limitation, “image the pattern onto the substrate,” is interpreted to include merely displaying a simulated image on a substrate. Displaying data output from an abstract process is post-solution insignificant extra-solution activity akin to the post-solution activity example in MPEP 2106.05(g) (“a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions”) and a component of one of the selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated (“iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Because this feature is insignificant extra-solution activity, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 12 is directed to the abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 2.
The features of claim 12 are also akin to an example of well-known, routine, and conventional functions (iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics) in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, Subject Matter Eligibility Example 46 explicitly states that displaying data is well known (e.g., a well-known, routine, and conventional function).
Because the display/presentation is a well-known, routing, and conventional function, and because the display/presentation is insignificant extra-solution activity, the limitations of claim 12 do not include an additional limitation that combines with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that could confer an inventive concept.
The features of claim 12 do not provide additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or combine with the other elements of the claim to contribute significantly more than the abstract idea to render the combination an inventive concept.
Claim 12 is ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24: Li
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-17, and 21-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication No. 2018/0341173 A1 to Li et al. (Li).
Claims 1, 13, 15
Regarding Claim 13, Li teaches:
A system for simulating a pattern to be imaged onto a substrate using a photolithography system, the system comprising: (Li Paragraph [0024] “Computational photolithography is a set of computer-based mathematical and algorithmic approaches (referred to as a “model”) specifically designed to solve optical and process proximity problems and improve the attainable resolution in photolithography. The capability of the model to simulate the optical imaging system and predict the wafer patterns is essential, and tools can be built to compensate optical proximity effects and enable RET.” – A photolithography system for simulating a pattern)
a memory for storing a pattern to be imaged onto the substrate; and a processor configured and arranged to: (Li Paragraph [0036] “The apparatus 200 can have an internal configuration of hardware including a processor 202 and a memory 204. […] The memory 204 can be any device or devices capable of storing codes and data that can be accessed by the processor (e.g., via a bus). For example, the memory 204 can be accessed by the processor 202 via a bus 212. […] “The memory 204 can include data 216, an operating system 220 and an application 218. The data 216 can be any data for photolithography simulation (e.g., computerized data files of mask design layout or database clips of Mask Topography filters).” [0033] “According to implementations of this disclosure, a near field image (MI3D) considering effects due to mask topology or topography (e.g., thickness and topographical structures) can be obtained by processing a thin mask image (MI2D) through an artificial neural network (ANN).” – Memory stores elements for carrying out a photolithography simulation, including a thin mask model that is the basis for a thick mask model. Processors execute the elements in stored memory.)
modify the pattern to improve image prediction by a thick mask model, wherein the modification comprises modification of a polygon or contour of a target pattern to change the shape of the polygon or contour of the target pattern, and (Li [0025] “This projection can be described by a light-source-dependent projection function (referred to as a "pupil function"). When the source is incoherent and has a shape consisting of a region on a plane of the source, aerial images resulting from sampled points of the light source can be summed to produce a total aerial image, which determines final patterns projected on the wafer. This scheme can be modified under some assumptions and through various derivations for speed improvement. However, the mask image remains the starting point of the simulation.” – After the thick mask is created and ready for projection as an image of a pattern as expected to be produced by a photolithographic system. [0043] “According to implementations of this disclosure, the near field image (MI3n) can be obtained from a thin mask image (MI2D) based on an image processing method.” ). – The thick mask is derived from the thin mask, e.g., by use of an ML model. [0044] In principle, the MI3n can be obtained from the MI2D using the Mask Topography filters ( e.g., gradient filters and curvature filters Some image processing methods, referred to as "geometry detectors," can detect geometric features from MI2n. For example, gradient detectors and curvature detectors can detect edges and comers, respectively. The Mask Topography filters can filter the edges and corners to account for mask topography effects and determine geometric data. For example, the geometric data can include a partial near filed image centered on an edge or a corner. The outputs of the Mask Topography filters ( e.g., corner-centered and edge-centered partial near field images) can be summed with MI2D to determine MI3n. “ [0050] – “Various render filters (e.g., a low-pass filter) 304 can render the mask layout 302 (e.g., polygons) at operation 306 (e.g., a convolution operation). The thin mask image 308 (e.g., a pixelated thin mask image) can be outputted from the operation 306. For example, the operation 306 can include a rasterization operation to generate the thin mask image 308. The thin mask image 308 can carry information of all edges and corners as well as their neighboring features of mask patterns.” – The target design can be modified (e.g., at the thin mask stage prior to the thick mask stage) so that the thick mask/near-field image is modified, including by render filters (e.g., for polygons) or curvature filters (e.g., for contours). [0053]-[0054] “In the process 300B, the thin mask image 308 can be generated in the same way as in the process 300A. The mask topography effect are caused by scattering from mask edges. Mask image gradients (e.g., a vector image) can be determined to represent the edges in the thin mask image 308. Gradients 314 can be determined from the thin mask image 308. The gradients 314 include one or more vector images.” [0055] “The ANN 316 can take the gradients 314 as input. The ANN 316 can output predicted differences between thin mask images (e.g., the thin mask image 308) and thick mask images (e.g., the thick mask image 312).” – Vectorizing the image to determine gradients for input into an ANN; [0059] “The thick mask image 312 can be determined by an ANN 320. The inputs of the ANN 320 can include a thin mask image 308. The ANN 320 can be similar to the ANN 310 in the process 300A, similar to the ANN 316 in the process 300B, or any other ANN that can determine near field images using thin mask images as inputs.” – ANN using thin mask as input; The pattern can be modified to improve the thick mask by rigorous solvers, cropping, vectorization, gradient determination, and ANN mask improvement.
computer simulate, using the thick mask model with the modified pattern as an input to the thick mask model, an image of the modified pattern as expected to be produced by the photolithography system. (Li [0038] “In some implementations, besides the processor 202 and the memory 204, the apparatus 200 can include an output device 208. The output device 208 can be implemented in various ways, for example, it can be a display that can be coupled to the apparatus 200 and configured to display a rendering of graphic data.” – NOTE, As indicated with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the claims, it is unclear what simulating an image is. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted to mean creating data for a display. Li [0038] “In some implementations, besides the processor 202 and the memory 204, the apparatus 200 can include an output device 208. The output device 208 can be implemented in various ways, for example, it can be a display that can be coupled to the apparatus 200 and configured to display a rendering of graphic data. – Li teaches a display of graphic data which would include the thick mask. [0062] “Each node of the input layer and the output layer in FIG. 4 is a graphic representation of input data and output data of the ANN, respectively.” – FIG. 4 includes a simulation of graphic representation of a modified thick mask image, as element 312. [0025] “In a standard framework commonly employed in fast computational photolithography models, an image representing the mask patterns (referred to as a "mask image") is created from computer-stored data files. The mask image can be projected to an optical intensity profile (referred to as an "aerial image"), onto the surface of the wafer. This projection can be described by a light-source-dependent projection function (referred to as a "pupil function"). When the source is incoherent and has a shape consisting of a region on a plane of the source, aerial images resulting from sampled points of the light source can be summed to produce a total aerial image, which determines final patterns projected on the wafer. This scheme can be modified under some assumptions and through various derivations for speed improvement.” – Li teaches that a simulation of the aerial image projected from the thick mask model is projected on the substrate itself, a simulation. Also, this teaches more image data that can be displayed on Li’s display.)
Claim 1 recites a method including the modify and simulate operations of claim 13 and recites an obtaining step that is rejected using the same rationale and art as the memory storing a pattern to be imaged onto the substrate in claim 13. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 13, and the rejection of claim 13 is applied mutatis mutandis to the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 recites a CRM that functions as the memory does in claim 13 and is for execution by a processor, such as the processor of claim 13. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 13, and the rejection of claim 13 is applied mutatis mutandis to the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 2, 14, and 16
Regarding Claim 14 (and 2 and 16), Li teaches the features of claim 13 (and 1 and 15). Li further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to modify the pattern by applying a low pass filter to the target pattern. (Li [0050] – “Various render filters (e.g., a low-pass filter) 304 can render the mask layout 302 (e.g., polygons) at operation 306.” - Li applies a low-pass filter to the pattern/target pattern.) Claims 2 and 16 recite similar features and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 14.
Claims 3 and 17
Regarding claim 17 (and 3), Li teaches the features of claim 15 (and 1). Li further teaches:
wherein the pattern comprises a plurality of edges and vertices (Li [0030] “This thin layer can be simulated by building a two-dimensional image (referred to as a “thin mask image”) through rendering and low-pass filtering (also called “blurring” or “smoothing”) for noise reduction.” - Low pass filters smooth images, by removing rough edges.; [0032] “In addition, the near field image not only depends on geometries (e.g., edges or corners), but also is affected by adjacent patterns. When an inter-geometry distance (e.g., an edge-to-edge, edge-to-corner, or corner-to-corner distance) is so small that secondary optical scattering effects can significantly change the near field” The short edge-to-edge distance in adjacent patterns is a staircase pattern that can be smoothed using the low-pass filter.) Claim 3 recites features similar to the features of claim 17 and is rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 4 and 21
Regarding claims 4 and 21, Li teaches the features of claims 1 and 15. Li further teaches:
wherein the simulating comprises: modeling three dimensional mask effects on imaging; (Li [0044] “In principle, the MI3D can be obtained from the MI2D using the Mask Topography filters (e.g., gradient filters and curvature filters). Some image processing methods, referred to as “geometry detectors,” can detect geometric features from MI2D. For example, gradient detectors and curvature detectors can detect edges and corners, respectively. The Mask Topography filters can filter the edges and corners to account for mask topography effects and determine geometric data. For example, the geometric data can include a partial near filed image centered on an edge or a corner. The outputs of the Mask Topography filters (e.g., corner-centered and edge-centered partial near field images) can be summed with MI2D to determine MI3D.” – 3D mask effects on imaging are modeled)
modeling source effects on imaging; and (Li [0025] “The mask image can be projected to an optical intensity profile (referred to as an “aerial image”), onto the surface of the wafer. This projection can be described by a light-source-dependent projection function (referred to as a “pupil function”). When the source is incoherent and has a shape consisting of a region on a plane of the source, aerial images resulting from sampled points of the light source can be summed to produce a total aerial image, which determines final patterns projected on the wafer.” – Source effects are modeled using a light-source dependent light function)
modeling optical effects of an imaging optical system of the photolithography system. (Li [0030] “In model-based OPC processes, a lithographic model can be built to simulate the optical or electromagnetic near field due to proximity to mask topology or topography features (e.g., thickness and topographical structures). The effects on the optical or electromagnetic near field due