DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 29 June 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 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) 1-6, 9-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 111427240) in view of Xu (WO 2021/141730) or Vallius (US 2017/0299865), and Di Giacomo (US 2011/0057333).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method, comprising: designing a model with a model area and a verification area of a substrate with one or more initial mask patterns, the one or more initial mask patterns having a first grating pattern with a first angle and a first critical dimension, wherein the first angle is an approximation for achieving a first desired angle and the first critical dimension is an approximation for achieving a first desired critical dimension when patterned on the substrate (Fig. 4a/c; pp. 21-22, 0043; p. 26, 0051, CDSEM; p. 34, last ¶);
fabricating one or more test masks, the one or more test masks including the first grating pattern in the model area and in the verification area (p. 25; p. 34, last ¶); patterning the model area and the verification area with the one or more test masks (p. 26; 34, last ¶);
measuring the model area to obtain a first model data set comprising a first set of model angles and a first set of model critical dimensions of the first grating pattern, and completing the model using the first model data set, wherein changes from the one or more test masks to the substrate are factored into the model (p. 26, last ¶; p. 22, 0043);
measuring the verification area to obtain a first verification data set comprising a first set of verification angles and a first set of verification critical dimensions of the first grating pattern at a first target point of the verification area to verify the model (p. 34, last ¶);
determining whether each angle of the first set of verification angles is within a threshold range of the first desired angle and each critical dimension of the first set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the first desired critical dimension (p. 26, 0051, CDSEM; p. 34, last ¶); and
fabricating a new device mask if each angle of the first set of verification angles is within the threshold range of the first desired angle and each critical dimension of the first set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the first desired critical dimension (p. 34, last ¶; p. 35, 1st and 2nd ¶¶).
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the substrate is an optical device, and that the metrics that are measured/verified include angles. Xu (¶¶1, 16, 18, 20) or Vallius (¶¶31, 55) discloses these limitations. The combination of Wang and Xu or Vallius would suggest to persons having ordinary skill in the art to perform the model calibration and verification procedure of Wang on the optical device patterns of Xu or Vallius. As taught by Xu or Vallius, the operation of optical devices depends on the angles of the grating, and Xu or Vallius further teaches techniques for measuring the angles, so Wang’s calibration and verification procedures would include Xu’s or Vallius’s angles as part of Wang’s model and measurement parameter.
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 Wang and Xu or Vallius, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of calibrating and verifying models for optical devices. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Wang discloses calibration and verification of models for device fabrication. Xu or Vallius each teaches optical devices with particular grating angles. The teachings of Xu or Vallius are directly applicable to Wang in the same way, so that Wang’s model calibration and verification would incorporate angles as a model/measurement parameter to accurately model production of optical devices.
If Wang is found to be unclear regarding the model with one or more initial mask patterns, wherein the first angle/critical dimension (CD) is an approximation for achieving a first desired angle/CD on the substrate, determining whether the verification angles/CDs are within a threshold range of the first desired angle/CD, and fabricating a new device mask if each angle/CD is within the threshold, Di Giacomo discloses the model with one or more initial mask patterns, wherein the first angle/CD is an approximation for achieving a first desired angle/CD on the substrate, determining whether the verification angles/CDs are within a threshold range of the first desired angle/CD, and fabricating a new device mask if each angle/CD is within the threshold (Fig. 2; ¶¶6, 9). As discussed above, the angles are disclosed by Xu.
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 Wang, Xu or Vallius, and Di Giacomo, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of testing mask patterns expected to produce intended wafer patterns. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395-1396. Wang discloses model calibration and verification. Di Giacomo provides further explicit details of conventional model calibration and verification processes, including modeling mask patterns expected to produce intended wafer patterns and verifying printed wafer patterns against the intended wafer patterns to validate the model for mask production. The teachings of Di Giacomo are directly applicable to Wang in the same way, so that Wang would similarly use conventional calibration and verification techniques to verify a model that for mask patterns that will produce intended wafer patterns so that the model is effective for device production.
Regarding claim 2, Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose rebuilding the model using the first model data set if at least one angle of the first set of verification angles is outside the threshold range of the first desired angle and at least one critical dimension of the first set of verification critical dimensions is outside the threshold range of the first desired critical dimension; determining whether each angle of the first set of verification angles is within the threshold range of the first desired angle and each critical dimension of the first set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the first desired critical dimension using the model; and fabricating the new device mask if each angle of the first set of verification angles is within the threshold range of the first desired angle and each critical dimension of the first set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the first desired critical dimension. Di Giacomo discloses these limitations (¶9). Specifically, Di Giacomo teaches repeating the model calibration and verification if the measured values are outside of the threshold, until a satisfactory model is obtained for mask production. As discussed above, the angles are disclosed by Xu or Vallius.
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose designing the model to have a second grating pattern on the model area and the verification area of the optical device substrate with the one or more initial mask patterns, the initial mask patterns having the second grating pattern with a second angle and a second critical dimension, wherein the second angle is an approximation for achieving a second desired angle and the second critical dimension is an approximation for achieving a second desired critical dimension when patterned on the optical device substrate; fabricating the one or more test masks with the second grating pattern, the second grating pattern being included in the model area and in the verification area; patterning the second grating pattern on the model area and the verification area with the one or more test masks, wherein patterning the second grating pattern is performed concurrently with patterning the first grating pattern; measuring the model area to obtain a second model data set comprising a second set of model angles and a second set of model critical dimensions of the second grating pattern, and completing the model using the second model data set, wherein changes from the one or more test masks to the optical device substrate are factored into the model; measuring the verification area to obtain a second verification data set comprising a second set of verification angles and a second set of verification critical dimensions of the second grating pattern at a second target point of the verification area to verify the model, wherein measuring the second grating pattern is performed concurrently with measuring the first grating pattern; determining whether each angle of the second set of verification angles is within the threshold range of the second desired angle and each critical dimension of the second set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the second desired critical dimension; and fabricating the new device mask with the second grating pattern if each angle of the second set of verification angles is within the threshold range of the second desired angle and each critical dimension of the second set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the second desired critical dimension.
However, these limitations merely repeat claim 1 for a second grating, which is likely to be obvious under the same reasoning. See also MPEP §2144.04(VI). Furthermore, Xu (Fig. 1) or Vallius (Figs. 7-9) disclose second gratings, so the application of Xu or Vallius to Wang in the manner discussed above with regard to claim 1 would analogously apply to the second grating so that the second grating could also be manufactured correctly. Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose designing the model to have a third grating pattern on the model area and the verification area of the optical device substrate with the one or more initial mask patterns, the initial mask patterns having the third grating pattern with a third angle and a third critical dimension, wherein the third angle is an approximation for achieving a third desired angle and the third critical dimension is an approximation for achieving a third desired critical dimension when patterned on the optical device substrate; fabricating the one or more test masks with the third grating pattern, the third grating pattern being included in the model area and in the verification area; patterning the third grating pattern on the model area and the verification area with the one or more test masks, wherein patterning the third grating pattern is performed concurrently with patterning the second grating pattern; measuring the model area to obtain a third model data set comprising a third set of model angles and a third set of model critical dimensions of the third grating pattern, and completing the model using the third model data set, wherein changes from the one or more test masks to the optical device substrate are factored into the model; measuring the verification area to obtain a third verification data set comprising a third set of verification angles and a third set of verification critical dimensions of the third grating pattern at a third target point of the verification area to verify the model, wherein measuring the third grating pattern is performed concurrently with measuring the second grating pattern; determining whether each angle of the third set of verification angles is within the threshold range of the third desired angle and each critical dimension of the third set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the third desired critical dimension; and fabricating the new device mask with the third grating pattern if each angle of the third set of verification angles is within the threshold range of the third desired angle and each critical dimension of the third set of verification critical dimensions is within the threshold range of the third desired critical dimension.
However, these limitations merely repeat claim 1 for a third grating, which is likely to be obvious under the same reasoning. See also MPEP §2144.04(VI). Furthermore, Xu (Fig. 1) or Vallius (Figs. 7-9) disclose third gratings, so the application of Xu or Vallius to Wang in the manner discussed above with regard to claim 1 would analogously apply to the third grating so that the third grating could also be manufactured correctly. Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first grating pattern is an input coupler, a pupil expander, or an output coupler. Xu (¶17) or Vallius (¶67) disclose these limitations. Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the second grating pattern is a pupil expander, and the third grating pattern is an output coupler. Xu (¶17) or Vallius (¶67) disclose these limitations. Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Claims 9-13 are identical to claims 1-5 except that they omit CDs, and are thus rejected under similar reasoning.
Claims 16-19 are directed to non-transitory media for performing the methods of claims 1-4 and are rejected under similar reasoning. Wang discloses non-transitory media for performing the claimed methods (¶2); Di Giacomo also discloses the same (¶9). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Claim(s) 8, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xu or Vallius, Di Giacomo, and Du (CN 112099309).
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first set of model critical dimensions comprises ten first model critical dimensions and the first set of verification critical dimensions comprises ten first verification critical dimensions. However, the number of samples/datapoints used for model calibration or verification could be decided by a designer/engineer or any persons having ordinary skill in the art as they deem suitable; there is no evidence that the particular number of ten samples has any significance or criticality (e.g., ¶38 of the Specification states “such as ten first model critical dimensions”). Nevertheless, Du discloses ten CDs (p. 56, last two ¶¶). 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 Wang, Xu or Vallius, Di Giacomo, 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 providing multiple datapoints for improved calibration and verification accuracy. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Wang discloses model calibration and verification using measured CDs, but does not specify the exact number of CDs. As discussed, persons having ordinary skill in the art would select the number of datapoints for calibration and verification as appropriate. Du further provides explicit disclosure of ten CDs. The teachings of Du are directly applicable to Wang in the same way, so that Wang would use ten CDs to improve calibration and verification accuracy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
27 September 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
