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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on March 16 2026, U.S. patents and Foreign Patents have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1, 6 - 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150149971A1 (Apostol) in view of US20050055658A1 (Mukherjee).
In regards to claim 1 (Apostol) shows:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that, when executed by a computer system, are configured to cause the computer system to at least; Apostol [0022-0030] and [0062] teach a computer system having a processor, memory, and storage that executes optimization instructions embodied on a computer readable medium to improve a mask design for lithographic processing.
obtain mask points of a design of a mask feature, wherein the mask feature is associated with a target feature in a target pattern to be printed on a substrate; Apostol [0037] and [0039] teach obtaining the vertices of the rectilinear polygons that make up the mask (the mask points of the mask feature), where the mask is processed so that the output pattern on the substrate is close to the desired pattern (the target feature in the target pattern).
Apostol differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose adjust locations of the mask points to generate a modified design of the mask feature based on adjustment determined for one or more control points of the target feature.
Mukherjee teaches adjust locations of the mask points to generate a modified design of the mask feature based on adjustment determined for one or more control points of the target feature; Mukherjee [0052] teaches fragmenting the edges of the primary mask features and the target image pattern into segments, Mukherjee [0058] teaches selecting predetermined evaluation points within each segment of the target boundary (the one or more control points of the target feature), and Mukherjee [0064] and [0070] teach determining the deviation at those evaluation points and moving the mask edge segments toward or away from the target image accordingly to generate a corrected, modified mask design.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
In regards to claim 6 (Apostol) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to obtain the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to derive the mask points from the target feature, wherein the derivation of the mask points comprises association of the mask points with control points on the target feature to generate a first association between a first set of mask points and a first control point and a second association between a second set of mask points and a second control point;
Mukherjee teaches wherein the instructions configured to obtain the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to derive the mask points from the target feature, wherein the derivation of the mask points comprises association of the mask points with control points on the target feature to generate a first association between a first set of mask points and a first control point and a second association between a second set of mask points and a second control point; Mukherjee [0052] and [0058] teach deriving the mask edge segments in correspondence with predetermined evaluation points on the target boundary, such that respective sets of mask segment points are associated with respective control points on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
In regards to claim 7 (Apostol) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to adjust the locations of the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to modify associations between one or more of the mask points and one or more of the control points for a next iteration of mask point adjustment;
Mukherjee teaches wherein the instructions configured to adjust the locations of the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to modify associations between one or more of the mask points and one or more of the control points for a next iteration of mask point adjustment; Mukherjee [0066] teaches that the point of maximum deviation becomes a new evaluation point and the adjacent segments are divided to create new segments, and Mukherjee [0070] teaches repeating the process with the new segments and evaluation points, thereby modifying the associations between the mask points and the control points for a subsequent iteration.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
In regards to claim 8 (Apostol) does not show: wherein one or more control points on the target feature is associated with a different set of mask points in at least two iterations;
Mukherjee teaches wherein one or more control points on the target feature is associated with a different set of mask points in at least two iterations; Mukherjee [0066] teaches dividing segments so that the point of maximum deviation becomes a new evaluation point of a newly created segment, and Mukherjee [0070] teaches that image intensities are recomputed at the new evaluation points of the newly created segments across iterations, whereby a control point becomes associated with a different set of mask points in successive iterations.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
In regards to claim 14 (Apostol) shows the computer-readable medium of claim 1:
wherein the design is resultant from one or more selected from: machine learning (ML)-based optimal proximity correction (OPC), continuous transmission mask (CTM) Freeform OPC, CTM+ Freeform OPC, segment-based OPC, or Inverse lithography technology; Apostol [0021] teaches using a novel inverse lithographic technique to generate the optimized mask design from the target pattern, thereby teaching inverse lithography technology.
Claims 2 - 5, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150149971A1 (Apostol) in view of US20050055658A1 (Mukherjee) and further in view of US20170082927A1 (Hsu).
In regards to claim 2 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to adjust locations of the mask points are configured to do so in an iterative manner, wherein each iteration includes: determination of a cost function associated with an optical proximity correction process or a source mask optimization process, determination of, for each control point on the target feature, location data of the mask points based on the cost function, and adjustment of a location of one or more of the mask points based on the location data to optimize the cost function, wherein the adjustment includes updating of the modified design;
Hsu teaches wherein the instructions configured to adjust locations of the mask points are configured to do so in an iterative manner, wherein each iteration includes: Hsu [0075], [0076], and [0080-0082] teach an iterative optimization, for example the Gauss-Newton algorithm, in which the design variables take successive values until a termination condition is satisfied.
Hsu teaches determination of a cost function associated with an optical proximity correction process or a source mask optimization process, Hsu [0063] and [0070] teach computing a multi-variable cost function, namely the weighted sum of squared evaluation-point deviations, for optimizing the lithographic process; Hsu [0050-0051] teach source mask optimization and Hsu [0044-0045] teach optical proximity correction.
Hsu teaches determination of, for each control point on the target feature, location data of the mask points based on the cost function, Hsu [0070-0071] teach that the cost function is built from evaluation points, each being a point on the design layout or resist image, where the function value represents the deviation, for example the edge placement error, used to determine the optimization adjustment at that point.
Hsu teaches and adjustment of a location of one or more of the mask points based on the location data to optimize the cost function, wherein the adjustment includes updating of the modified design; Hsu [0076] teaches reconfiguring the characteristics of the lithographic process by adjusting the design variables until a predefined termination condition that minimizes the cost function is satisfied.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
In regards to claim 3 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to determine the cost function are further configured to cause the computer system to: perform a simulation with the modified design to obtain a resist image signal or an etch image signal as a simulated signal, and determine the simulated signal for each control point on the target feature, and wherein the adjustment is based on the simulated signal at the control point and association of mask points with the control point;
Hsu teaches wherein the instructions configured to determine the cost function are further configured to cause the computer system to: perform a simulation with the modified design to obtain a resist image signal or an etch image signal as a simulated signal, Hsu [0064] and [0065] teach that an aerial image is the radiation intensity distribution on the substrate and that a resist image is simulated from the aerial image using a resist model.
Hsu teaches and determine the simulated signal for each control point on the target feature, Hsu [0070-0071] teach evaluation points on the design layout at which the simulated signal, for example the resist-image characteristic, is determined.
Hsu teaches and wherein the adjustment is based on the simulated signal at the control point Hsu [0070-0071] teach adjusting the design variables based on the simulated signal at each evaluation point.
Mukherjee teaches and association of mask points with the control point; Mukherjee [0052] and [0058] teach the association of the mask edge segments with the evaluation points on the target boundary.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
In regards to claim 4 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to determine the cost function are further configured to cause the computer system to: perform a simulation with the modified design to obtain a simulated image; and obtain a process window using the simulated image, wherein the process window includes a range of focus and dose values for which the target pattern printed on a substrate using the modified design satisfies a predetermined specification;
Hsu teaches wherein the instructions configured to determine the cost function are further configured to cause the computer system to: perform a simulation with the modified design to obtain a simulated image; and obtain a process window using the simulated image, Hsu [0064-0065] teach simulating an aerial image and a resist image from the design, and Hsu [0093] and [0097] teach obtaining and maximizing a process window from the simulated image.
Hsu teaches wherein the process window includes a range of focus and dose values for which the target pattern printed on a substrate using the modified design satisfies a predetermined specification; Hsu [0093] teaches that the process window is defined as a set of focus and dose values for which the resist image is within a certain limit of the design target.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
In regards to claim 5 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the cost function includes at least one selected from: an edge placement error, a simulated signal, a process window, or a mask rule check violation penalty;
Hsu teaches wherein the cost function includes at least one selected from: an edge placement error, a simulated signal, a process window, or a mask rule check violation penalty; Hsu [0071] teaches the cost-function characteristic can be the edge placement error, Hsu [0073] teaches minimizing edge placement error under various process-window conditions, and Hsu [0074] teaches constraints including rules governing patterning device manufacturability, namely a mask rule check.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
In regards to claim 11 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to adjust the location of one or more of the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to adjust a set of the mask points coherently;
Hsu teaches wherein the instructions configured to adjust the location of one or more of the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to adjust a set of the mask points coherently; Hsu [0076] and [0078] teach that the design variables may be optimized simultaneously, that is jointly, whereby a set of the mask points is adjusted coherently.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
In regards to claim 13 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to apply a mask rule check process on the modified design to satisfy mask rule check constraints;
Hsu teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to apply a mask rule check process on the modified design to satisfy mask rule check constraints; Hsu [0074] teaches that the optimization is performed under constraints including rules governing patterning device manufacturability, thereby applying a mask rule check to satisfy mask rule constraints.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
In regards to claim 16 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to adjust the location of one or more of the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to adjust each of a set of the mask points individually;
Hsu teaches wherein the instructions configured to adjust the location of one or more of the mask points are further configured to cause the computer system to adjust each of a set of the mask points individually; Hsu [0078] teaches an alternate optimization in which different sets of design variables are fixed while others are optimized in separate steps, whereby each of a set of the mask points is adjusted individually.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150149971A1 (Apostol) in view of US20050055658A1 (Mukherjee) and US20170082927A1 (Hsu), and further in view of US20130042212A1 (Wong).
In regards to claim 12 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee and Hsu) does not show: wherein the location data of each mask point includes a slope value and a distance value by which a location adjustment of the corresponding mask point is to be performed in relation to a control point with which the corresponding mask point is associated;
Wong teaches wherein the location data of each mask point includes a slope value and a distance value by which a location adjustment of the corresponding mask point is to be performed in relation to a control point with which the corresponding mask point is associated; Wong [0036] teaches that each edge segment of the mask layout has one associated control point, Wong [0038] teaches a multisolver matrix whose entry is the change in the resist image value per unit of edge-segment movement at the control point, which is a slope, and Wong [0039] and [0043] teach a correction delta value, which is a distance, by which the edge segment is moved in relation to its control point.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, Hsu, and Wong at the effective filing date of the invention is to efficiently determine the per-control-point edge adjustments using a multivariable solver.
Claims 17 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150149971A1 (Apostol) in view of US20050055658A1 (Mukherjee) and further in view of US20170082927A1 (Hsu).
In regards to claim 17 (Apostol) shows:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that, when executed by a computer system, are configured to cause the computer system to at least; Apostol [0022-0030] and [0062] teach a computer readable medium with instructions executed by a computer system to optimize a mask design.
obtain mask points of a design of a mask feature, wherein the mask feature corresponds to a target feature in a target pattern to be printed on a substrate; Apostol [0037] and [0039] teach obtaining the vertices (mask points) of the mask polygons, the mask corresponding to the desired pattern (target feature) to be printed on the substrate.
Apostol differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose adjust locations of the mask points to increase a process window, wherein the process window is associated with a patterning process for printing the target pattern on a substrate, and wherein the adjustment includes generation of a modified design based on adjustment determined for one or more control points of the target feature.
Hsu teaches adjust locations of the mask points to increase a process window, wherein the process window is associated with a patterning process for printing the target pattern on a substrate, Hsu [0093] and [0097] teach optimizing the design variables to maximize, that is to increase, the process window of the patterning process.
Hsu differ from the claimed invention in that they do not explicitly disclose and wherein the adjustment includes generation of a modified design based on adjustment determined for one or more control points of the target feature.
Mukherjee teaches and wherein the adjustment includes generation of a modified design based on adjustment determined for one or more control points of the target feature; Mukherjee [0058] teaches predetermined evaluation points on the target boundary (control points of the target feature), and Mukherjee [0064] and [0070] teach moving the mask edge segments toward or away from the target based on the deviation determined at those points to generate the modified design.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to enlarge the process window of the patterning process.
In regards to claim 18 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions configured to adjust locations of the mask points are configured to do so in an iterative manner, wherein each iteration includes: obtaining of the process window based on the modified design, wherein the process window includes a range of values of at least one parameter of the patterning process for printing the target pattern on the substrate using the modified design, and adjustment of a location of one or more of the mask points to increase the range of values of the one or more parameters, wherein the adjustment includes update of the modified design;
Hsu teaches wherein the instructions configured to adjust locations of the mask points are configured to do so in an iterative manner, wherein each iteration includes: obtaining of the process window based on the modified design, wherein the process window includes a range of values of at least one parameter of the patterning process for printing the target pattern on the substrate using the modified design, Hsu [0076] teaches the iterative optimization, and Hsu [0093] teaches the process window as a range of values of at least one parameter, namely focus and dose.
Hsu teaches and adjustment of a location of one or more of the mask points to increase the range of values of the one or more parameters, wherein the adjustment includes update of the modified design; Hsu [0094-0097] teach iteratively adjusting the design variables to maximize the process window, thereby increasing the range of parameter values.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to enlarge the process window of the patterning process.
In regards to claim 19 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the at least one parameter includes dose and/or focus, associated with a lithographic apparatus used to print the target pattern on the substrate;
Hsu teaches wherein the at least one parameter includes dose and/or focus, associated with a lithographic apparatus used to print the target pattern on the substrate; Hsu [0093] teaches that the process window is defined by focus and dose values associated with the lithographic projection apparatus.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to enlarge the process window of the patterning process.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150149971A1 (Apostol) in view of US20050055658A1 (Mukherjee) and further in view of US20170082927A1 (Hsu).
In regards to claim 20 (Apostol) shows:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions that, when executed by a computer system, are configured to cause the computer system to at least; Apostol [0022-0030] and [0062] teach a computer readable medium with instructions executed by a computer system to optimize a mask design.
obtain a target pattern to be printed on a substrate and a design of a mask feature corresponding to a target feature in the target pattern; Apostol [0037] teaches receiving as input the desired pattern (target pattern) and an initial mask (design of a mask feature) corresponding to the target.
derive mask points of the design; Apostol [0039] teaches deriving the vertices of the rectilinear polygons of the mask, namely the mask points.
Apostol differs from the claimed invention in that it does not explicitly disclose iteratively update the design by adjustment of locations of one or more of the mask points based on a cost function determined for one or more control points of the target feature, wherein the update generates a modified design of the mask feature.
Hsu teaches iteratively update the design by adjustment of locations of one or more of the mask points based on a cost function Hsu [0070], [0075], and [0076] teach iteratively adjusting the design variables based on a multi-variable cost function until convergence.
Hsu differ from the claimed invention in that they do not explicitly disclose determined for one or more control points of the target feature, wherein the update generates a modified design of the mask feature.
Mukherjee teaches determined for one or more control points of the target feature, wherein the update generates a modified design of the mask feature; Mukherjee [0058] teaches that the evaluation points (control points) are defined on the target boundary, and Mukherjee [0064] and [0070] teach updating the mask edge segments based on the deviation determined at those control points.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Hsu at the effective filing date of the invention is to provide a robust cost-function-based optimization with improved convergence for the lithographic patterning.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150149971A1 (Apostol) in view of US20050055658A1 (Mukherjee) and further in view of US20050097501A1 (Cobb).
In regards to claim 9 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to apply a smoothing process to the mask points, wherein the smoothing process performs curve fitting to connect the mask points with one or more curves to generate a design of a mask feature as a curvilinear pattern;
Cobb teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to apply a smoothing process to the mask points, Cobb [0025] and [0027] teach applying a smoothing filter, namely a convolution of the fragmented polygon with a two-dimensional Gaussian function, that produces a smoothed shape without sharp edges.
Cobb differ from the claimed invention in that they do not explicitly disclose wherein the smoothing process performs curve fitting to connect the mask points with one or more curves to generate a design of a mask feature as a curvilinear pattern;
Mukherjee teaches wherein the smoothing process performs curve fitting to connect the mask points with one or more curves to generate a design of a mask feature as a curvilinear pattern; Mukherjee [0054] and [0062] teach performing curve fitting, for example a B-spline, cubic spline, or Bezier curve, between the points to connect them with fitted curves.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Cobb at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the manufacturability of the mask design.
In regards to claim 15 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the mask feature is a sub-resolution assist feature or a main feature;
Cobb teaches wherein the mask feature is a sub-resolution assist feature or a main feature; Cobb [0031] and [0032] teach subresolution assist features placed adjacent to the polygon, the main feature, to aid formation of the objects, the assist features being too small to be resolved on the wafer.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Cobb at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the manufacturability of the mask design.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150149971A1 (Apostol) in view of US20050055658A1 (Mukherjee) and further in view of US20190163866A1 (Cao).
In regards to claim 10 (Apostol modified by Mukherjee) does not show: wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to perform image perturbation on the design to generate an enlarged version of the design;
Cao teaches wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the computer system to perform image perturbation on the design to generate an enlarged version of the design; Cao [0071] teaches modeling systematic mask errors into the design image, and Cao [0072] teaches that bias is modeled by a gray-level morphological operation on the image with a dilation value, the dilation enlarging the design.
The motivation to combine Apostol and Mukherjee at the effective filing date of the invention is to improve the accuracy of the mask correction by driving the adjustment of the mask points from control points defined on the target feature.
The motivation to combine Apostol, Mukherjee, and Cao at the effective filing date of the invention is to generate an enlarged version of the design to serve as an initial design for the optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed on June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth above, which were necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Applicant argues that Apostol fails to disclose adjusting locations of the mask points based on adjustment determined for one or more control points of the target feature, and that it is not apparent what in Apostol corresponds to the claimed target feature and its control points. This argument is persuasive with respect to Apostol alone; accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn.
Upon further consideration, however, the argued limitation is taught by Mukherjee. Mukherjee discloses, at paragraph [0058], predetermined evaluation points selected within each segment of the target boundary, which constitute the claimed control points of the target feature, and discloses, at paragraphs [0064] and [0070], moving the mask edge segments toward or away from the target image based on the deviation determined at those evaluation points. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Apostol in view of Mukherjee, and further in view of Hsu or Cobb as applied, are therefore set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Hsu, Cobb, and Mukherjee are premised on those references being unable to cure the asserted deficiencies of Apostol. Because the asserted deficiency is now addressed by Mukherjee as set forth above, these arguments are not persuasive. New references Wong (US20130042212A1) and Cao (US20190163866A1) are additionally applied to dependent claims 12 and 10, respectively, and all rejections are maintained as set forth in this Office action.
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 ANWER AHMED ALAWDI whose telephone number is (703)756-1018. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 on (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.
/ANWER AHMED ALAWDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights