DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 1 April 2026. Claims 1, 3-11, and 16-24 are pending.
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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil (US 2021/0255539) in view of Geng (“SRAF Insertion via Supervised Dictionary Learning”), and Broekhuijsen (US 5,731,820).
Regarding claim 21, Cecil discloses method of manufacturing a mask, the method comprising: generating a curve axis for generating a curvilinear sub-resolution assist feature (SRAF) corresponding to a main feature; generating curve points on a line of the curve axis; generating the curvilinear SRAF based on the curve points (Fig. 2A; ¶¶22, 25, 30);
after generating of the curvilinear SRAF, performing MRC on the curvilinear SRAF (Fig. 5; ¶22); and
exposing a substrate based on the curvilinear SRAF (¶¶3, 16, 56);
wherein the generating of the curvilinear SRAF includes: generating shape points at a distance of a half-width in a shape direction with respect to the curve points; and connecting the shape points to each other (Figs. 2A, 3C, skeleton expansion is symmetric with distance W or R in opposite directions; ¶30).
Cecil does not appear to explicitly disclose that the performing the MRC on the curvilinear SRAF includes verifying a length of the curvilinear SRAF by determining whether a length obtained by summing the half-widths corresponding to each of two tip points and curve point intervals between two adjacent curve points is equal to or less than a reference length of an SRAF required for the MRC. Geng discloses that the performing the MRC on the SRAF includes verifying a length of the SRAF by determining whether a length obtained by summing intervals between two adjacent points is equal to or less than a reference length of an SRAF required for the MRC (p. 2854, col. 1, §B, SRAF design rules; and col. 2, §1, maximum length; p. 2855, col. 1, ¶1 and equations 19f-19g). Persons having ordinary skill in the art, reading Cecil, would see that the length of the curvilinear SRAF is obtained by summing the half-widths corresponding to each of the two tip points and curve point intervals between two adjacent curve points (e.g. the length of the feature in Fig. 2A is clearly the lengths of E1 + E2 + E3 + R0 + R0); computing curve lengths using polyline/piecewise-linear arcs is well-known as taught by Broekhuijsen (Fig. 2; col. 19, lines 45-47).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Cecil, Geng, and Broekhuijsen, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of ensuring that SRAFs adhere to mask rules so that layout features are correctly printed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Cecil discloses curvilinear SRAFs and performing MRC on curvilinear SRAFs. Geng teaches that SRAF MRC verifies MRC lengths against maximum length constraints, and persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the length of a Cecil’s curvilinear features would be calculated based on piecewise-linear segment lengths, as taught by Broekhuijsen. The teachings of Geng and Broekhuijsen are directly applicable to Cecil in the same way, so that Cecil’s MRC would verify the lengths of curvilinear SRAFs so that layout features print correctly.
Regarding claim 22, Cecil discloses that the curve points are classified as an iso-type or a line-type, wherein the iso-type includes one center point (Fig. 2A, N4 or N1; ¶25) and the line-type includes two tip points at ends of the curvilinear SRAF, at least one bridge point between the two tip points, and an ID number in one direction (Fig. 2B, N1-N3 or N4-N6),
wherein the shape direction is, in the case of the line-type, radial with respect to the tip points, and normal to the curve axis of a corresponding bridge point of the at least one bridge point, wherein the shape direction is, in the case of the iso-type, radial with respect to the center point (Figs. 2A, 3C, shape is radial about the tip/iso points such as N1 or N4, and normal to curve axis elsewhere), and
wherein the generating the shape points includes: generating at least one shape point corresponding to one bridge point; and generating a plurality of shape points corresponding to the two tip points or the center point (Figs. 3C, arrows indicating expansion of bridge, tip, and iso/center points for generating shape points; ¶30).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil in view of Geng, Broekhuijsen, and Ye (US 2014/0317580).
Regarding claim 23, Cecil discloses that a curve point interval is defined as a distance between two adjacent curve points among the curve points, wherein for one curve point, a curve axis connection angle between lines of the curve axis is defined, the lines of the curve axis being connected to a curve point on either side of the one curve point (Fig. 2A, interval between nodes, connection angle between skeleton lines connected to, e.g., N2/N4 on either side of N3). Cecil does not appear to explicitly disclose that the half-width is equal to or less than 1/2 of a reference width of an SRAF required by mask rule check (MRC). However, it is well-known that MRC limits SRAF maximum width, as taught by Ye (¶114), so the half-width would necessarily be ½ of the MRC maximum.
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Cecil, Geng, Broekhuijsen, and Ye, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of designing SRAFs that conform to manufacturing requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Cecil discloses designing SRAFs. Persons having ordinary skill in the art knew that MRC specifies limits on SRAF widths, as taught by Ye. The teachings of Ye are directly applicable to Cecil in the same way, so that Cecil would similarly design SRAFs that conform to MRC width limits, so that the SRAFs would function correctly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach newly-added claims, which are addressed above using newly-cited prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, and 16-20 are allowed.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations of: subdividing the edge of a main feature into partition edges, generating a Manhattan-type position polygon at a distance at which a curvilinear sub-resolution assist feature (SRAF) is to be generated for each of the partition edges, and generating a curve axis for generating the curvilinear SRAF by rounding the position polygon, in combination with other limitations as recited in claims 1, 16, and 24.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
19 August 2026
/ARIC LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights