CTNF 18/578,299 CTNF 75663 DETAILED ACTION Allowable Subject Matter Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 4, 11, 17-19, 21, 23-29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al (2008/0163153) . Mukherjee et al teach an OPC method and computer program comprising providing a mask layout, simulating the lithographic process having a first accuracy using a simplified version of the mask layout, evaluating the printability of the mask layout, wherein the simplified version is obtained via a smoothing process (claims 1-4), and teaches that the smoothing process may be repeated multiple times ([0038], [0039]), which would meet the limitations of the instant claims wherein the obtained segmented mask pattern adjusted by the first smoothing process is subjected to a second smoothing process to form a fragmented/ segmented mask pattern as required by the instant claim 1, wherein the process is performed using a computer program for the evaluating and other steps to perform the verification process ([0047], and globally evaluating the results to determine whether or not the results are accurate to terminate the process (claims 10-18, figures 2 and 3; instant claims 1, 17, 19,31). The process includes repeating the steps of stimulating an evaluating for a portion of the mask layout, thus meets the limitations of the instant claims 2 and 18 (for the computer program to have the computer processor perform the process) for an iterative process including one or more models. The pattern may comprise curved lines ([0038]; instant claims 10, 26). The accuracy of the pattern is determined and the determination of the accuracy of the pattern due to the lithographic process would meet the limitations for the cost function, which the instant specification teaches is the evaluation metric may be a lithographic metric such as critical dimension, overlayer, edge placement, etc (instant specification [0039], instant claims 4, 21, 23-25). The accessing the first mask pattern includes a fragmentation procedure to create corresponding segmentations on a mask shape, and would meet the limitations for the converting the first mask pattern into a first segmented mask pattern as required by the instant claims 11 and 27. As seen in the figures the plurality of segments are each adjusted and oriented at angles/ positions as desired by the user and mask layout, wherein the segments are oriented at 90 o angles and comprise portions having a staircase features shape (see figures 4-8; instant claims 28-29). PNG media_image1.png 568 670 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 552 608 media_image2.png Greyscale Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare a mask pattern by the method of Mukherjee et al, choosing to repeat the smoothign process for a second smoothign process of the pattern. The resultant method an dmaterial comrpisng a computer program for perfomring the method as instantly claimed . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al in view of Sezginer et al (8,279,409) . Mukherjee et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that a lithographic pattern is evaluated for CD and other lithographic patterning properties equating to the instantly claimed cost function, however, the reference does not specifically disclose using a model parameter such as a Jacobian matrix of a vector to determine the cost-function value. Sezginer et al disclose that using a Jaocbian matrix of a vector is a known manner of determining a cost function of a pattern during evaluation of accuracy of the pattern(s) (such as CD, column 10, line 52 to column 11, line 63). The reference therefore teaches that it is a known method of evaluation of the accuracy of pattern features, such as critical dimension as evaluated in the method of Mukherjee et al. Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare a mask pattern by the method of Mukherjee et al, choosing to evaluate the accuracy of the CD and other lithographic features and properties/ cost function of the mask layout using a Jacobian matrix as taught to be well known in the art by Sezginer et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee et al in view of Sahouria (2014/0215416) . Mukherjee et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a smoothing process and teaches that known smoothing processes may be used. Sahouria teaches a process of OPC to account for mask defects in lithographic mask patterns, wherein the reference teaches it is known to perform a smoothing process using Gaussian kernels ([0034]). Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare a mask pattern by the method of Mukherjee et al, choosing to use the Gaussian kernal smoothing process as taught by Sahouria to be known and useful in the art . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references teaching similar processes are cited on the PTO-892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm. 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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. /AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/578,299 Page 2 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/578,299 Page 3 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/578,299 Page 4 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/578,299 Page 5 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/578,299 Page 6 Art Unit: 1722
Prosecution Insights