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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end in a period. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 6-7, 11-12, 17, and 20 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.
As per Claim 3, the boundaries of claim scope are unclear. There is no antecedent basis for “instructions configured to determine the local curvatures” (lines 1-2) and “individual segments” (lines 3 and 4).
As per Claim 6, there is no antecedent basis for “different features” (line 3), thus rendering boundaries of claim scope unclear.
As per Claim 7, the boundaries of claim scope are not clear. There is no antecedent basis for “instructions configured to determine the spacing threshold” (line 3).
As per Claim 11, the boundaries of claim scope are not clear. There is no antecedent basis for “detected” (line 1); claim 1 provides to determine whether there is a breach and the present steps (1) and (2) appear to further limit the subject matter, however, detected suggests further interpretations that may not be based by to determine.
As per Claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for “other features” (line 5), thus rendering boundaries of claim scope unclear.
As per Claim 17, there is lack of antecedent basis for “adjusting” (line 1) and “other features” (line 3) rendering boundaries of claim scope unclear as it pertains to changing a dimension, shape, location, and/or position.
As per claim 20, the boundaries of claim scope are not clear. There is no antecedent basis for “detected breach” (line 2);. claim 16 provides determining whether there is a breach, however, detected suggests further interpretations that may not be based on determining.
The following rejections are based on the Examiner’s best interpretation of the claims in view of the indefiniteness identified above.
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 10-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Miloslavsky et al. [US 2008/0005704 A1].
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system [FIG. 10A], configured to cause the computer system to at least:
determine localized shapes of a feature of a mask design [0033 a set of regions, 0034 adjacent features, adjacent contours, 0035 in a localized manner, 0039 hot spot candidate, 0040 all hot spot candidates are identified, 0041 localized]; and
determine whether there is a breach by the feature of verification criteria based on the localized shapes, wherein the verification criteria specifies correspondence between a threshold of a pattern characteristic and a localized shape [0031 evaluation criteria such as critical dimension, 0033 likely to fail, 0044 evaluates contours].
Claim 8. The medium of claim 1, wherein the pattern characteristic comprises a minimum line width, a critical dimension, or a minimum spacing between curved shapes [0002 pinches, bridges, 0007 minimum spacing not violated, 0031 critical dimension].
Claim 10. The medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to, responsive to a breach of the verification criteria by the feature, adjust the feature based on the breach [0045].
Claim 11. The medium of claim 10, wherein the breach is detected by (1) determination of dimension of the feature, of a shape of the feature, of a location of the feature in the mask design, and/or of a position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features; and (2) comparison of the dimension of the feature, the shape of the feature, the location of the feature in the mask design, and/or the position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features to a corresponding threshold of the verification criteria [0046 detection rule, apply a correction rule, 0031 evaluation criteria such as critical dimension, 0033 likely to fail, 0044 evaluates contour].
Claim 12. The medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions configured to adjust the feature are further configured to cause the computer system to change a dimension of the feature, a shape of the feature, a location of the feature in the mask design, and/or a position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features [0045].
Claim 13. The medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions configured to adjust the feature are further configured to cause the computer system to identify two or more related individual segments of the feature, determine which segment or segments of the two or more related individual segments to adjust, and determine how much to adjust each one of the two or more related individual segments [0045 neighboring, 0042 localized, 0044 rules confirm contour which corresponds to hot spot candidate results in failure/defective for change; the term segment is not explicitly recited and clear from the figures].
Claim 14. The medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions configured to determine which segment or segments of the two or more related individual segments to adjust, and how much to adjust a given segment, are configured to do so based on an extent to which an adjustment to an individual one of the two or more related individual segments reduces or eliminates a corresponding breach [0045 neighboring, 0042 localized, 0044 rules confirm contour which corresponds to hot spot candidate results in failure/defective for change; the term segment is not explicitly recited and clear from the figures, 0036 ensure changes not causing hot spots, no issues, followed by wafer fabrication].
Claim 16. A method for adjusting a feature of a mask design, the method comprising:
determining, by a hardware computer, localized shapes of the feature [0033 a set of regions, 0034 adjacent features, adjacent contours, 0035 in a localized manner, 0039 hot spot candidate, 0040 all hot spot candidates are identified, 0041 localized]; and
determining whether there is a breach by the feature of verification criteria based on the localized shapes, wherein the verification criteria specifies correspondence between a threshold of a pattern characteristic and a localized shape [0031 evaluation criteria such as critical dimension, 0033 likely to fail, 0044 evaluates contours].
Claim 17. The method of claim 16, wherein the adjusting comprises changing a dimension of the feature, a shape of the feature, a location of the feature in the mask design, and/or a position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features [0045].
Claim 20. The method of claim 16, further comprising adjusting, by a hardware computer, the feature based on a detected breach [0045].
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sahouria [US 2014/0215414 A1].
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system [0032], configured to cause the computer system to at least:
determine localized shapes of a feature of a mask design [0034, 0035, FIG. 4]; and
determine whether there is a breach by the feature of verification criteria based on the localized shapes, wherein the verification criteria specifies correspondence between a threshold of a pattern characteristic and a localized shape [0037].
Claim 2. The medium of claim 1, wherein the localized shapes comprise local curvatures of individual locations on segments of the feature [Abstract, FIG. 4].
Claim 3. The medium of claim 2, wherein the instructions configured to determine the local curvatures are further configured to cause the computer system to perform curve fitting on individual segments, and/or determine local angle deviations of the individual segments [Abstract, FIG. 4, 0035, 0036].
Claim 4. The medium of claim 2, wherein the threshold of the pattern characteristic comprises a spacing threshold, and wherein the verification criteria specifies the spacing threshold as a function of the local curvatures [FIG. 4, 0034, 0037].
Claim 6. The medium of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to identify two locations on the feature or two locations on different features, and determine the threshold of the pattern characteristic between the two locations based on local curvatures of the locations [FIG. 4, 0034, 0037, 0012].
Claim 7. The medium of claim 6, wherein the threshold of the pattern characteristic between the two locations comprises a spacing threshold, and wherein the instructions configured to determine the spacing threshold between the two locations are further configured to cause the computer system to: determine a first threshold based on a local curvature of a first location; determine a second threshold based on a local curvature of a second location; and/or determine determining a weighted combination of the first threshold and the second threshold [FIG. 4, 0034, 0037, 0012].
Claim 8. The medium of claim 1, wherein the pattern characteristic comprises a minimum line width, a critical dimension, or a minimum spacing between curved shapes [0035, 0037].
Claim 9. The medium of claim 1, wherein the feature of the mask design is a freeform curvilinear mask feature [Abstract].
Claim 16. A method for adjusting a feature of a mask design, the method comprising:
determining, by a hardware computer, localized shapes of the feature [[0034, 0035, FIG. 4]; and
determining whether there is a breach by the feature of verification criteria based on the localized shapes, wherein the verification criteria specifies correspondence between a threshold of a pattern characteristic and a localized shape [0037].
Claim 18. The method of claim 16, wherein the localized shapes comprise local curvatures of individual locations on segments of the feature [Abstract, FIG. 4].
Claim 19. The method of claim 18, wherein the determining localized shapes comprises determining the local curvatures by performing curve fitting on the segments, and/or determining local angle deviations of the segments [Abstract, FIG. 4, 0035, 0036].
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Koranne [US 2016/0136899 A1].
Claim 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system [FIG. 17], configured to cause the computer system to at least:
determine localized shapes of a feature of a mask design [0057, 0177, 0178]; and
determine whether there is a breach by the feature of verification criteria based on the localized shapes, wherein the verification criteria specifies correspondence between a threshold of a pattern characteristic and a localized shape [0057, 0128, 0166].
Claim 2. The medium of claim 1, wherein the localized shapes comprise local curvatures of individual locations on segments of the feature [0057].
Claim 3. The medium of claim 2, wherein the instructions configured to determine the local curvatures are further configured to cause the computer system to perform curve fitting on individual segments, and/or determine local angle deviations of the individual segments [Abstract].
Claim 4. The medium of claim 2, wherein the threshold of the pattern characteristic comprises a spacing threshold, and wherein the verification criteria specifies the spacing threshold as a function of the local curvatures [0128].
Claim 6. The medium of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to identify two locations on the feature or two locations on different features, and determine the threshold of the pattern characteristic between the two locations based on local curvatures of the locations [FIGS. 9A-B].
Claim 7. The medium of claim 6, wherein the threshold of the pattern characteristic between the two locations comprises a spacing threshold, and wherein the instructions configured to determine the spacing threshold between the two locations are further configured to cause the computer system to: determine a first threshold based on a local curvature of a first location; determine a second threshold based on a local curvature of a second location; and/or determine determining a weighted combination of the first threshold and the second threshold [Abstract, FIGS. 9A-B].
Claim 8. The medium of claim 1, wherein the pattern characteristic comprises a minimum line width, a critical dimension, or a minimum spacing between curved shapes [0056].
Claim 9. The medium of claim 1, wherein the feature of the mask design is a freeform curvilinear mask feature [0057].
Claim 10. The medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to, responsive to a breach of the verification criteria by the feature, adjust the feature based on the breach [0010, 0048, 0060, 0061, 0093, 0122, 0123, 0128].
Claim 11. The medium of claim 10, wherein the breach is detected by (1) determination of dimension of the feature, of a shape of the feature, of a location of the feature in the mask design, and/or of a position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features; and (2) comparison of the dimension of the feature, the shape of the feature, the location of the feature in the mask design, and/or the position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features to a corresponding threshold of the verification criteria [0057, 0128, 0166].
Claim 12. The medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions configured to adjust the feature are further configured to cause the computer system to change a dimension of the feature, a shape of the feature, a location of the feature in the mask design, and/or a position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features [0010, 0048, 0060, 0061, 0093, 0122, 0123, 0128].
Claim 13. The medium of claim 10, wherein the instructions configured to adjust the feature are further configured to cause the computer system to identify two or more related individual segments of the feature, determine which segment or segments of the two or more related individual segments to adjust, and determine how much to adjust each one of the two or more related individual segments [0010, 0048, 0060, 0061, 0093, 0122, 0123, 0128, FIGS. 9A-B].
Claim 14. The medium of claim 13, wherein the instructions configured to determine which segment or segments of the two or more related individual segments to adjust, and how much to adjust a given segment, are configured to do so based on an extent to which an adjustment to an individual one of the two or more related individual segments reduces or eliminates a corresponding breach [0010, 0048, 0060, 0061, 0093, 0122, 0123, 0128, 0158].
Claim 16. A method for adjusting a feature of a mask design, the method comprising:
determining, by a hardware computer, localized shapes of the feature [0057, 0177, 0178]; and
determining whether there is a breach by the feature of verification criteria based on the localized shapes, wherein the verification criteria specifies correspondence between a threshold of a pattern characteristic and a localized shape [0057, 0128, 0166].
Claim 17. The method of claim 16, wherein the adjusting comprises changing a dimension of the feature, a shape of the feature, a location of the feature in the mask design, and/or a position of the feature in the mask design relative to other features [0010, 0048, 0060, 0061, 0093, 0122, 0123, 0128, 0158].
Claim 18. The method of claim 16, wherein the localized shapes comprise local curvatures of individual locations on segments of the feature [0057].
Claim 19. The method of claim 18, wherein the determining localized shapes comprises determining the local curvatures by performing curve fitting on the segments, and/or determining local angle deviations of the segments [Abstract].
Claim 20. The method of claim 16, further comprising adjusting, by a hardware computer, the feature based on a detected breach [0010, 0048, 0060, 0061, 0093, 0122, 0123, 0128, 0158].
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koranne [US 2016/0136899 A1] in view of Lucas et al. [US 6,818,362 B1].
As per Claim 5, Koranne teaches the features from which the claim depends. However, Koranne does not teach wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to bin similar local curvatures into bins, and determine different verification criteria for different bins. Lucas et al. teach binning [Abstract, column 2, line 43-column 4, line 8]. Thus, by combining the teaching of binning with Koranne, 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 because optimizations that rely on binning may provide for improved image fidelity and process latitude on a wafer given the combination of references [column 3, lines 66-67].
Claim 15. The medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions configured to adjust the feature are configured do so using one or more penalty adjustments, the one or more penalty adjustments comprising equal adjustments to each one of the two or more related individual segments, an adjustment to only one of the two or more related individual segments, or unequal adjustments to each one of the two or more related individual segments [both references provide for adjustments, yet the term penalty is not explicitly recited; it is considered that manufacturing a mask design would require adjustments accordingly].
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See, for example, Song et al. [US 2008/0109766 A1]; Kotani et al. [US 2010/0190342 A1]; Gallatin et al. [US 2008/0127027 A1]; Culp et al. [US 7,627,836 B2].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEIGH M GARBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, 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.
/LEIGH M GARBOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851