DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 26 February 2026. Claims 16-35 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) 16, 20-22, 24, 30, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (US 2012/0021343) in view of Granik (US 2010/0269084) and Hauschild (US 2006/0141375).
Regarding claim 16, Ye discloses a method comprising: predicting, by a hardware computer system (¶108), a contour of a feature of the pattern based on a value of the variable, the predicting comprising modifying, based on the value of the variable, an already determined nominal contour for the feature (¶¶71, 74, 75); and physically configuring or controlling a manufacturing, metrology or inspection process or device based on the predicted contour and/or providing a signal being, or computed from, the predicted contour to a manufacturing, metrology or inspection tool or system to bring about control or configuration of a manufacturing, metrology or inspection process performed using the respective manufacturing, metrology or inspection tool or system (Fig. 5).
If Ye is found to be unclear regarding modifying the contour, Granik discloses the same (Fig. 5; ¶¶38, 46). 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 Ye and Granik, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of predicting post-etch feature shapes. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Ye discloses predicting simulated contours. Granik teaches further modifying the contours to obtain post-etch contours. The teachings of White are directly applicable Ye in the same way, so that Ye would similarly use etch models to predict post-etch feature shapes.
Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose obtaining an across substrate fingerprint of a variable associated with a pattern created by a patterning process, the value of the variable being selected from a substrate location; Hauschild discloses the same (¶87). 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 Ye, Granik, and Hauschild, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of using existing simulation results that correspond to determined process conditions. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Ye discloses simulating contours under process conditions such as focus. Hauschild further teaches a focus map that defines the focus at each location. The teachings of Hauschild are directly applicable to Ye in the same way, so that Ye would similarly predict simulated contours by using the focus values defined in a focus map, to generate simulation results reflective of processing conditions.
Regarding claim 20, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose that the predicting comprises the modifying an already determined nominal contour for the feature by biasing at least part of the nominal contour. Granik discloses these features (Fig. 5; ¶38). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 16.
Regarding claim 21, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose that the modifying is based on a value of a further variable associated with the pattern, the value selected at the same substrate location from an across substrate fingerprint of the further variable; Granik discloses these limitations (¶38). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 16.
Regarding claim 22, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose that the across substrate fingerprint of the further variable corresponds to a situation post-etch; Granik discloses these limitations (¶38). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 16.
Regarding claim 24, Ye discloses that the variable comprises focus (¶74).
Claims 30, 33 and 34 are directed to computer program products for performing the methods of claims 16, 20 and 24, and are rejected under the same reasoning. Ye further discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to perform the claimed method (¶108).
Claim(s) 17-19, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Granik, Hauschild, and Lippincott (US 2004/0019872).
Regarding claims 17 and 31, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose discloses that the predicting further comprises selecting the nominal contour for the feature from among a plurality of already determined nominal contours. Lippincott discloses the same (¶9). Specifically, when performing simulations, it is known to use existing simulation results instead of performing new simulations. The combination of Ye and Lippincott thus suggests using existing simulation results when performing Ye’s process window simulations. 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 Ye, Granik, Hauschild, and Lippincott, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of efficiently simulating contours. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Ye discloses simulating contours. Lippincott teaches that simulations should use existing simulation results. The teachings of Lippincott are directly applicable to Ye in the same way, so that Ye’s contour simulation would similarly use existing simulation results.
Regarding claims 18 and 32, Ye discloses that the selected nominal contour is obtained by calculation using a simulation or mathematical model (¶75).
Regarding claim 19, Ye discloses that the selected nominal contour is a contour as expected in resist (¶75).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Granik, Hauschild, and Brill (US 2013/0208973).
Regarding claim 23, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose that the further variable comprises critical dimension. Brill discloses these limitations (¶¶48-49). 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 Ye, Granik, Hauschild, and Brill, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of generating predicted contours that reflect process conditions and real feature edges. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Ye discloses predicting simulated contours. Brill teaches modifying the contours by a CD scaling factor based on process conditions and/or differences between contours and real feature edges. The teachings of Brill are directly applicable to Ye in the same way, so that Ye would similarly modify contours such that the predicted contours are more accurate to process conditions and actual features.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Granik, Hauschild and Matsuoka (US 2012/0121160).
Regarding claim 25, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose that the feature is a determined hot spot; Matsuoka discloses these limitations (¶96). 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 Ye, Granik, Hauschild, and Matsuoka, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of efficiently analyzing dangerous design patterns (hotspots) for correction. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Ye discloses predicting simulated contours. Matsuoka teaches that simulated contours are used to analyze hot spots. The teachings of Matsuoka are directly applicable to Ye in the same way, so that Ye would similarly use previously-simulated contours to analyze hotspots, in order to efficiently evaluate dangerous patterns for correction.
Claim(s) 26, 27, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Granik, Hauschild, and Qian (US 8,176,445).
Regarding claims 26 and 35, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose using the predicted contour to determine an edge placement position or error; Qian discloses these limitations (col. 12, lines 31-40). 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 Ye, Granik, Hauschild, and Qian, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of correcting defective patterns. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Ye discloses predicting simulated contours. Qian teaches that simulated contours are used to determine and correct edge placement errors. The teachings of Qian are directly applicable to Ye in the same way, so that Ye would similarly use previously-simulated contours to determine edge placement errors, in order to efficiently correct defective patterns.
Regarding claim 27, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose using a check against the predicted contour to determine whether the feature or another feature is likely to be defective. Qian discloses these limitations (col. 12, lines 31-40). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 26.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye in view of Granik, Hauschild, and Weisbuch (US 2016/0161841).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Ye does not appear to explicitly disclose using the predicted contour to calibrate a mathematical model comprising an optical proximity correction model; Weisbuch discloses the same (¶12). 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 Ye, Granik, Hauschild, and Weisbuch, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of efficiently improving OPC accuracy. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Ye discloses predicting simulated contours. Weisbuch teaches that simulated contours are used to calibrate OPC models. The teachings of Weisbuch are directly applicable to Ye in the same way, so that Ye would similarly use previously-simulated contours to calibrate OPC models, in order to efficiently improve OPC accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments relying on amendments to the claims are addressed above using newly-cited prior art.
Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach selecting a nominal contour of a certain shape for the feature from among a plurality of already determined nominal contours and/or modifying an already determined nominal contour for the feature. Specifically, Applicant asserts that Ye only mentions contours once and does not disclose nominal contours, selecting contours, or modifying contours, and Lippincott does not mention contours at all, and is directed to reticles rather than patterns created by a patterning process. Remarks 6. The examiner disagrees.
Ye discloses lithography simulation that generates aerial images of wafer patterns corresponding to various values of processing condition parameters (¶75), which is used to extract metrics of interest, such as image contours (¶71). The aerial images and extract image contours corresponding to process parameters clearly constitute the claimed nominal contours. As the image contours are extracted from the aerial image, the image contours are clearly selected from already determined contours. Furthermore, even if Ye was found to be unclear regarding the selection, it is known to use existing simulation results instead of performing new simulations, as taught by Lippincott (¶9). Specifically, Lippincott explicitly teaches caching simulation results for later reuse, and, when performing simulations, searching the cache for a usable saved result and used the saved result if available. Thus, the combination of Ye and Lippincott suggests improving Ye to cache results (Ye’s image contours) for reuse during simulation, so that when Ye performs lithography simulation, the cache is searches for, and uses, an existing usable result.
Applicant’s assertion that Lippincott pertains to reticles rather than patterns misinterprets Lippincott. Lippincott ¶9 explicitly states that the reticle layout is used in a simulation of a manufacturing process for an integrated device layer. In other words, the result of the simulation is not the reticle, but rather the integrated device layer. The reticle is used in the simulation to determine how the features in the reticle layout would print on the wafer during the manufacturing process, as is typical in lithography simulation. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that Lippincott was directed the reticles rather than patterns created by a patterning process, as asserted by Applicant, the combination of Ye and Lippincott would still render the claims unpatentable. The relevant teachings of Lippincott is caching simulation results for reuse, and searching the cache for existing usable results during simulation. These teachings would be directly applicable to Ye to improve Ye in the manner explained above even if Lippincott’s specific simulation was for reticles rather than processed patterns.
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.
12 June 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights