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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(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. Claim(s) 1 -5, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over Ho et al. US 2009/0258302 A1 (“Ho”) . As to claim 1, Ho discloses a design method of a photomask structure, comprising: providing a first layout pattern ( Paragraph 20 or Figure 26 – e.g., “plurality of main features”) ; adding an assist pattern aside the first layout pattern ( Paragraphs 41-43 or Figure 26 – e.g., “plurality of scattering bar features”) ; performing an optical proximity correction (OPC) to convert the first layout pattern into a second layout pattern ( Paragraphs 41-43 or Figure 26 – e.g., “plurality of oblique SRAF” ) , wherein the assist pattern has an adjacent portion adjacent to the second layout pattern, a first distance between the adjacent portion and the second layout pattern is less than a safety distance, and the safety distance is a distance to prevent the assist pattern from being transferred to a photoresist layer during a lithography process ( Figures 27-30 or Paragraphs 43-45 – e.g., layout includes multiple patterns, with scattering bar and oblique SRAF initial placements potentially occurring closely/overlapping with features ) ; and shifting the adjacent portion to increase the first distance to a second distance after performing the OPC, wherein the second distance is greater than or equal to the safety distance ( Figure 26 or Paragraphs 43-45 – e.g., “optimize RET feature location” for “adequate spacing” ) . As to claim 2, Ho discloses the method of claim 1. Ho further discloses wherein the assist pattern comprises a sub-resolution assist feature ( Paragraphs 41-43 or Figure 26 – e.g., a “scattering bar features” is a sub-resolution assist feature ) . As to claim 3, Ho discloses the method of claim 1. Ho further discloses wherein the safety distance is greater than or equal to a minimum distance specified by a mask rule check ( Paragraph 45 – e.g., “may be determined…by rule-based methodologies” ) . As to claim 4, Ho discloses the method of claim 1. Ho further discloses wherein an initial distance between the assist pattern and the first layout pattern is less than a minimum distance specified by a mask rule check ( Figures 27-30 or Paragraphs 43-45 – e.g., scattering bar and oblique SRAF initial placements potentially occurring closely/overlapping with features ) . As to claim 5, Ho discloses the method of claim 1. Ho further discloses wherein an initial distance between the assist pattern and the first layout pattern is equal to a minimum distance specified by a mask rule check ( Paragraph 41 – e.g., “may be determined using rule-based…methodologies” ) . As to claim 7, Ho discloses the method of claim 1. Ho further discloses providing a third layout pattern, wherein the assist pattern is located between the first layout pattern and the third layout pattern ( Figures 28 or 29 – e.g., multiple layout patterns, Elements 2710, with assist patterns, Elements 2810 or 2910 ) . As to claim 12, Ho discloses the method of claim 1. Ho further discloses wherein the photomask structure comprises a binary mask or a phase shift mask ( Paragraph 20 ) . 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho . As to claim 6, Ho discloses the method of claim 1. Ho does not explicitly disclose wherein an initial distance between the assist pattern and the first layout pattern is greater than a minimum distance specified by a mask rule check . However, Ho does teach additional requirements of the circuit, e.g., symmetry (Paragraph 41) . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time then invention was made that an initial distance may be greater than a minimum distance specified by a mask rule check because that spacing may be required in order to satisfy other design requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest a design method having the combination of steps of the claims including, among other elements, the OPC and conversion of design elements with the relationships of the claims, in combination with the other design and manipulation details of the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYCE M AISAKA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5808 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 6:30AM-5:00PM PT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jack Chiang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /BRYCE M AISAKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851