DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 29 December 2025. Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9-13 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that “the corner splits will remain unchanged to prevent the minimum space from exceeding the space minimum resolution value” which is not supported by the originally-filed disclosure. As stated in the Specification and recited in the claim, the minimum space exceeding the space minimum resolution value causes the rule check to pass, so there is no reason to prevent it; the entire point of a minimum spacing rule is to avoid spacings smaller than the specified value, not spacings that exceed it.
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, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierrat (US 2003/0097647) in view of Wang (US 2006/0265675), Burkhardt (US 2014/0199615), Chiu (US 2017/0053867), Nakayama (2014/0244215), Scaman (US 20070277145), and Lippincott (US 7,240,305).
Regarding claim 1, Pierrat discloses an Optical Proximity Correction (OPC) method (Fig. 7), comprising: step 1: providing an initial target layer and setting a mask minimum resolution dimension (¶¶49, 53); step 2: selecting a first pattern that will violate a mask rule check in subsequent model-based OPC from the initial target layer according to the mask minimum resolution dimension (¶50) step 3: performing split processing on the first pattern, the split processing dividing each side of the first pattern into a plurality of splits, the splits of each side comprising corner splits and a middle split, one vertex of each corner split being a vertex of the side, the other vertex of each corner split being a vertex of an adjacent middle split, the initial target layer after split processing being a second target layer (Fig. 6A); and step 4: performing model-based OPC based on the second target layer and obtaining a mask pattern layer, the model-based OPC comprising a plurality of iterative cyclic operations, the corner splits and middle splits of each side of the first pattern being corrected separately in each iterative cyclic operation, a corner dimension of the first pattern in the mask pattern layer being controlled through the corner splits, an area of the first pattern in the mask pattern layer being controlled through the middle splits (Figs. 6C-D and 7; ¶¶52, 59).
If Pierrat is found to be unclear regarding a mask minimum resolution dimension and mask rule check, Wang also discloses the same (¶5). Pierrat also does not appear to explicitly disclose that the mask minimum resolution dimension comprises a critical dimension minimum resolution value and a space minimum resolution value; and step 5: performing the mask rule check on the mask pattern layer, wherein, when a critical dimension of the first pattern in the mask pattern layer is more than the critical dimension minimum resolution value and a space is more than the space minimum resolution value, the mask rule check passes. Wang discloses these limitations (¶5). 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 Pierrat, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of verifying that a design layout is manufacturable. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Pierrat discloses an OPC process that checks a layout for trouble spots that fail to meet minimum requirements. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand that such trouble spots are those that fail to meet minimum mask resolution dimensions according to mask rule checking, as taught by Wang. The teachings of Wang are directly applicable to Pierrat in the same way, so that Pierrat would similarly check for pattern trouble spots in the layout that fail to meet mask rule check requirements such as minimum resolution dimensions, to verify that the layout is manufacturable.
Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that, in the initial target layer, an array structure formed through arrangement of each first pattern is a dense stagger pattern; and in the dense stagger pattern, diagonals of each first pattern are aligned and arranged periodically, a minimum space between the first patterns is equal to a distance between adjacent corners of two adjacent first patterns, and a pitch of the first patterns is equal to a sum of a length of the diagonal of the first pattern and the minimum space. Burkhardt discloses these limitations (Fig. 12A). 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 Pierrat, Wang, and Burkhardt, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of correcting optical proximity effects on via layer patterns. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Pierrat discloses applying OPC to layouts, which persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize include via layers comprising square hole patterns, as taught by Burkhardt. The teachings of Burkhardt are directly applicable to Pierrat in the same way, so that via layers would be corrected for optical proximity effects.
If Burkhardt is found to be unclear regarding the minimum space and pitch, Chiu (Fig. 9G) and Nakayama discloses the same (¶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 Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, and Nakayama, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of defining physical dimensions of a layout. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Pierrat discloses applying OPC to a layout, which is a via layer layout as taught by Burkhardt. The layout patterns of Burkhardt have physical dimensions/characteristics such as spacing and pitch, regardless of whether those characteristics are explicitly stated; nevertheless, Chiu and Nakayama provide explicit definitions of spacing and pitch in layouts such as Burkhardt’s. The teachings of Chiu and Nakayama are directly applicable to Pierrat and Burkhardt, so that the layout would similarly have defined spacing and pitch.
Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that the mask rule check will be inserted into each iterative cyclic operation of the model-based OPC, when the minimum space is close to the space minimum resolution value, a next iteration cycle operation will still proceed, in the next iteration cycle operation, only the middle splits will be corrected, while the corner splits will remain unchanged to prevent the minimum space from exceeding the space minimum resolution value. It is well-known that mask rule checks (MRC) are part of the iterative cyclic operation of model-based OPC, as taught by Scaman (¶¶9, 23). It is also well-known to leave a relevant edge segment unchanged to prevent violations of mask rules, such as minimum spacing rules, while allowing correction of other edge segments, as taught by Lippincott (claim 7; col. 4, lines 48-53; col. 5, lines 58-63). As discussed above, Pierrat discloses segmenting patterns into corner and middle segments, and Burkhardt, Chiu, and Nakayama discloses that the minimum spacing rule is corner-to-corner, so preventing the violation of the corner-to-corner spacing rule, as in Lippincott, would hold the corner edge segment unchanged, as claimed.
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 Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, Nakayama, Scaman, and Lippincott, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of avoiding mask rule violations during OPC. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Pierrat discloses OPC. Scaman teaches that MRC is incorporated into OPC iterations to avoid mask rule violations and subsequent repair procedures, and Lippincott teaches that such avoidance of violations is performed by leaving relevant edge segments unchanged. The teachings of Scaman and Lippincott are directly applicable to Pierrat in the same way, so that Pierrat would similarly perform MRC during OPC iterations and leave edge segments that may potentially cause violations unchanged, to avoid mask rule violations during OPC.
Regarding claim 3, Pierrat discloses that, in step 1, the initial target layer is obtained through rule-based OPC of an initial layout (¶56).
Regarding claim 6, Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first pattern comprises a square hole pattern; Burkhardt discloses these limitations (Fig. 12A; Abstract). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that the square hole pattern comprises a via layer pattern; Burkhardt discloses these limitations (Abstract). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Pierrat discloses that, in step 3, the split processing divides each side of the first pattern into three splits, and the three splits comprise two corner splits and one middle split (Fig. 6A).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, Nakayama, Scaman, Lippincott, and Liebmann (US 2005/0014074).
Regarding claim 9, Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that the mask minimum resolution dimension is determined by a process node and mask manufacturing capacity; Liebmann discloses these limitations (¶38). 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 Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, Nakayama, Scaman, Lippincott, and Liebmann, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of ensuring that a layout is manufacturable. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Pierrat discloses an OPC process that checks a layout for trouble spots that fail to meet minimum requirements. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would understand that such trouble spots are those that fail to meet minimum mask resolution dimensions according to mask rule checking, as taught by Wang, and that those minimum mask resolution dimensions are determined by a process node and mask manufacturing capacity, as taught by Liebmann. The teachings of Liebmann are directly applicable to Pierrat in the same way, so that Pierrat would similarly check patterns against minimum rules determined by process node and mask manufacturing capacity, so that the layout can actually be manufactured by the mask manufacturing and lithography processes.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, Nakayama, Scaman, Lippincott, Liebmann, and Tang (US 2016/0300842)
Regarding claim 10, Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that the critical dimension minimum resolution value and the space minimum resolution value are 18nm or 12nm at the same time; Tang discloses these limitations (¶21). 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 Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, Nakayama, Scaman, Lippincott, Liebmann, and Tang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of setting minimum dimension and spacing rules for a desired manufacturing technology, and also as an obvious matter of design choice. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Pierrat discloses an OPC process to produce a layout that meets design rules, as taught by Wang. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that rules such as minimum spacing and dimensions would be set to specific values, such as 12 nm or 18 nm, as taught by Tang, according to designer preferences/specifications to adhere to a desired manufacturing technology/process.
Regarding claim 11, Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that the minimum space between the first patterns is less than 20nm, and the pitch of the first patterns is less than 115nm; Tang discloses these limitations (¶21). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 10.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, Nakayama, Scaman, Lippincott, Liebmann, Tang, Chou (US 2020/0058544), and Abrams (US 2007/0009808).
Regarding claim 12, Pierrat does not appear to explicitly disclose that a target value of a side length of the first pattern is 68nm and a dimension of the corner split in the split processing is 5-20nm. Chou discloses that a target value of a side length of the first pattern is 68nm (¶19), and a corner split dimensions of 5-20nm would be 7-29% of the side length, which Pierrat discloses (Fig. 6A); Abrams also explicitly discloses that split dimension is 5-20nm (¶77). 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 Pierrat, Wang, Burkhardt, Chiu, Nakayama, Scaman, Lippincott, Liebmann, Tang, Chou, and Abrams, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of setting minimum dimension and spacing rules for a desired manufacturing technology, and also as an obvious matter of design choice. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Pierrat discloses an OPC process to produce a layout that achieves target features. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that target feature and split dimensions would be set to specific values, such as 68nm, as taught by Chou, or 5-20nm, as taught by Abrams, according to designer preferences/specifications to adhere to a desired manufacturing technology/process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts that the prior art fails to teach newly-added limitations, which are addressed above using newly-cited prior art.
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.
2 April 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights