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. DETAILED ACTION This Non-Final office is a response to the papers filed on 05/31/2023 . Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1 -2, 9-10, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RYO et al. ( KR 20140031382 A ) . Regarding claims 1 and 16 , Ryo discloses: A method of feature-based cell extraction, the method comprising (see Abstract, The information recorded in the design layout is directly analyzed, a desired area is extracted, an inspection recipe is generated using this extraction method ….) : obtaining data representative of a layout, wherein the layout includes a pattern comprising oblique angle features (see Fig. 6C, see page 8, the patterns corresponding to the cells of each layer are painted and painted with oblique lines . In the figure, the reference number of the upper cell on the tree to which the cell D belongs is also extracted from the analysis result ….. , m ethod of filling a pattern outline with an oblique line as shown in Fig. 6C is conceivable ….) ; extracting unit cells from the pattern region comprising oblique angle features (see Fig. 6C, see page 8, the patterns corresponding to the cells of each layer are painted and painted with oblique lines . ….., m ethod of filling a pattern outline with an oblique line as shown in Fig. 6C is conceivable …. , see page 2-3, a specific data set on the design layout data in order to extract a specific area from the design layout data ….. ) ; identifying, by a hardware computer system and using the unit cells, a set of regions of the layout matching the unit cells (see Fig. 6C, cell A, B, C…, page 7, the hierarchical structure of the target cell or the target cell is specified by visual confirmation of the cell hierarchy structure by the device operator, Match the pattern with the target cel l, [wherein set of regions of layout matching the unit cell have been identified ], see page 8 -9 , The number of references of the first-stage cell B is eight, which is the number matching the number of patterns 52 appearing on the layout pattern ….) ; and generating, using the unit cells, a hierarchy for the set of regions (see page 4, cell hierarchy structure of a general design layout, FIG. 2 shows hierarchically patterns obtained by developing images of cells of each hierarchy …., see page 7-8, although the hierarchical structure of the design layout data itself can be analyzed by the above calculation processing ….) . Regarding claims 2 and 17 , Ryo discloses: wherein the pattern region comprises no vertices of features (see Fig. 6C, (no vertices of features, only oblique angle features] ) . Regarding claim 9 , Ryo discloses: storing the unit cell in an associative data structure, wherein a key for the associative data structure is a feature of the pattern region (see page 3 -4 , an image of a pattern obtained by performing exposure simulation on the layout pattern and a matte stage inspection image may be stored as two characters …., the name of each cell and the link information to a cell in the next lower layer included in the cell are stored …, [wherein the name of the file is the key for the data structure] , see page 6 ) . Regarding claim 10 , Ryo discloses: wherein the identifying, a set of regions of the layout matching the unit cells, further comprises: identifying a feature of the pattern region; retrieving, using the feature as a key, retrieving a unit cell from the associative data structure; and matching portions of the pattern region using the retrieved unit cell (see page 3-4, an image of a pattern obtained by performing exposure simulation on the layout pattern and a matte stage inspection image may be stored as two characters …., the name of each cell and the link information to a cell in the next lower layer included in the cell are stored …, [wherein the name of the file is the key for the data structure], see page 6, the design layout data is analyzed to search for a target pattern to be inspected (step 83), and the conditions such as the size of a field of view (FOV) and an inspection area are set using the result …, [wherein the size also a key for the data structure]) . Regarding claim 14 , Ryo discloses: wherein the hierarchy is in Graphic Database System (GDS) format, Graphic Database System II (GDS II) format, Open Artwork System Interchange Standard (OASIS) format, or Caltech Intermediate Format (CIF) (see page 6, data of a design layout described in various formats such as GDSII and OASIS is read ….) . Regarding claim 15 , Ryo discloses: wherein the hierarchy is provided for use in at least one selected from: of modeling, optical proximity correction (OPC), defect inspection, defect prediction, or source mask optimization (SMO) (see page 2, In order to reduce these defects, inspection has been carried out by a defective inspection apparatus ….. ) . 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 3 -6, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO et al. ( KR 20140031382 A ) further in view of Rosenbluth et al. ( US 20020140920 A1 ) . Regarding claim s 3 and 18 , Ryo fails to disclose: further comprising determining a feature slope in the pattern region . Thus, Rosenbluth discloses: further comprising determining a feature slope in the pattern region (see par [0015], the slope in the image intensity across the edge of features in the image is increased accordingly. However, the steepness of the slope across the edges of image features is limited by the requirement ….). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method for setting the inspection area is performed in inspection, measurement, or defect review of a patterned of Ryo to include determine a feature slope in order to select the illumination directions incident on a given mask in ways that maximize the slope of image features (see Rosenbluth par [00 19 ]). Regarding claim s 4 and 19 , Rosenbluth discloses: further comprising determining a horizontal or vertical pitch of structures in the pattern region (see par [0057], Fig. 2, a horizontal repeat dimension 203, and a staggered pitch indicated by the diagonal repeat dimension 205 (alternatively indicated by the vertical pitch 201) … .) . Regarding claim 5 , Rosenbluth discloses: comprising determining the horizontal and vertical pitch and further comprising: constructing a unit cell using the horizontal and vertical pitch, wherein: top and bottom boundaries of the unit cell are defined by the horizontal pitch (see Fig. 2, horizontal dimension 203, see par [0007], see par [0057]) ; left and right boundaries of the unit cell are defined by the vertical pitch (see Fig. 2, vertical dimension 201, see par [0007], see par [0057]) ; and a location of the unit cell is based on a beginning point of the horizontal or vertical pitch (see Fig. 2, horizontal dimension 203, vertical dimension 201, see par [0007], see par [0057]) Regarding claim s 6 and 20 , Rosenbluth discloses: further comprising determining a line-space feature of structures in the pattern region (see par [0002], Critical dimension (CD) refers to the feature size and spacing between features and feature repeats (pitch) that are required by the design specifications and are critical for the proper functioning of the devices , [wherein spacing between features is line-space feature]). Regarding claim 11 , Rosenbluth discloses: further comprising optimizing the unit cell distribution on the set of regions using a linear optimization function (see par [0070-0073], The calculation of the optimized reticle shapes, which is included in step 3 (block 553), can also be performed using a relatively simple approach, which is described more fully below, that exploits the linearity of the Fourier transform process that governs diffraction ….) . 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO et al. ( KR 20140031382 A ) further in view of HIROSHI ( JP 2013061753 A ) . Regarding claim 13 , Ryo fails to disclose: merging the extracted unit cells; and removing duplicate unit cells. Thus, Hiroshi discloses: merging the extracted unit cells (see page 4-5, the pattern in the cell in which the processing result may be different can be extracted based on the influence range. Therefore, the pattern in the cell whose processing result may be different is merged with the external pattern and the predetermined pattern data processing is performed …., see page 23-24)) ; and removing duplicate unit cells (see page 2, various pattern data processing such as layout pattern duplication removal processing …., see page 20….) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified a method for setting the inspection area is performed in inspection, measurement, or defect review of a patterned of Ryo to include merging the extracted unit cells in order to finally obtain a correct pattern data processing result for the entire pattern data (see Hiroshi page 5). Allowable Subject Matter Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation as in claim 7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN NGO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7011 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7AM-4PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jack Chiang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712727483 . 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. /BRIAN NGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851