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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/1/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce et al (US20080141211) in view of Obert et al (US20160110910).
Regarding claim 1, Bruce teaches a method for examining samples pertaining to microlithography (para. [0001]), comprising:
generating an aerial image of at least one considered region of the sample (para. [0021], An alternative way that features of concern can be identified is by analyzing a simulated aerial image to be produced by the mask, given assumptions concerning the exposure to be made and the type of photoimageable material to be used. One type of aerial image simulation is called a "constant threshold" model) and generating image structures from the aerial image (para. [0025]-[0026], shapes), and
determining distances between a plurality of starting structures present in the aerial image and respective neighboring structures (para. [0019], In geometric analysis, the areas, widths, lengths, etc. of the shapes of the mask and the spaces between them are compared to minimum and maximum values; para. [0025], Another feature of concern can be identified when shapes of different mask levels are too close together such that intended spacing between them in not sufficient), determining the distances being effected by firstly determining intersection structures intersected by a predetermined intersection line proceeding from the respective starting structure (para. [0036], In one example, when the initial OPC verification process is performed using a first number of cut lines 310 (FIG. 3A) across each mask shape 300 (as depicted at 302), the enhanced OPC verification process can be performed using a greater number of cut lines 310 across each mask shape 300; para. [0037]).
Bruce fails to teach wherein rectangle structures are defined in the considered region for the determination of the intersection structures.
However Obert teaches wherein rectangle structures (para. [0055], In some examples, the first shape may be a box, rectangle, or the like) are defined in a considered region (para. [0048], GPU 12 may systematically determine the primitive in primitives 52 that is intersected by ray 54 by dividing scene 50, hierarchically arranging the divided portions of scene 50, and recursively traversing the hierarchy of the divided portions of scene 50) for the determination of intersection structures (para. [0044], As part of the ray tracing process, GPU 12 may determine, for ray 54, which may be a 2D or 3D ray, and which emanates from source 55, the primitives in primitives 52 of scene 50 that are intersected by ray 54; para. [0058]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Bruce and Obert as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Obert into the method of Ray. The motivation to combine Bruce and Obert would be to accelerate ray tracing operations (para. [0002], [0051] of Obert).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Bruce teaches a method wherein rectangle structures are created by a respective rectangle structure containing exactly one image structure (para. [0049]-[0050] of Obert, For example GPU 12 may create additional bounding volumes as subsets of bounding volume 56B to individually bound primitives 52A and 52B).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Bruce teaches a method wherein the rectangle structures are created as minimal boxes by rectangles being circumscribed around image structures (para. [0048] of Obert, Bounding volumes 56 may be axis-aligned bounding boxes (AABBs), which may be bounding boxes having a minimized area within which all points of the enclosed primitives may lie; para. [0050] of Obert).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Bruce teaches a method wherein rectangle structures are created as index rectangles by rectangular regions being defined in the considered region (para. [0046], [0048] of Obert), which rectangular regions contain a plurality of minimal boxes or image structures (para. [0049] of Obert) indexed on the basis of the respective rectangle structure (para. [0051]-[0052] of Obert).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Bruce teaches a method wherein index rectangles for their part contain a plurality of index rectangles (figs. 4-5 of Obert).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Bruce teaches a method wherein subsets of the minimal boxes or of the image structures (para. [0051] of Obert) are indexed with a different indexing depth (para. [0051]-[0053] of Obert).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Bruce teaches a method wherein the index rectangles are organized in a tree structure (fig. 5 of Obert).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce et al (US20080141211) and Obert et al (US20160110910) in view of Brennan et al (US20040215641).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Bruce fails to teach a method wherein the tree structure is designed as an R-tree structure.
However Brennan teaches wherein a tree structure is designed as an R-tree structure (para. [0011], [0035]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Bruce and Obert with Brennan as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Brennan into the method of Ray and Obert. The motivation to combine Brennan, Bruce and Obert would be to help reduce the resources and memory used by the processing system to render a scene (para. [0012] of Brennan).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce et al (US20080141211) and Obert et al (US20160110910) in view of Bamba et al (US20150049944).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Bruce fails to teach a method wherein a decision about the application of the method is taken using a prior estimation.
However Bamba teaches wherein a decision about the application of a method (para. [0005], a query may be executed by using an index on a table to access specific rows of the table (index access), or by scanning the entire table (full table scan) directly) is taken using a prior estimation (para. [0005], selectivity estimate).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Bruce and Obert with Bamba as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Bamba into the method of Ray and Obert. The motivation to combine Bamba, Bruce and Obert would be to provide an efficient way to execute a query (para. [0005] of Bamba).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of Bruce teaches a method wherein the prior estimation comprises the determination of characteristic variables for estimating the proportion of intersected image structures in the total number of considered structures (para. [0005]-[0006] of Bamba).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Related Art
Tyercha et al (US20150324399) – see figs. 22-24; para. [0135]-[0136]
Hendrey (US20160217607) – see figs. 13-14
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights