CTNF 18/206,673 CTNF 77686 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. OFFICE ACTION Claim Objection In claim 1, a colon (:) should be insert after “comprising” to separate preamble from the body of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is rejected because: “the comparison” lacks antecedent basis. First occurrence of “the target design” lacks antecedent basis. “with the aid of” lacks antecedent basis. “automatically” in “fully automatically differentiable…”, as presented is unclear and incomplete regarding how automation is done/performed, what was used to achieve fully automatically. “the forward mode” lacks antecedent basis. “the backward mode” lacks antecedent basis. “the differences” lacks antecedent basis. “the actual design” lacks antecedent basis. “the purpose” lacks antecedent basis. Dependent claims 2-20 are rejected because they depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. In claim 2, “the parameters” and “the respectively associated target designs” lack antecedent basis. In claim 3, “ the calibration” , “with the aid of” and “the respectively associated target design” lack antecedent basis. In claim 3, the claimed term “preferably" as presented is not a positive of the invention and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention; see MPEP § 2173.05(d) and/or it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually being implemented in the invention; also "preferably" does not indicate whether or not an entity/action/feature is actually used/performed; "preferably" should be deleted and replaced with definite terms. In claims 5, 12-14, 18, and 20 “automatically” in “automatically differentiable…”, as presented is unclear and incomplete regarding how automation is done/performed, what was used to achieve automatically. In claim 10, “with the aid of” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 11, the claimed term “preferably" as presented is not a positive of the invention and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention; see MPEP § 2173.05(d) and/or it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually being implemented in the invention; also "preferably" does not indicate whether or not an entity/action/feature is actually used/performed; "preferably" should be deleted and replaced with definite terms. In claim 15, “the parameters” and “the respectively associated target designs” lack antecedent basis. In claim 16: “he parameters”, “the associated target design”, the first occurrence of “the calibration”, and “with the aid of” lacks antecedent basis. In claim 16, the claimed term “preferably" as presented is not a positive of the invention and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention; see MPEP § 2173.05(d) and/or it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually being implemented in the invention; also "preferably" does not indicate whether or not an entity/action/feature is actually used/performed; "preferably" should be deleted and replaced with definite terms. In claim 19, “the parameters” and “the respectively associated target designs” lacks antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. INSOFAR THE LIMITATIONS ARE UNDERSTOOD AND GIVEN BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) being anticipated by the prior art of record Lo (US 2020/0278604) Regarding claims 1 and 5, the prior art discloses: A method for registering structures on microlithographic masks (fig 1-6), comprising: the comparison (match/compare image fig 3-5) of a recorded measurement image of a mask (abstract, fig 1, 3-5) and the target design (ideal image, target output, desired mask layout, minimum error , satisfy design rules (abstract, par 3, 22, 33, 36-41)) underlying the mask, wherein the target design underlying the mask is converted into a simulated (par 4, 15, 21-22, 29, 31-43) reference image that is directly comparable with the measurement image with the aid of an optical simulation (par 4, 15, 21-22, 29, 31-43) ), wherein the optical simulation is fully automatically differentiable (see mask rasterized, mask raster image MRI in fig 4-6 ) in such a manner that a metric (see measurement in fig 1-6) that is determined from the recorded measurement image and the reference image (ideal image, target output, desired mask layout, minimum error , satisfy design rules (abstract, par 3, 22, 33, 36-41)) simulated in the forward mode ( see iterative/loop/repeat process in fig 1, 3-6 ) and represents the differences allows in the backward mode (see iterative/loop/repeat process/traverse, in fig 1, 3-6) a representation of the actual design of the mask that is directly comparable with the target design (ideal image, target output, desired mask layout, minimum error , satisfy design rules (abstract, par 3, 22, 33, 36-41)) for the purpose of determining possible defects ( par 3, 20-21, 32-33, 40-41) of the mask . (Claim 2) wherein the parameters of the optical simulation are calibrated (see title) on the basis of one or a plurality of measurement images of verified actual designs (models that are predictive of actual lithographic processes (par 4, 15)) of one or a plurality of masks and the respectively associated target designs of the masks. (Claim 3) wherein the actual design designs ( models that are predictive of actual lithographic processes (par 4, 15)) and the associated target design of at least one mask used for the calibration have a calibration structure (title), preferably a periodic line structure, with which the parameters that are calibratable with the aid of the respective calibration structure are reduced (fig 1-6). (Claim 4) wherein from the metric that represents the differences in the backward mode (see iterative/loop/repeat process/traverse, in fig 1, 3-6) , a representation of the actual design of the mask that is comparable with the target design is determined and used as a basis for determining defects ( par 3, 20-21, 32-33, 40-41) (Claims 5, 12-14, 18, 20) wherein the optical simulation comprises an automatically differentiable rasterization method (see mask rasterized, mask raster image MRI in fig 4-6 ) (Claim 6) wherein the metric that represents the differences comprises a pixelwise difference (par 36-45 and/or fig 4-6) between recorded measurement image and simulated reference image, a corresponding root mean square and/or a structure similarity index (par 36-45 and/or fig 4-6) (Claim 8) wherein surfaces defined by polygons having more than three corners are converted into a plurality of triangular surfaces by triangular decomposition (fig 4-7) (Claim 9) A computer program product or a set of computer program products, comprising program parts which, when loaded into a computer or into networked computers (fig 2, 6), are designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1. (Claim 10) A microlithographic method (fig 1-5) in which, with the aid of a projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination device and a projection device, the image of a mask illuminated by use of the illumination device is projected by use of the projection device onto a substrate that is coated with a light-sensitive layer and is arranged in the image plane of the projection device, wherein before the exposure of the substrate, the mask is registered and examined for defects by way of a method as claimed in claim 1 and the exposure of the substrate is carried out only in the event of sufficient freedom from defects being established (fig 1-5) (Claim 11) wherein the actual design and the associated target design of at least one mask used for the calibration have a calibration structure (title), preferably a periodic line structure, with which the parameters that are calibratable with the aid of the respective calibration structure are reduced (fig 1-6). (Claim 15-18) The computer program product or the set of computer program products (fig 2, 6) of claim 9, wherein: the parameters of the optical simulation are calibrated on the basis of one or a plurality of measurement images of verified actual designs of one or a plurality of masks and the respectively associated target designs of the masks (fig 1-6); the actual design and the associated target design of at least one mask used for the calibration have a calibration structure, preferably a periodic line structure, with which the parameters that are calibratable with the aid of the respective calibration structure are reduced (fig 1-6); from the metric that represents the differences in the backward mode ( see iterative/loop/repeat process in fig 1, 3-6 ) , a representation of the actual design of the mask that is comparable with the target design is determined and used as a basis for determining defects ( par 3, 20-21, 32-33, 40-41); wherein the optical simulation comprises an automatically differentiable rasterization method (see mask rasterized, mask raster image MRI in fig 4-6 ) (Claim 19) wherein the parameters of the optical simulation (par 4, 15, 21-22, 29, 31-43) ), are calibrated on the basis of one or a plurality of measurement images of verified actual designs (models that are predictive of actual lithographic processes (par 4, 15)) of one or a plurality of masks and the respectively associated target designs (ideal image, target output, desired mask layout, minimum error , satisfy design rules (abstract, par 3, 22, 33, 36-41)) of the masks. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Fujimura (US 2022/0128899). Regarding claims 1 and 5, the prior art discloses: A method for registering structures on microlithographic masks (abstract or fig 4-7, 9, 30-33) comprising: the comparison (see compare/match, difference variation in par 35-36, 46-47, 82, 89, fig 5, 7, 9, 13) of a recorded measurement image of a mask and the target design (design lithography patterns to be manufactured (abstract), goal in integrated circuit fabrication by optical lithography (par 6), wafer target , desired patterns/shapes, ideal Inverse Lithography Technology, physical design having reduced manufacturing error/variations, expected manufactured shapes (par 35-36, 52 61, 64-74, 90), acceptable variation band, possible mask images (fig 7)) underlying the mask, wherein the target design underlying the mask is converted into a simulated reference image (fig 7) that is directly comparable with the measurement image with the aid of an optical simulation (fig 7), wherein the optical simulation is fully automatically differentiable ( raster-scan, CAD rasterization (par 41, 138)) in such a manner that a metric that is determined from the recorded measurement image (see calibration, measure and metric in par 49, 52, 95-108, 127, 135-139, fig 12) and the reference image (identical/desired shape, project image, possible mask images, manufacturable shapes, ideal patterns/images/shapes (par 35-36, 39, 59, Fig 7)) simulated in the forward mode ( fig 1, 7) and represents the differences allows in the backward mode (fig 7) a representation of the actual design ( accurate transcription of the physical design to the actual circuit pattern, actual circuit design (par 6, 55, 57, 64, fig 7)) of the mask that is directly comparable with the target design for the purpose of determining possible defects of the mask (estimation of variation band, error calculation, manufacturing/process error, dimension/size variation/error of mask/shape (fig 7, 12-13, par 35, 52-55)) . (Claim 2) wherein the parameters of the optical simulation are calibrated on the basis of one or a plurality of measurement images of verified actual designs ( accurate transcription of the physical design to the actual circuit pattern, actual circuit design (par 6, 55, 57, 64, fig 7)) of one or a plurality of masks and the respectively associated target designs (design lithography patterns to be manufactured (abstract), goal in integrated circuit fabrication by optical lithography (par 6), wafer target , desired patterns/shapes, ideal Inverse Lithography Technology, physical design having reduced manufacturing error/variations, expected manufactured shapes (par 35-36, 52 61, 64-74, 90), acceptable variation band, possible mask images (fig 7)) of the masks. (Claim 3) wherein the actual design and the associated target design (design lithography patterns to be manufactured (abstract), goal in integrated circuit fabrication by optical lithography (par 6), wafer target , desired patterns/shapes, ideal Inverse Lithography Technology, physical design having reduced manufacturing error/variations, expected manufactured shapes (par 35-38, 40, 52 61, 64-74, 90), acceptable variation band, possible mask images (fig 7)) of at least one mask used for the calibration have a calibration structure, preferably a periodic line structure, with which the parameters that are calibratable with the aid of the respective calibration structure are reduced (design lithography patterns to be manufactured (abstract), goal in integrated circuit fabrication by optical lithography (par 6), wafer target , desired patterns/shapes, ideal Inverse Lithography Technology, physical design having reduced manufacturing error/variations, expected manufactured shapes (par 35-36, 52 61, 64-74, 90), acceptable variation band, possible mask images (fig 7)). (Claim 4) wherein from the metric (see calibration. Measure and metric in par 49, 52, 95-108, 127, 135-139, fig 12) that represents the differences in the backward mode, a representation of the actual design of the mask that is comparable with the target design is determined and used as a basis for determining defects (estimation of variation band, error calculation, manufacturing/process error, dimension/size variation/error of mask/shape (fig 7, 12-13, par 35, 52-55)) . (Claim 5, 12-14, 18, 20) wherein the optical simulation comprises an automatically differentiable rasterization method ( raster-scan, CAD rasterization (par 41, 138)) (Claim 6) wherein the metric (see calibration, Measure and metric in par 49, 52, 95-108, 127, 135-139, fig 12) that represents the differences comprises a pixelwise difference (par 44-45, 61, 73, 75, 80-83, 97-99, 105-108) between recorded measurement image and simulated reference image, a corresponding root mean square and/or a structure similarity index (par 52, 127). (Claim 7) wherein the target design is present as vector data (par 71). (Claim 8) wherein surfaces defined by polygons having more than three corners are converted into a plurality of triangular surfaces by triangular decomposition (fig 7, 10-16, and/or par 38, 43, 61, 76-90) (Claim 9) A computer program product or a set of computer program products (fig 7, 17 and/or par 55, 76, 84, 89-90, 97, 101, 110-112), comprising program parts which, when loaded into a computer or into networked computers, are designed to carry out the method as claimed in claim 1 (fig 7, 17 and/or par 55, 76, 84, 89-90, 97, 101, 110-112) (Claim 10) A microlithographic method (fig 1-2, 4-7, 10-16) in which, with the aid of a projection exposure apparatus comprising an illumination device and a projection device, the image of a mask illuminated by use of the illumination device is projected by use of the projection device onto a substrate that is coated with a light-sensitive layer and is arranged in the image plane of the projection device, wherein before the exposure of the substrate, the mask is registered and examined for defects by way of a method as claimed in claim 1 and the exposure of the substrate is carried out only in the event of sufficient freedom from defects being established (fig 1-2, 4-7, 10-16). (Claim 11) wherein the actual design ( accurate transcription of the physical design to the actual circuit pattern, actual circuit design (par 6, 55, 57, 64, fig 7)) and the associated target design (design lithography patterns to be manufactured (abstract),goal in integrated circuit fabrication by optical lithography (par 6), wafer target , desired patterns/shapes, ideal Inverse Lithography Technology, physical design having reduced manufacturing error/variations, expected manufactured shapes (par 35-36, 52 61, 64-74, 90), acceptable variation band, possible mask images (fig 7)) of at least one mask used for the calibration have a calibration structure, preferably a periodic line structure (par 38, 40, 41), with which the parameters that are calibratable with the aid of the respective calibration structure are reduced (see calibration, measure and metric in par 49, 52, 95-108, 127, 135-139, fig 12). (Claim 15-18) The computer program product or the set of computer program products of claim 9, wherein: the parameters of the optical simulation are calibrated on the basis of one or a plurality of measurement images (see calibration, measure and metric in par 49, 52, 95-108, 127, 135-139, fig 12) of verified actual designs of one or a plurality of masks and the respectively associated target designs of the masks; the actual design and the associated target design of at least one mask used for the calibration have a calibration structure, preferably a periodic line structure (par 38, 40, 41), with which the parameters that are calibratable with the aid of the respective calibration structure are reduced; from the metric (see calibration, measure and metric in par 49, 52, 95-108, 127, 135-139, fig 12) that represents the differences in the backward mode, a representation of the actual design of the mask that is comparable with the target design is determined and used as a basis for determining defects (estimation of variation band, error calculation, manufacturing/process error, dimension/size variation/error of mask/shape (fig 7, 12-13, par 35, 52-55)); wherein the optical simulation comprises an automatically differentiable rasterization method ( raster-scan, CAD rasterization (par 41, 138)). (Claim 19) wherein the parameters of the optical simulation are calibrated on the basis of one or a plurality of measurement images (see calibration, measure and metric in par 49, 52, 95-108, 127, 135-139, fig 12) of verified actual designs ( accurate transcription of the physical design to the actual circuit pattern, actual circuit design (par 6, 55, 57, 64, fig 7)) of one or a plurality of masks and the respectively associated target designs (design lithography patterns to be manufactured (abstract), goal in integrated circuit fabrication by optical lithography (par 6), wafer target , desired patterns/shapes, ideal Inverse Lithography Technology, physical design having reduced manufacturing error/variations, expected manufactured shapes (par 35-36, 52 61, 64-74, 90), acceptable variation band, possible mask images (fig 7)) of the masks. Correspondence Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax 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. /PAUL DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 2 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 3 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 4 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 5 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 6 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 7 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 8 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 9 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 10 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 11 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 12 Art Unit: 2851 Application/Control Number: 18/206,673 Page 13 Art Unit: 2851