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 . Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2, line 2 includes the typo “is as follow:”. Examiner interprets as “is as follows:" for examination purposes.
Claim 2 line 7 uses the acronym or variable “ϵj” and "ηi", the first use of an acronym or variable in a claim should be defined to avoid any possible indefiniteness issues.
Claim 6, line 4 includes the typo “tween”. Examiner interprets as “between" for examination purposes.
Claim 6 has two periods, line 7 and last line. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the last period as extraneous, and thus everything after the first period as extraneous as well.
Claim 9 line 1 uses the acronym or variable “OPC”, the first use of an acronym or variable in a claim should be defined to avoid any possible indefiniteness issues.
Appropriate correction or clarification 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
equating an irradiation effect of a light field on the lattice units to a force…
generating a unit stiffness matrix of each lattice unit based on a relationship between stress and strain, and forming an overall stiffness matrix of the photoresist region based on generated unit stiffness matrix of each lattice unit; S3, defining the stresses on nodes of each lattice unit as node forces, obtaining equivalent node forces of each lattice unit, and obtaining overall node forces matrix of the photoresist region based on obtained equivalent node forces; S4, solving the overall stiffness matrix and the overall node force matrix, and calculating an overall displacement of the nodes of the photoresist region based on solving results; and S5, converting the overall displacement of the nodes into light field intensity
The claim is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: relationships, formulas or equations, calculations. The claimed invention further (underline emphasis added):
PNG
media_image1.png
364
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two:
As to the limitations “for simulation of negative tone development photolithography process", they are no more than intended use.
As to the limitations "S1, dividing a selected photoresist region into finite elements to obtain a plurality of lattice units based on a finite element analysis method; S2, setting deformation of photoresist as elastic deformation… performing stress analysis on a lattice unit based on elastic mechanics", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1 Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the intended use limitations remain intended use even upon reconsideration, because no actual simulation of negative tone development photolithography process is performed in the body of the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The Examiner notes that these limitations are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claim 10 recites substantially the same elements as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons above.
Independent claim 10, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; a storage device, configured to store one or more programs; when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors; they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation, which is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0063] Referring to FIG. 6, a structural diagram of a computing system 800 for implementing a terminal device/server (e.g. the electronic device 300) is illustrated. The terminal device/server shown in FIG. 6 is only an example and should not impose any limitations on functionality and scope of use of the present disclosure".
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mathematical concepts of their independent claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two:
As to the limitations “6… S51, obtain an original distance tween two nodes and an original light field intensity of each node", these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. See Electric Power Group1.
As to the limitations "4… obtaining the overall stiffness matrix through a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method… obtaining the overall node force matrix through a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) method", they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
As to the limitations “9. A method for creating an OPC model, comprising: providing an initial OPC model and adding the negative tone development photoresist model of claim 8", under their broadest reasonable interpretations, they are mathematical. See in the specification (underline emphasis added):
`[0059]… the initial OPC model includes a background light intensity distribution function, a light intensity gradient function, a light intensity curve function, a photo base distribution function, and a photoacid distribution function. After adding the negative tone development photoresist model mentioned above, it can adapt well to the negative photoresist process, simulate and calculate the thermal shrinkage effect of the negative photoresist'
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims, Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). The Examiner notes that these limitations are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claims recite data gathering at a high level of generality; and therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
no reference taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record disclose
claim 1, "…equating an irradiation effect of a light field on the lattice units to a force…
generating a unit stiffness matrix of each lattice unit based on a relationship between stress and strain, and forming an overall stiffness matrix of the photoresist region based on generated unit stiffness matrix of each lattice unit; S3, defining the stresses on nodes of each lattice unit as node forces, obtaining equivalent node forces of each lattice unit, and obtaining overall node forces matrix of the photoresist region based on obtained equivalent node forces; S4, solving the overall stiffness matrix and the overall node force matrix, and calculating an overall displacement of the nodes of the photoresist region based on solving results; and S5, converting the overall displacement of the nodes into light field intensity",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine none of these references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM – 7:00 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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
***
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
Prosecution Insights