DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to Application No. 18/334,382 , filed on 14 June 2023 . Claims 1- 15 are pending. 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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract mental processes without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) methods of modifying patterns, comprising a step of aligning jogs to eliminate an intervening pattern, which is basic shape editing that could be performed by a designer in the mind or with pen and paper . Claims 2-15 merely recite characteristics of the patterns being modified , and do not change the abstract nature of the claimed mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites no elements beyond the abstract idea itself . Similarly, t he claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites no additional elements . 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)(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 -6 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Elayat (“Assessment and comparison of different approaches for mask write time reduction”) . Regarding claim 1 , Elayat discloses a design method of a photomask structure, comprising: providing a layout pattern, wherein the layout pattern comprises a plurality of basic patterns, the plurality of basic patterns comprise a first basic pattern, a second basic pattern, and a third basic pattern, the second basic pattern is located between the first basic pattern and the third basic pattern, the second basic pattern is connected to the first basic pattern and the third basic pattern, there is a first jog portion between the first basic pattern and the second basic pattern, there is a second jog portion between the second basic pattern and the third basic pattern, and the first jog portion and the second jog portion are located at two opposite sides of the layout pattern; and moving the first jog portion and the second jog portion to align the first jog portion and the second jog portion with each other and to eliminate the second basic pattern, wherein a first area change amount produced by moving the first jog portion is equal to a second area change amount produced by moving the second jog portion (p. 2, Fig. 2; jog-aligned figure on the bottom enlarges each rectangle by the same area compared to unaligned upper fractured figure). Regarding claim 2 , Elayat discloses that a relationship between the first area change amount and the second area change amount is represented by the following formula 1: W1 x D = W2 x (L-D); a width of the first jog portion is W1, a width of the second jog portion is W2, before the first jog portion and the second jog portion are aligned with each other, a distance between the first basic pattern and the third basic pattern is L, and after the first jog portion and the second jog portion are aligned with each other, a moving distance of the first jog portion is D, and a moving distance of the second jog portion is a value obtained by subtracting the moving distance D from the distance L (Fig. 2; the formula is simply a formal expression of the first and second area changes being equal, and is necessarily satisfied by the jog-aligned figure in which the upper and lower rectangles are enlarged by the same area). Regarding claim 3 , Elayat discloses that the moving distance D is represented by the following formula 2: D = (W2 x L) / (W1 + W2) (Fig. 2; formula 2 is equivalent to formula 1, and is necessarily satisfied for the same reasons). Regarding claim 4 , Elayat discloses that after the first jog portion and the second jog portion are aligned with each other, an area of the first basic pattern and an area of the third basic pattern are increased, and the first basic pattern and the third basic pattern are connected to each other (Fig. 2, jog-aligned fractured pattern). Regarding claim 5 , Elayat discloses that the first basic pattern comprises a first side and a second side, the second basic pattern comprises a third side and a fourth side, the third basic pattern comprises a fifth side and a sixth side, the second side is overlapped with the third side, a length of the second side is different from a length of the third side, the fourth side is overlapped with the fifth side, and a length of the fourth side is different from a length of the fifth side (Fig. 2, upper fractured pattern). Regarding claim 6 , Elayat discloses that after the first jog portion and the second jog portion are aligned with each other, the second side is overlapped with the fifth side (Fig. 2, jog-aligned fractured pattern). Regarding claim s 9 , Elayat discloses that a width of the first jog portion is equal to a width of the second jog portion (Fig. 2, upper fractured pattern). Regarding claim s 10 , 12, and 14 , Elayat discloses that a shape of the first , second, third basic pattern each comprise a polygon (Fig. 2, upper fractured pattern). Regarding claim s 11 , 13, and 15 , Elayat discloses that a shape of the first, second, third basic pattern each comprise a rectangle (Fig. 2, upper fractured pattern). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elayat in view of Zhang (US 2006/0085773) . Regarding claim 7 , Elayat does not appear to explicitly disclose that a width of the first jog portion is greater than a width of the second jog portion ; Zhang discloses these limitations (Fig. 2, jogs between any of 1201-1206). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Elayat in view of Zhang, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques, or the routine application of a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way, to produce merely the predictable results of aligning jogs for different patterns. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Elayat discloses aligning jogs of patterns. Zhang teaches different arrangements of patterns. The teachings of Zhang are directly applicable to Elayat , or vice versa, so that Elayat would align jogs of different patterns, such as those taught by Zhang. Regarding claim 8 , Elayat does not appear to explicitly disclose that a width of the first jog portion is less than a width of the second jog portion Zhang discloses these limitations (Fig. 2, jogs between any of 1201-1206). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 7. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ARIC LIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3090 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 07:30-17:00 ET . 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. 30 March 2026 /ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851