DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on November 11, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 12-13, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0232748 (hereinafter referred to as Hsu).
Hsu, in the abstract, and in [0007], [0166], discloses the manufacturing of a patterning device (photomask), the process includes obtaining an initial design pattern (data) that has plurality of polygons (features to be formed on the mask, [0104]). Hsu, in [0058], [0086], [0144], discloses that the optimizing of the design data includes adjusting of exposure dose such as minimizing exposure dose (parameter, printing exposure), and then the parameters of the design pattern (includes dimensions of the pattern). Hsu, in [0104], discloses size biasing being carried out in optimized illumination mode (includes optimized dose). Hsu, in [0048], and [0061], discloses that part of the optimization includes using the different parameters that optimizes and includes minimizing the deviations, and Hsu, in [0068]-[0069], discloses minimizing dose minimizes edge placement error (EPE) which in turn maximizes the overlapping EPE process window, and maximizing the EPE process window enables the maintaining the size or pattern quality (within 5% of critical dimension), and discloses iteratively calculating the overlapping EPE process window. Hsu, in [0070], discloses that the optimization process includes iteratively repeating the adjusting of the design variables (that includes characteristics of the design pattern such as size) till a desired result is obtained, and in [0128], and [0133]-[0134], Hsu discloses performing size biasing so that the features of the final pattern correspond to the right size, and shape corresponding to the initial design pattern (satisfy the pattern quality and size). Hsu, in [0061], and [0063], discloses that the design variable of the patterning device includes parameters of the illumination system variables such as spatial/angular distribution and other adjustable parameters of the illumination system, and adjusting the design variables and Hsu, in [0070], discloses adjusting design variable and iteratively repeating the process to determine optimized values, and Hsu, in [0107], and [0109], discloses using the optimization process to generate a design pattern (final pattern) thereby creating an optimized design pattern (optimized patterning device pattern). Hsu, in [0104], [0209], [0255], discloses that the optimized design pattern is provided to the patterning device (mask substrate, mask or reticle, provided to the mask blank to form the mask or claimed photomask) and used in the process (lithography process) (claim 1). Hsu, in [0107], [0128], and [0133], discloses that the size biasing can be increased (increase in size or dimension of the feature, positive size biasing) or decreased (reducing in size/dimension of the feature, negative size biasing) (claims 2-3). Hsu, in [0061], [0086], discloses that the mask variables include pattern edge biases (claims 4, and 7). Hsu, in [0058], discloses that the processing parameters of the mask includes mask structures (shapes and/or location of features) (claims 5 and 7). Hsu, in [0053], discloses that the variables that affect the design pattern model includes illumination shape (optical characteristics of the illumination mode and/or the illumination system (claims 6, and 7). Hsu, in [0058], discloses that part of the design parameters includes optical proximity correction. Hsu, in [0116], discloses that after performing optimization to realize a patterning device pattern (optimized photomask design data), optical proximity correction adjustments are performed on the patterning device pattern (claim 8). Hsu, in [0104], [0209], [0255], discloses that the optimized design pattern is provided to the patterning device (mask substrate, mask or reticle, provided to the mask blank to form the mask or claimed photomask) and used in the process (lithography process), and Hsu, in [0101], discloses that the mask (patterning device is used in a lithography process to manufacture devices such as flat panel displays (claims 9-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 7, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U. S. C. 102(a)(1) made in the previous office action has been maintained. With respect to applicant’s argument that the biasing in Hsu is not used to satisfy the priority rule of minimizing printing exposure energy, or that Hsu does not disclose iterating size of mask design features or that Hsu does not adjust mask variables over the range of size biases, Hsu teaches in [0098] that the illumination dose or intensity is decreased or optimized during optimization of the illumination and Hsu, in [0142], discloses the simulation process (that inherently includes adjusting and using different parameters to desired outcome that can be compared with intended design) includes not only the optimization of the illumination but also the pattern optimization (features of the mask) that includes OPC features, device pattern optimization, and does not suggest the location of evaluation features but the adjustment of the feature sizes, shapes and positioning in the mask (mask design), Hsu, in [0070], discloses that the different design variables are iteratively repeated till a desired result is obtained and is part of the optimization process and Hsu, in [0117], discloses that the iterative process of is performed on the patterning device pattern i.e., includes parts, area occupied by the features, shapes etc., of the patterning device and Hsu in [0128]-[0130], discloses the extent of size biasing and the controlling of the biasing by the software or the user and inherently includes determining the range of size biasing and furthermore, Hsu, in [0161], lines 1-3 of [0163], discloses that the design intent of the pattern (design pattern) can be varied and that includes the bias of the one or more of the design pattern features that further includes enlarging or shrinking of one or more features in the design pattern. Hsu, in [0176], and [0177], discloses that the optimization of the patterning device includes optimizing the illumination mode and that part of the optimization can be by size biasing of features of the design pattern.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 September 2, 2026.
Prosecution Insights