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. Claim Objections In claim 6, at line 13, replace “the” in “the target segment” with “a” in order to correct an antecedent basis issue. 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 1-5 and 6-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category. Claims 1 and 6 are directed to a “dissection method”, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Step 2A, Prong 1: Recitations of Judicial Exception. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, claims 1 and 6 recite the abstract idea of mathematical concepts and mental processes. Regarding mathematical concepts, the claims explicitly require “judging a type of included angles” and categorizing those angles into specific geometric relationships (e.g., 90 degrees and 270 degrees), followed by “performing a symmetric dissection” based on those mathematical calculations. As clarified in USPTO’s August 2025 memo ( https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf ), the claims do not merely involve math, they explicitly recite specific mathematical calculations and relationships to dictate the fragmentation of a polygon. Regarding mental processes, the claims require the steps of “determining whether an opposite side…has an inside corner” and “judging a type of included angles”. These steps represent observations, evaluations, and judgments of geometric shapes. These operations can be practically be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, to manually divide a shape into sub-segments. Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration into a Practical Application. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are evaluated as a whole. Examiner has consulted the specification and notes the disclosure asserts the invention improves technology by reducing the “shot number” and improving dissection efficiency. Per the Ex Parte Desjardins precedential decision, however, while the specification may set forth an improvement, the claims themselves must reflect that improvement. Claims 1 and 6 do not include the components or steps that provide this technological improvement. They are merely disembodied from any technological environment. They do not recite execution by a computer, generation of a digital file, or integration into an actual semiconductor layout system. Additionally, it is noted the preamble recites “[a] dissection method for optical proximity detection”. Merely limiting the use of the abstract mathematical mental steps to specific technological field of OPC is a classic field of use limitation. It amounts to nothing more than an instruction to “apply” the abstract idea within a particular industry. Because the claims merely recite abstract ideas limited to a specific field of use, and fail to integrate those ideas into a practical technological application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: Significantly More (Inventive Concept). The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Looking at the claims as an ordered combination, the steps of defining segments, determining corners, judging angles, ad performing symmetric dissections represent nothing more than the abstract idea itself. There are no additional technological elements—such as specific hardware configuration, a non-conventional software application, or physical transformation (such as the transfer to a photomask recited in eligible claim 15)—that would transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application. Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 6-14 are rejected as patent ineligible under § 101. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1- 5 are 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. In claim 1, at line 7, the phrase “the target segment” lacks antecedent basis rendering the claims indefinite. What is the relationship of “the target segment” to the other elements recited in the claim? Claims 2-5 are rejected for their dependency from claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 15 and 16 are allowed. Claims 1-5 and 6-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph and § 101 rejections, set forth in this Office action. Claims 1-5, 6-14, and 15-16 are allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method having all the combinations of steps or elements as recited in and required by independent claims 1, 6, or 15, particularly including, among other things, the following: In claim 1 and similarly recited claim 6, determining whether an opposite side of a target side has an inside corner; if there is an inside corner, performing a corner opposite dissection to the target side to form a plurality of intermediate segments; judging a type of included angles between an opposite side of the target segment and each of its adjacent sides, wherein the target segment comprises one of the plurality of original segments and the plurality of intermediate segments; and performing a symmetric dissection to the target segment according to the type of the included angles. In claim 15, performing a corner opposite dissection to divide the layout pattern into a plurality of corner blocks and a plurality of non-corner blocks; and performing a symmetrical dissection to divide the plurality of non-corner blocks into a plurality of sub-blocks; performing optical proximity correction to the plurality of sub-blocks and the plurality of corner blocks to form a plurality of optical proximity correction patterns . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner SURESH MEMULA whose telephone number is (571)272-8046 , and any inquiry for a formal Applicant initiated interview must be requested via a PTOL-413A form and faxed to the Examiner's personal fax phone number: (571) 273-8046. Furthermore, Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner via email ( suresh.memula@uspto.gov ) on the condition the communication is pursuant to and in accordance with MPEP §502.03 and §713.01. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9am-6pm. 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 phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (i.e., central fax phone number) 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. /SURESH MEMULA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851