DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. The amendment filed on 09/08/2025 is entered and made of record.
III. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-20 is/are found allowable. Explanations will be provided below.
IV. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
V. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-20 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “generate a representation of the pattern instance using a feature vector, wherein the feature vector comprises an element corresponding to the representative characteristic, wherein the representative characteristic is indicative of a spatial distribution of one or more features of the zone” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of feature extraction and image recognition, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
VI. The PCT application, PCT/EP2021/082886, is considered and the examiner determined no reference prior art are relevant to the claims of the current application.
[2] Response to Arguments
The arguments presented by the applicant have been considered and are found convincing. An updated search was performed and determined all claims to be allowable. Details are shown below. The applicant stated:
PNG
media_image1.png
138
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
The examiner disagrees. Color values or features with the image matrix are distributed over the entire image, the claim did not specify how the pixels are spatially distributed. The examiner suggests provide a clarification on said claims through amendments. Hong (US 20030185432) discloses
generate a representation of the pattern instance using a feature vector, wherein the feature vector comprises an element corresponding to the representative characteristic, wherein the representative characteristic is indicative of a spatial distribution of one or more features of the zone (see paragraph 37, the object region for each object possesses characteristics and features including color features, texture features, edge features, and other like features, where each object can thus be defined by multiple features, and expressed by an array of feature vectors V[n] where n is the number of features for the object, where the color features or texture feature are distributed over the entire image represented by pixel).
For reasons above, the examiner will repeat the same prior art rejections.
[3] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-20 does not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[4] Grounds of Rejection
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) person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(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.
or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hong (US 20030185432).
Regarding claim 1 Hong discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a set of instructions that is executable by at least one processor of a computing device to cause the computing device to at least
obtain obtaining data representative of a pattern instance (see figure 2, 202 features are extracted from an image);
divide dividing the pattern instance into a plurality of zones; determine a representative characteristic of a zone of the plurality of zones (see figure 4A, the pattern is divided into plurality of zones, see illustration below): and
generate a representation of the pattern instance using a feature vector, wherein the feature vector comprises an element corresponding to the representative characteristic, wherein the representative characteristic is indicative of a spatial distribution of one or more features of the zone (see paragraph 37, the object region for each object possesses characteristics and features including color features, texture features, edge features, and other like features, where each object can thus be defined by multiple features, and expressed by an array of feature vectors V[n] where n is the number of features for the object, where the color features or texture feature are distributed over the entire image represented by pixel).
Regarding claim 3, Hong discloses the medium of claim 1, wherein the data representative of a pattern instance is layout data (see figure 4A shows a layout).
Regarding claim 5, Hong discloses the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain data representative of a pattern instance are further configured to cause the at least one processor to convert a feature into a representative point (see figure 4A illustration below):
PNG
media_image2.png
176
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 7, Hong discloses the medium of claim 1, wherein the data representative of a pattern instance is image data (see figure 4A, shows pattern instance).
Regarding claim 8, Hong discloses the medium of claim 7, wherein the image data is an inspection image, an aerial image, a mask image, an etch image, or a resist image (see paragraph 32, Coupled to processor 10 is a database storage 50 for storing image data, e.g., registration images or test images of inspected devices).
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to divide dividing the pattern instance into a plurality of zones are further configured to cause the at least one processor to divide the pattern instance using a concentric geometric shape (see figure 4A, shows plurality of geometric shape and it is divided into plurality of regions).
Regarding claim 12, Hong discloses the medium of claim 1, wherein the feature vector is provided for use in one or more selected from: modeling, optical proximity correction (OPC), defect inspection, defect prediction, or source mask optimization (SMO) (see figure 2, generating a hierarchical object tree for extracted objects, this tree is read as a model).
Regarding claim 16 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 18 see the rationale and rejection for claim 3.
Regarding claim 19 see the rationale and rejection for claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20030185432) in view of Neubauer (US 20020168097).
Regarding claim 2, Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to classify and/or pattern instances based on the feature vector. Neubauer discloses the medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to classify and/or pattern instances based on the feature vector (see paragraph 51, a feature vector with 16 components is preferably computed for marker classification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include feature vectors allows machine learning models to represent and analyze data numerically, as machines struggle to interpret raw data without this structure, where this transformation enables efficient processing and facilitates complex tasks like classification and prediction.
Regarding claim 17 see the rationale and rejection for claim 2.
3. Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20030185432) in view of Joshi (US 20160061640).
Regarding claim 4, Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the medium of claim 3, wherein the layout data 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). Joshi discloses the medium of claim 3, wherein the layout data 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 paragraph 75, although various formats may be used for such encoding, these data structures are commonly written in: Caltech Intermediate Format (CIF)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include CIF format because it is a simple, hierarchical, and human-readable text format that is easily generated and processed by both humans and computers, where it is also compact, making it suitable for sharing designs across different platforms.
4. Claims 6, 9-10, 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20030185432) in view of Yang (US 20160071261).
Regarding claim 6, Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the medium of claim 5, wherein the instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to determine the representative characteristic of a zone of the plurality of zones are further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine an areal density of representative points in the zone of the plurality of zones. Yang discloses the medium of claim 5, wherein the instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to determine the representative characteristic of a zone of the plurality of zones are further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine an areal density of representative points in the zone of the plurality of zones (see paragraph 66, a density value (DV) may be calculated for each of the material layer patterns 110a, 110b, and 110c by calculating a difference of an overlapping area between the contour image 120 and the target layout image 130).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include determining the areal density of representative points within a zone in semiconductor manufacturing is crucial for optimizing processes like etching, as it helps predict pattern-dependent variations that can impact device performance and yield.
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses the medium of claim 7, wherein the representative characteristic of the zone of the plurality of zones is a representative point count density (see figure 4, densities are calculated at this plurality of points, 110a, 110b, and 110c). See the motivation for claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses the medium of claim 7, wherein the representative characteristic of the zone of the plurality of zones is an image pixel density (see paragraph 66, a DV may be calculated for the material layer pattern 110a by calculating a difference of an overlapping area between the contour image 120 and the target layout image 130). See the motivation for claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses the medium of claim 1 wherein the feature vector (see paragraph 37, the object region for each object possesses characteristics and features including color features, texture features, edge features, and other like features, where each object can thus be defined by multiple features, and expressed by an array of feature vectors V[n] where n is the number of features for the object) and Yang discloses elements in a same number as the plurality of zones, wherein each element corresponds to an areal density in a respective zone (see paragraph 66, a DV may be calculated for the material layer pattern 110a by calculating a difference of an overlapping area between the contour image 120 and the target layout image 130). See the motivation for claim 6.
Regarding claim 20 see the rationale and rejection for claim 6.
5. Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20030185432) in view of Snow (US 7231081).
Regarding claim 14, Hong discloses Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 5, but is silent in disclosing the medium of claim 5, wherein the representative point corresponds to a centroid of the feature. Snow discloses the medium of claim 5, wherein the representative point corresponds to a centroid of the feature (see column 13, lines 36-37). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include a centroid, or the geometric center of a feature because it is easy and quick calculation that visually sits in the middle of a feature, especially for features with simple shapes.
6. Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20030185432) in view of Levenson (US 20060245631).
Regarding claim 15, Hong discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but is silent in disclosing the medium of claim 7, wherein the instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain the data are further configured to cause the at least one processor to perform FFT on the image data. Levenson discloses the medium of claim 7, wherein the instructions configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain the data are further configured to cause the at least one processor to perform FFT on the image data (see paragraph 114, calculations for each of the image slices in the ROI's feature vector can be derived from the magnitude of the complex 2D Fourier transform of the ROI).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention include performing FFT on image data to transform it from the spatial domain to the frequency domain, enabling analysis and manipulation of frequency components, where this allows for tasks like noise reduction, filtering, compression, and feature extraction, which improves image quality and recognition.
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shorten 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 shorten statutory period, then the shorten statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 the final action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 11/19/25