DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the submission filed on 7/6/2026. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments- 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 that “using a fabrication model to transform structural parameters of the initial design into predicted structural parameters by applying one or more morphological transformations to the structural parameters of the initial design”.
Paragraph [0056] of Schubert recites “More specifically, system 500 is a design tool that may be utilized to optimize structural parameters (e.g., shape and arrangement of a first material and a second material within the dispersive region of the embodiments described in the present disclosure) of photonic integrated circuits based on first-principles simulations (e.g., electromagnetic simulations to determine a field response of the photonic device to an excitation source) and iterative optimization” The design tool ‘transforms’ the structural parameters of the initial. The optimization of structural parameters within the design tool is a prediction of the parameters.
The rejection has been updated to reflect the amended claim language.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-12, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0149109 (“Schubert”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Schubert teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform actions for optimizing a design for a physical device to be fabricated by a fabrication system (¶ 0020, 0098); the actions comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, an initial design (¶ 0061);
using, by the computing system, a fabrication model to transform structural parameters of the initial design into predicted structural parameters by applying one or more morphological transformations to the structural parameters of the initial design (¶[0056] FIG. 5 is a functional block diagram illustrating a system 500 for generating a design of a photonic integrated circuit (i.e., photonic device), in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. System 500 may be utilized to perform the inverse design process. More specifically, system 500 is a design tool that may be utilized to optimize structural parameters (e.g., shape and arrangement of a first material and a second material within the dispersive region of the embodiments described in the present disclosure) of photonic integrated circuits based on first-principles simulations (e.g., electromagnetic simulations to determine a field response of the photonic device to an excitation source) and iterative optimization), wherein the predicted structural parameters represent structural parameters that are predicted to be generated by the fabrication system based on the structural parameters of the initial design (¶ 0037, 0061; Schubert teaches performing simulation on an initial design, including initial structural parameters of the design, comprising fabrication loss calculation logic to determine performance loss; the fabrication loss calculation logic is interpreted as one or more morphological transformations applied by a fabrication model recited in this limitation);
obtaining, by the computing system, a performance metric by simulating performance of the structural parameters (¶ 0037; Schubert teaches performing simulation on an initial design, including initial structural parameters of the design, by simulating performance of the structural parameters);
determining, by the computing system, a loss metric based on the performance metric (¶ 0037); and
backpropagating a gradient of the loss metric to generate an updated design (¶ 0065).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Schubert teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise repeating the using, obtaining, determining, and backpropagating actions two or more times to generate a further updated design (¶ 0070; Schubert exactly teaches these limitations in this paragraph).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Schubert teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein transforming the structural parameters of the initial design into predicted structural parameters by applying the one or more morphological transformations to the structural parameters of the initial design includes:
separately calculating at least two morphological transformations to the structural parameters of the initial design (¶ 0092; Schubert teaches generating a convolution kernel to determine first fabrication values, and then a second convolution kernel is performed to determine first fabrication values; this teaching reads onto this limitation in light of the instant application specification ¶ 00112);
stacking results of the at least two morphological transformations (¶ 0092; Schubert teaches combining the two fabrication results corresponding to stacking results as recites); and
applying a convolution to the stacked results to adjust relative effects of the at least two morphological transformations (¶ 0092; Schubert teaches combining the two fabrication results; this teaching reads onto this limitation in light of the instant application specification ¶ 00112).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Schubert teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the fabrication system is configured to implement a photolithography process (¶ 0041).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Schubert teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the physical device is a photonic device (¶ 0001).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0149109 (“Schubert”) and further in view of US 2009/0031261 (“Smith”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Schubert does not teach but Smith does teach:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the morphological transformations include at least one of an erosion (Smith: ¶ 0682), a dilation, an opening, or a closing.
Schubert and Smith are analogous art because in the same field of device fabrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schubert and Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Smith’s teachings would have helped use process variation and electrical impact to modify the design and manufacture of integrated circuits (Smith, Abstract).
Claims 5, 8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0149109 (“Schubert”) in view of US 2020/0356011 (“Su”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Schubert does not teach but Su does teach:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise training the fabrication model to predict the morphological transformations introduced by the fabrication system (¶ 0055, 0097, 0102; Su teaches a machine learning model specific to a particular device manufacturing process, corresponding to a fabrication process model and training of this machine learning model to predict the transformations, corresponding to the morphological transformations, introduced by the fabrication system).
Schubert and Su are analogous art because in the same field of device fabrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schubert and Su. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Su’s teachings would have made optical proximity error corrections of a design layout (Su, ¶ 0002).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Schubert teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein training the fabrication model includes:
receiving a plurality of designs, wherein the plurality of designs are configured to generate physical devices having outputs that indicate morphological transformations introduced by the fabrication system (¶ 0019, 0021; Schubert teaches design of photonic devices and design parameters or pre-determined designs; ¶ 0037, 0061; Schubert teaches performing simulation on an initial design, including initial structural parameters of the design, comprising fabrication loss calculation logic to determine performance loss; the fabrication loss calculation logic is interpreted as one or more morphological transformations applied by a fabrication model);
receiving a plurality of performance metrics for physical devices fabricated by the fabrication system using the plurality of designs (¶ 0037; Schubert teaches performing simulation on an initial designs, including initial structural parameters of the designs);
determining amounts of the morphological transformations introduced by the fabrication system based on the plurality of performance metrics (¶ 0037: Schubert teaches determining a loss metric based on the performance metric after going through the morphological transformations introduced by the fabrication system; this loss metric corresponds to amounts of the morphological transformations introduced by the fabrication system);
generating a plurality of predicted structures based on the plurality of designs and the determined amounts of the morphological transformations (¶ 0061; Schubert teaches performing simulation in accordance with the fabrication process to generate structural parameters accounting for loss metric due to fabrication loss; the generated structural parameters are considered a generated plurality of predicted structures as recited in this limitation);
Schubert does not teach but Su does teach:
training the fabrication model using the plurality of designs and the plurality of predicted structures (¶ 0062-0063, 0079, 0102; Su teaches training the machine learning model, corresponding to the fabrication model, using the design and the plurality of predicted structures).
Schubert and Su are analogous art because in the same field of device fabrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schubert and Su. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Su’s teachings would have made optical proximity error corrections of a design layout (Su, ¶ 0002).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0149109 (“Schubert”) in view of US 2020/0356011 (“Su”), further in view of “Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Fabrication-Process-Induced Structural Variations in Nanophotonic Devices, ACS Photonics” (“Gostimirovic”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Schubert teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein training the fabrication model includes:
receiving a plurality of designs (¶ 0019, 0021; Schubert teaches design of photonic devices and design parameters or pre-determined designs; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
Schubert and Su do not teach but Gostimirovic does teach:
receiving a plurality of images of structures of physical devices fabricated by the fabrication system using the plurality of (p. 2625 left col. ¶ 2, last paragraph, right col. ¶ 1; Gostimirovic teaches using SEM images of structures representing physical devices fabricated by the fabrication system using the plurality of designs); and
training the fabrication model using the plurality of designs and the plurality of images (p. 2625 left col. ¶ 2).
Schubert, Su, and Gostimirovic are analogous art because in the same field of device fabrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schubert, Su, and Gostimirovic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Gostimirovic’s teachings would have predicted expected performance of a device through an extra simulation and made any design corrections prior to fabrication (p. 2623, Abstract).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Schubert teaches:
The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein training the fabrication model includes:
receiving a plurality of designs (¶ 0019, 0021; Schubert teaches design of photonic devices and design parameters or pre-determined designs; this teaching reads onto this limitation);
generating a plurality of simulated structures based on the plurality of designs using a
physical process simulator (¶ 0061; Schubert teaches performing simulation using photonic device simulator based on a fabrication process using input structural parameters to generate output comprising structural parameters; this photonic device simulator corresponds to a physical process simulator);
Schubert does not each but Su teaches:
training the fabrication model using the plurality of designs and the plurality of simulated
structures (¶ 0101-0103; Su teaches performing simulations and training a machine learning model, corresponding to the fabrication model, using designs and simulated structures).
Schubert, Su and Gostimirovic are analogous art because in the same field of device fabrication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schubert, Su and Gostimirovic for training the fabrication model using the plurality of designs and the plurality of simulated structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination because Su’s teachings would have made optical proximity error corrections of a design layout (Su, ¶ 0002).
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 NITHYA J. MOLL whose telephone number is (571)270-1003. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/NITHYA J. MOLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights