DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 12 June 2026. 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), the method comprising: fragmenting boundary lines of layout features in a layout design into straight line fragments, the fragmenting comprising including representing boundary line segments of the layout features using at least a portion of the straight line fragments (Fig. 1, step 103; ¶3); and generating modified layout features based on a plurality of optical proximity correction iterations, each respective optical proximity correction iteration among the plurality of optical proximity correction iterations including: computing edge adjustment values for the straight line fragments based on previous edge placement errors derived from an optical proximity correction iteration immediately preceding the respective optical proximity correction iterations, adjusting locations of the straight line fragments based on the determined edge adjustment values to obtain adjusted straight line fragments (¶¶3-4),
determining smooth boundary lines for the layout features based on the adjust straight line fragments, 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 updated 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 create photomasks (Abs, ¶¶1, 4).
Regarding claim 3, Mukherjee discloses applying the mask data to the mask-writing tool to create the 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 based on the updated edge adjustment errors being within a first range or a number of the plurality of optical proximity correction iterations being equal to a first 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 previous 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Mukherjee fails to teach “determining smooth boundary lines for the layout features based on the adjusted straight line fragments”, because “Mukherjee describes removing variations of entire shapes” (emphasis added) instead of line fragments. Remarks 11. The examiner disagrees. Even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is correct that Mukherjee removes variations of entire shapes, that does not mean that the variation is not based on the adjusted straight line segments. The layout features/polygons that are smoothed are composed of the straight line segments, so the smoothing is of course done based on the line segments that make up the feature. Looking at Mukherjee’s Fig. 7A, which Applicant cites as an example, if the line segments were in different positions (e.g. the feature looks like a square or a U), the smoothed feature would have a different shape and position; it is simply not the case that the smoothing is done without any consideration of the straight line segments. In other words, Mukherjee could not smooth any given shape without the line segments that make up the shape.
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 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.
25 August 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights