DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Application No. 17/860,139, filed on 8 July 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending, wherein claims 12-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-11 and 16-20, in the reply filed on 19 September 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract mental processes without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for generating curvilinear sub-resolution assist features (SRAF) comprising steps of generating a curve axis, generating curve points on the axis, and generating the curvilinear SRAF based on the curve points, which is a shape generating process that could be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper. A designer drawing (or merely thinking about) an axis, marking points on the axis, and then drawing a feature using the points literally satisfies the claimed invention.
Claims 2 and 4 recite additional shape generation/manipulation steps of subdividing feature edges, generating polygons, rounding polygons, generating shape points, and connecting shape points, which, similarly to the steps in claim 1, could be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper. A designer expanding/projecting a feature into a larger polygon, and rounding the polygon to use as the curve axis literally satisfies claim 2, and a designer marking points around the curve points and connecting them literally satisfies claim 4.
Claims 3, 5, and 6 recite characteristics, such as shape and dimensions of the shapes generated/manipulated by the methods of claims 1, 2, and 4, which does not change the abstract nature of the process.
Claims 7-11 recite mask rule checks, which are abstract mental processes for analyzing shapes, reciting various steps of checking characteristics and dimensions of the shapes against specified limits, such as comparing shape lengths, area, angle, and spacing against reference lengths, areas, angles, and spacings, which could be performed by a human in the mind or with pen and paper. A designer looking at (or thinking) about the various shapes and judging whether the characteristics of the shape meet specified requirements, literally satisfies the claimed process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite no elements beyond the abstract idea itself. For the same reasons, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cecil (US 2021/0255539).
Regarding claim 1, Cecil discloses a method of generating a curvilinear sub-resolution assist feature (SRAF), the method comprising: generating a curve axis for generating the curvilinear SRAF corresponding to a main feature; generating curve points on a line of the curve axis; and generating the curvilinear SRAF based on the curve points (Fig. 2A; ¶¶22, 25, 30).
Regarding claim 3, Cecil discloses that the curve points are classified as an iso-type and a line-type, wherein the iso-type includes one center point (Fig. 2A, N4 or N1; ¶25), and wherein the line-type includes two tip points at ends of the curvilinear SRAF, and at least one bridge point between the two tip points, and has an ID number in one direction (Fig. 2B, N1-N3 or N4-N6).
Regarding claim 4, Cecil discloses that the generating of the curvilinear SRAF includes: generating shape points at a distance of 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).
Regarding claim 5, Cecil discloses that the shape direction is, in the case of the line-type, radial with respect to the tip point, and normal to the curve axis of the corresponding bridge point with respect to the bridge point, and wherein the shape direction is, in the case of the isolated 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 of the shape points includes: generating one shape point corresponding to one of the bridge points; and generating a plurality of shape points corresponding to the tip point or the center point (Figs. 3C, arrows indicating expansion of bridge, tip, and iso/center points for generating shape points; ¶30).
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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cecil in view of Ye (US 2014/0317580).
Regarding claim 6, 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 a curve axis is defined, the line 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 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.
Regarding claim 7, Cecil discloses after generating of the curvilinear SRAF, performing MRC on the curvilinear SRAF (Fig. 5; ¶22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach the 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; generating a curve axis for generating the curvilinear SRAF by rounding the position polygon, in combination with other limitations as recited in independent claim 16.
Conclusion
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.
27 December 2025
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851