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) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 15, 19-23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Tao et al. US 2023/0107556 A1 (“Tao”).
As to claim 1, Tao discloses a method comprising:
preparing a mask for use in a photolithographic patterning of a layer on a substrate, the preparing the mask including:
generating a blank mask layout (Paragraphs 103-104 – e.g., starting with a blank design and target pattern);
determining a target pattern, the target pattern corresponding to a pattern to be formed in the layer on the substrate (Paragraphs 103-104 – e.g., a target pattern);
generating a sub-resolution assist feature (SRAF) pattern from the blank mask layout based on the target pattern (Paragraphs 103-110 – e.g., SRAF placement);
generating a main pattern based on the target pattern (Paragraph 103 – e.g., modification of a target pattern, Paragraphs 112-114 – e.g., main features); and
placing the SRAF pattern and the main pattern on the blank mask layout, after generating the SRAF pattern (Paragraph 114 – e.g., a layout including both SRAFs and main features).
As to claim 2, Tao discloses the method of claim 1. Tao further discloses wherein the generating the SRAF pattern is based on an iteration process (Paragraphs 19, 48, 116-117, or 142-146 – e.g., iteration in SRAF selection and/or training).
As to claim 3, Tao discloses the method of claim 2. Tao further discloses wherein the iteration process generates the SRAF pattern and the main pattern simultaneously (Paragraph 114 – e.g., generation of a layout including both SRAFs and main features).
As to claim 5, Tao discloses the method of claim 2. Tao further discloses wherein the iteration process is based on a gradient function for maximizing an image slope corresponding to the target pattern (Paragraph 104).
As to claim 6, Tao discloses the method of claim 2. Tao further discloses wherein the iteration process includes generating a mask polygon and the main pattern after completion of the iteration process (Paragraphs 103-104 – e.g., the end goal is a manufacturable mask).
As to claim 8, Tao discloses the method of claim 1. Tao further discloses wherein the layer on the substrate is a layer of photoresist (Paragraphs 3-5 or 85).
Claims 15 and 19-23, and 25 recite elements similar to claim 1, 3, 5, and 6, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu US 2021/0240087 A1 (“Yu”).
As to claim 7, Tao discloses the method of claim 1. Tao discloses the use of photolithography and OPC but does not explicitly teach the additional elements of claim 7. However, the missing element is well known in the art because while disclosing OPC of a design, Yu teaches the use of circles and circular patterns in defining a target pattern (Yu Paragraph 22 or 35-38 or Figures 6A-E). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the main pattern to be circle shaped because doing so would allow the manufactured circuit to more accurately reflect the main pattern.
Claim(s) 16 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao as applied to claims 15 or 22 above, and further in view of Granik et al. US 2012/0042291 A1 (“Granik”).
As to claim 16, Tao discloses the method of claim 15. Tao discloses the use of SRAF patterns and main patterns designed to result in a target pattern, but does not explicitly disclose the polygonal SRAF patterns. However, the missing element is well known in the art because while teaching the use of SRAFs in mask design, Granik discloses polygons used for SRAFs (Granik Paragraphs 297-298). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use SRAFs with those properties because doing so was well known in the art of circuit design at the time.
Claim 24 recites elements similar to claims 6 and 16, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 17, 18, and 26 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 method for circuit design having the combination of steps/elements in the claims including, among other elements, the pattern analysis according to the criteria of the claims, in combination with the design and analysis details of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYCE M AISAKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5808. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/BRYCE M AISAKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights