DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Application No. 18/029,211, filed on 29 March 2023. Claims 1-20 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) 1-3, 6, 8-11, 14-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee (US 2010/0175043) and Yasui (2020/0117095).
Regarding claim 1, Mukherjee discloses a method, executed by at least one processor of a computer (¶101), comprising: fragmenting boundary lines of layout features in a layout design into straight line fragments, the fragmenting comprising using some of the straight line fragments to represent boundary line segments of the layout features (Fig. 1, step 103; ¶3); and generating modified layout features based on a plurality of optical proximity correction iterations, each of the plurality of optical proximity correction iterations comprising: computing edge adjustment values for the straight line fragments based on edge placement errors derived from an optical proximity correction iteration immediately preceding the each of the plurality of optical proximity correction iterations, adjusting locations of the straight line fragments based on the determined edge adjustment values (¶¶3-4),
determining smooth boundary lines for the layout features based on the straight line fragments on the adjusted locations, performing a simulation process on the layout features having the smooth boundary lines to determine a simulated image of the layout features (¶¶53-54, 75-81), and
deriving the edge adjustment errors for the straight line fragments based on comparing the simulated image with a target image of the layout features (¶¶3-4).
Mukherjee does not appear to explicitly disclose curved boundary line segments of the layout features. Yasui discloses the same (Fig. 3; ¶30). 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 Mukherjee and Yasui, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of producing corrected masks with curved layout features. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Mukherjee discloses optical proximity correction (OPC) that divides layout shapes into line segments. Yasui teaches that the division of layout shapes into line segments is also performed on curved shapes. The teachings of Yasui are directly applicable to Mukherjee in the same way, so that Mukherjee would similarly segment curved layout shapes to produce corrected masks with curved layout features.
Regarding claim 2, Mukherjee discloses processing the modified layout features to generate mask data for a mask-writing tool to make photomasks (Abs, ¶¶1, 4).
Regarding claim 3, Mukherjee discloses applying the mask data to the mask-writing tool to create photomasks (Abs, ¶¶1, 4).
Regarding claim 6, Mukherjee discloses that each of the straight line fragments is parallel to either an x axis or a y axis of the layout design (Fig. 1, item 103).
Regarding claim 8, Mukherjee discloses that the plurality of optical proximity correction iterations are terminated when the edge adjustment errors are within a predetermined range or a number of the plurality of optical proximity correction iterations is equal to a predetermined number (¶4).
Claims 9-11, 14, and 15 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media for performing the methods of claims 1-3, 6, and 8, and are rejected under the same reasoning. Mukherjee further discloses non-transitory computer-readable media for performing the claimed methods (¶101).
Claims 16, 17, and 20 are directed to systems comprising one or more processors for performing the methods of claims 1, 2, and 6, and are rejected under the same reasoning. Mukherjee further discloses systems comprising one or more processors for performing the claimed methods (¶101).
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Yasui and Cobb (US 2005/0097501).
Regarding claim 4, Mukherjee does not appear to explicitly disclose that the determining smooth boundary lines is based on a Gaussian convolution technique; Cobb discloses these limitations (¶¶6-7). 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 Mukherjee, Yasui, and Cobb, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of accurately determining feature contours. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Mukherjee discloses OPC that determine feature boundaries based on placement errors of fragmented layout features. Cobb teaches that the OPC applies Gaussian convolution to the fragmented features to produce smoothed contours. The teachings of Cobb are directly applicable to Mukherjee in the same way, so that Mukherjee would similarly use Gaussian convolution to accurately determine feature contours in OPC.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Yasui and Word (US 2005/0278686).
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 19, Mukherjee discloses that lengths of the straight line fragments are greater than or equal to one fourth of minimum feature size of the layout design; Word discloses these limitations (Fig. 1B-C). 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 Mukherjee, Yasui, and Word, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of avoiding excessive OPC computations. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Mukherjee discloses OPC that determine feature boundaries based on placement errors of fragmented layout features. Word teaches that fragments should not be too small to avoid excessive OPC computation. The teachings of Word are directly applicable to Mukherjee in the same way, so that Mukherjee would similarly limit fragment size to avoid excessive OPC computation.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Yasui and Du (CN 106033170).
Regarding claim 7, Mukherjee discloses that the computing edge adjustment values comprises multiplying the edge placement errors by a matrix including cross-mask error enhancement factors; Du discloses these features (pg. 15, par. 4 in translation, ¶91 in original). 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 Mukherjee, Yasui, and Du, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of accurately determining placement error. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Mukherjee discloses OPC that determine feature boundaries based on placement errors of fragmented layout features. Du teaches that the OPC applies cross-mask error enhancement factors to determine placement error. The teachings of Du are directly applicable to Mukherjee in the same way, so that Mukherjee would similarly use cross-mask error enhancement factors to accurately determine placement error.
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.
7 March 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851