DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 04/23/2023. Claims 1-9 are pending in the office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 7: line 2, after “the method” replaces “or” with -- for --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 1 is directed to a mathematical process without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is considered as a process. Thus, it falls into one of four categories statutory of invention (Step 1: Yes).
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Claim 1 is broadest reasonable interpretation to describe a mathematical concepted, such as S1, for setting acid concentration distribution in the photoresist as a function of the light field distribution S(x,y) = F(E(x,y)); S2, is also described other mathematical equation (i.e., an equivalent function which is a differential equation); and S3 using another mathematical formular/equation (i.e., Taylor expansion formula) to calculate an approximate value that will to be used for adjusting light distribution, such as plug-in a values into the equation/function in the S1 for solving equation S(x,y) = F(E(x,y)).
Hence, the claim 1 is directed to the mathematical process which is a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: Yes).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
Claim 1 does not recited (1) additional elements in claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individual or combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim itself does not include additional elements. However, claim 9 recited “one or more processors” as computer/electronic device for performing the method of claim 1. As individual or combination with a computer or electronic device to be considered as a tool to perform the generic computer function performing computing/calculating mathematical concept which still an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination with claim 9, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong two: No).
Step 2B analysis:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements and even combination with claim 9 which includes a computer as a tool perform the generic computer function performing computing/calculating mathematical concept which still an abstract idea. Hence, it is insufficient extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
As per claims 2-6, are directed to the mathematical formula. There are still a mathematical concepted and insignificant extra-solution activity which do not provide any inventive concepted.
Claim 9: similar analysis as per claim 1.
As per claim 7: recited “a negative tone development photoresist model” which is not fall into one of four categories statutory of invention (Step 1: NO).
As per claim 8: recited “an OPC model” which is not fall into one of four categories statutory of invention (Step 1: NO).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
As per claim 8: recited “an OPC model, comprising: an initial OPC model and the negative tone development photoresist”, which is unclear the relationship “an initial OPC model” and “the negative tone development photoresist”. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art does not know how “an initial OPC model” to be function or related to the negative tone development photoresist” of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sean Dominic D'Silva, FEM Modeling of Shrinkage Effects in Negative Tone Photoresist, Master's Thesis, June 29, 2017, Pages 1-76.
D’Silva teaches models to predict shrinkage of a Negative Tone Development (NTD) (page 29, chapter 5). Negative tone development (NTD) resists are susceptible to shrinkage and other losses in height and volume. A more specific type discussed here is the chemically amplified resist CAR which has a dramatically more improved sensitivity to light. One photon from the light source triggers multiple de-protection reactions in the resist generating acid which when in contact with the developer solution helps washing away regions with a higher acid molecule count (the abstract). There are multiple process steps involving during the shrinkage simulation of a negative tone photoresist (page 45, 6.4 simulation process flow, see fig. 6.6). The lithography simulation is carried out using Dr. LiTHO where the input inhibitor, light intensity, acid and PAG concentrations are read in to generate a developed profile without any shrinkage consideration (page 45, 6.4 simulation process flow). The PAGs or sensitizers help to control the photochemical reactions and make the resist sensitive to UV light. The dissolution inhibitors or protection groups are uniformly distributed in the photoresist before exposure and they help in controlling the dissolution rate of the photoresist. Depending on the specific application, additives are distributed along the resist in order to control light within the resist or increase photon absorption. After exposure to UV light, the PAGs decomposes to form an acid which in turn attracts the protection group (usually an ester or anhydride), causing an acid-catalyzed deprotection reaction (page 17-18). The light intensity I and the PAC distribution in the Dill equations depend on the position (x, y, z) in space and time t. This modified PAC concentration leads to different spatially dependent absorption α (x, y, z, t) along with a modified intensity distribution I(x, y, z, t).
D’Silva teaches modeling shrinkage using different mathematical formula/equation such as Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, density, coefficient of thermal expansion and the temperature (pages 29-32), also using finite element model (FEM) method that the physical mathematical problems can be described as differential equation to determine the stress, strains, temperature, etc. (pages 34-37) and also see acid concentration in shrinkage mechanics (chapter 6, page 40-45, fig. 6.2, the acid concentration in our case varies along the horizontal direction of the photoresist which in turn serves as a basis for the shrinkage computation).
However, D'Silva does not teach Taylor’s expansion formula.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of claimed invention can use the well-known Taylor’s expansion approximate the interatomic potential is proportional to Young’s Modulus in second derivative in the linear approximation (see from google website explained as below).
PNG
media_image1.png
142
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGHIA M DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5973. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
NGHIA M. DOAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2851
/NGHIA M DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851