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 Objections
Claims 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5-8 recite “…parallel to a scanning directions; sorting a created line segment list…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…parallel to the predetermined scanning direction; sorting the created line segment list…’, else it would be unclear how the elements of the claims correspond;
Claims 9-12 recite “…information on a figure, a pair of line segments intersecting with each other, and intersection coordinates…’, which Examiner believes should read ‘…information on the corresponding figure, the pair of line segments intersecting with each other, and intersection coordinates thereof…’, else it would be unclear how the elements of the claim correspond.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 13 and 21 be found allowable, claims 14-16 and 22-24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of an apparatus claim, a method step in an apparatus claim does not further limit the structure or functionality of the apparatus (See MPEP 2173.05(p).II), and thus (see 112(b) section below), the final clause of each of these claims is interpreted as not further limiting the apparatuses, as they are not recited as limiting the functionality of the structure. Accordingly, each of these claims recite the same apparatus (i.e., same required structures and required functionality), and would be objected to if found allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has several indefiniteness issues. First, the claim recites “…reading the writing data from the storage device and determining a shape of a figure for each of figures with one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction…”. It is unclear if ‘with one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction’ is intended to limit which figures have their shape determined, or whether this is intended to recite adopting a relative coordinate system within each of the figures. The latter interpretation is adopted. Next, the claim recites “…performing different intersection determination processing according to the shape of the figure and outputting a result…”, however, the claim previously requires performing shape determination for each of figures, which is understood as a plurality of figures. Accordingly, it is unclear which figure is the figure. Additionally, the claim further recites “…wherein in a case that the shape of the figure is an xy-monotone polygon and a convex polygon as a result of the shape determination, the intersection determination processing is omitted.” First, ‘as a result of the shape determination’ is unclear, because the polygon being such types of polygon is not resulting from the shape determination. Rather, as best understood in view of Applicant’s disclosure, such shapes would already be present in the writing data, and the shape determination would merely indicate this. Second, ‘the figure’ is unclear for the same reasons indicated for the previous limitation. Finally, this limitation is a conditional limitation that may or may not occur, as there is no requirement or guarantee that this particular case be present in the writing data, and the claim does not positively connect the shape determination and the actions required to be taken as a result thereof, and thus the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Additionally, the claim does not previous require determining whether the shape of a figure is monotone in any direction, as determining a shape does not necessarily require determining monotony in the shapes. Accordingly, it is unclear how the final clause further limits the claim, as it depends upon a determination which is not previously required. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…reading the writing data from the storage device and determining a shape of a figure for each of figures, and adopting one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction; and for each figure of the figures, performing different intersection determination processing according to the respective shape of each figure and outputting a result, wherein in response to the shape determination indicating that the shape of a figure of the figures is an xy-monotone polygon and a convex polygon, the intersection determination processing of the figure of the figures is omitted’, with the final limitation not presently interpreted as further limiting.
Claim 2 is rejected as indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1 regarding the reading/determining step and the intersection determination processing step, as well as the ‘in a case…’/‘as a result’ limitations. In addition, the final clause of claim 2 is indefinite for further reasons. First, it is unclear what is required by ‘…a line segment having an end point with a position increasing/decreasing in the x direction so that the line segment extends monotonically in the x/-x direction is set as a reference line…’. A line segment is typically understood as a line adjoining two points, and as such, ‘having an end point with a position increasing/decreasing in the x direction’ does not make sense. Additionally, it is not clear from the claim language how the line segment that is set as the reference line corresponds to the shape/figure/writing data, or whether this requirement allows for an arbitrary line segment, entirely unconnected to the writing data, to be set as a reference line. Next, it is unclear what is required by ‘…presence or absence of intersection between line segments is determined with an opposite side including an x coordinate of the reference line in a line segment as an intersection determination target…’. It is not clear what line segments the intersection is determined for, as ‘line segments’ does not refer to any previous claim elements, nor does it require any correspondence between this step and the writing data/figure/shape. Additionally, the limitation ‘with an opposite side including an x coordinate of the reference line in a line segment’ does not make sense upon plain reading, and does not clearly indicate correspondence between the claim elements. It is not clear what ‘an opposite side’ refers to in the claim, as no first/initial side is indicated in the claims, and it is unclear which line segment or ‘line segments’ is to have such an opposite side including an x coordinate of the reference line. Furthermore, it is not clear what ‘determining intersection between line segments with an opposite side including an x coordinate of the reference line in a line segment’ is intended to mean. Determining intersection between line segments would yield intersection points, so ‘determining intersection between line segments in a line segment’ is wholly unclear. Furthermore, ‘intersection between line segments is determined…as an intersection determination target’ doesn’t make sense, as it doesn’t appear to require any action be performed for ‘as an intersection determination target’. Finally, it is unclear what is required by ‘remaining line segments’, as figure data typically includes a plurality of line segments, there are a plurality of figures required, the reference line is a line segment, ‘line segments’ have intersection between them determined, but this recitation does not indicate which line segments are ‘remaining’, and no line segments are required to be ‘taken’, ‘chosen’, or ‘removed’ in any fashion, and thus it is not clear what ‘remaining’ would indicate regardless of whether the group of line segments intended to be referred to is clear. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…reading the writing data from the storage device and determining a shape of a figure for each of figures, and adopting one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction; and for each figure of the figures, performing different intersection determination processing according to the respective shape of each figure and outputting a result, wherein in response to the shape determination indicating that the shape of a figure of the figures is an x-monotone polygon, a line segment of a plurality of line segments defining the shape of the figure that extends monotonically in the x direction on a first side of the shape or that extends monotonically in the -x direction on a second, opposing side of the shape is set as a reference line, presence or absence of intersection of line segments of the plurality of line segments is determined by including line segments of the second or first side, respectively, that include an x coordinate of the reference line as intersection determination targets, and remaining line segments of the plurality of line segments are excluded as intersection determination targets with respect to the reference line.’.
Claim 3 is rejected as indefinite for similar reasons to claim 2, as is interpreted similarly, (i.e., with the coordinate swapped).
Claim 4 is rejected as indefinite for similar reasons to claims 1-3 regarding the reading/determining step and the intersection determination processing step, as well as the ‘in a case…’/‘as a result’ limitations. In addition, the final clause of claim 4 is indefinite for further reasons. In particular, it is unclear what is required by “…presence or absence of intersection between line segments is determined by using one of the x direction and the y direction as a scanning direction, the number of vertices with displacement directions changing from a positive direction to a negative direction or from the negative direction to the positive direction in the one direction being smaller than that in the other direction.” First, as discussed in regards to claim 2, ‘line segments’ is unclear. Furthermore, it is unclear how one can determine intersection by using a direction (i.e., understood as adopting/defining) as a scanning direction. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…reading the writing data from the storage device and determining a shape of a figure for each of figures, and adopting one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction; and for each figure of the figures, performing different intersection determination processing according to the respective shape of each figure and outputting a result, wherein in response to the shape determination indicating that the shape of a figure of the figures is a polygon that is neither an x-monotone polygon nor a y-monotone polygon, a displacement direction of an x coordinate and a displacement direction of a y coordinate of a next vertex from a position of a previous vertex are calculated for each of a plurality of vertices forming the polygon, presence or absence of intersection of line segments of a plurality of line segments defining the shape of the figure is determined, wherein the intersection determination includes determining a number of instances of successive vertices changing from a positive direction to a negative direction or from the negative direction to the positive direction for each of the x and y directions, and defining a scanning direction for the intersection determination as the x direction or y direction according to which of the x and y directions has a smaller number of the instances of displacement direction changes.’.
Note: Regarding claims 1-4, the claims appear to be directed toward a same method that has alternate sub-actions depending on one of the common steps of the method, with the different actions forming sub-steps of one of the common steps, that, when combined, constitute a complete set of actions for each potential figure type expected in writing data. While this does not further render the claims indefinite, in the case that the conditions of the final clauses claims 1-4 are not met (i.e. when the writing data does not necessarily have the particular type of figure covered for the respective claims), the claims are very broad, as they would only require generically storing writing data, generically reading the writing data and determining shape data, and generically performing intersection determination according to the shape of the figure, and outputting a result, which is not required to be connected to any previous method steps in any way, but the conditional would not be required. Accordingly, it would appear from Examiner’s reading of Applicant’s disclosure that the claims would be better understood as a single method that takes in writing data having a defined set of potential shape types, and having four potential responsive sub-steps, such that the claim would guarantee performing at least one of the conditional steps that form the complete action set.
Claim 5 has similar issues regarding ‘the figure’, ‘as a result of’, and ‘when’, as discussed above, and are interpreted similarly. The claim has additional indefiniteness issues. First, it is unclear what is required by “…when the shape of the figure is a non-monotone polygon as a result of the shape determination, replacing each line segment of a target figure as the non-monotone polygon in parallel to a predetermined scanning direction and creating a list of line segments parallel to a scanning direction…”. In particular, it is not clear what ‘replacing each line segment as the non-monotone polygon in parallel to a predetermined scanning direction’ is intended to require, because ‘replacing…as the non-monotone polygon’ does not make sense upon plain reading, and does not clearly indicate what is required to be done with each line segment of a target figure. Furthermore, because ‘replacing…as the non-monotone polygon’ doesn’t clearly indicate an action, it is not clear what ‘in parallel to a predetermined scanning direction’ means. Additionally, it is not clear what is required by ‘likely to intersect with a predetermined reference line’, as no such reference line is limited in the claim, nor is what defines ‘likely to intersect’, which is a term of degree not defined by the claim. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…in response to the shape determination indicating that the shape of a figure of the figures is a non-monotone polygon having a plurality of line segments, projecting a portion of each line segment of the plurality of line segments of that is parallel to a predetermined scanning direction in parallel to the predetermined scanning direction; sorting the created line segment list; and extracting a line segment from the created line segment list.’.
Claims 6-8 suffer from similar issues to claim 5, and are similarly rendered indefinite, and interpreted as discussed above.
Claim 9 recites “…storing, for line segments intersecting with each other as a result of the intersection determination, information on…”. This limitation is indefinite for similar reasons to those discussed in claim 1 regarding ‘as a result’. Additionally, ‘the intersection determination lacks antecedent basis, as the claim only previously requires ‘performing different intersection determination processing’, which does not necessarily require actually determining the intersections as claimed. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted, including the above objections, as ‘…in response to the intersection determination processing indicating intersection of line segments, storing information on the corresponding figure, the pair of line segments intersecting with each other, and intersection coordinates thereof’.
Claims 10-12 suffer from similar issues to claim 5, and are similarly rendered indefinite, and interpreted as discussed above.
Claim 13 suffers from similar issues to claim 1, however, the issues differ slightly due to being directed toward an apparatus rather than a method. First, the issue regarding ‘with one of two directions perpendicular…’ suffers from a similar issue, however, the interpretation will vary slightly due to being an apparatus. Additionally, ‘the shape of the figure’ (recited twice in the claim) suffers from a similar issue to claim 1, however, again the interpretation will vary slightly. Regarding the final clause of the claim, it is indefinite for similar reasons to claim 1, and is additionally indefinite because claim 13 is directed to an apparatus, while the final clause is a method step. It is unclear how this method step would limit the structure of the apparatus, as it would appear that the same processing/computing structures would be required regardless of the particular elements in a set of writing data, and the claim does not recite the method step in the form of a capability of any structure previously recited in the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. Furthermore, “the shape determination” lacks antecedent basis, as the claim only previously requires a shape determination circuit configured to determine a shape of a figure for each of figures, which does not, under the BRI, require performing shape determination. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…configured to read the writing data from the storage device and determine a shape of a figure for each of figures while adopting one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction; and…configured to, for each figure of the figures, perform different intersection determination processing according to the respective shape of each figure.’.
Claims 14-16 suffer from similar issues to claims 2-4, respectively, however, with additional issues similar to claim 13 arising from method steps appearing in the apparatus claim, which are interpreted similarly to claim 13 above.
Claims 17-20 are indefinite for similar reasons to claims 1-4, respectively, and are interpreted similarly.
Claims 21-24 are indefinite for similar reasons to claims 13-16, respectively, and are interpreted similarly.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
The following analysis follows the MPEP subject matter eligibility test (See MPEP 2106, 2106.III).
In step 1 (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-9 and 17-20 (via a software program) are directed to methods, while claims 13-16 and claims 21-24 are directed to machines.
In step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04), a two pronged inquiry is required (MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1-2). In step 2A, prong one, claims 1-24 recite abstract idea judicial exceptions. In particular, claim 1 recites method steps requiring (i) storing data in a storage device, (ii) reading data from the storage device, (iii) analyzing the data, (iv) adopting a coordinate system, (v) analyzing the data based on the analyzing of step (iii), (vi) outputting a result (not particularly limited), and (vii) providing a condition under which data analysis in step (iii) modifies the analysis of step (v), i.e., evaluating step (iii). However, the writing data claimed does not necessarily have to satisfy the condition of (vii). This amounts to mere data manipulation and evaluation, as the method only requires taking in data, evaluating/analyzing the data, and outputting a result that is not required to be connected to the evaluating/analyzing, and is not particularly limited in what is required by ‘outputting’. No particular method of determining shapes is required, and as such, this task can be performed in the human mind (i.e., by a human with a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III), as a human mind could reasonably determine a shape of a figure in writing data displayed on a generic computer screen. Nor is the particular intersection determination processing limited (Examiner again notes that this limitation does not require actually determining intersection, just processing directed thereto), nor the correspondences between the shape of a particular figure and the type of intersection determination processing. Accordingly, a human with a computer could reasonably perform ‘different intersection determination processing according to the shape of the figure’, by merely assigning each shape to be processed differently after evaluating the shape. Furthermore, even in the case of step (vii), the human mind is readily capable of determining an xy-monotone polygon on a generic computer screen, and not further processing such a shape. Accordingly, the claim recites at least a mental processing grouping judicial exception, as well as reciting mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I) as the method amounts to merely performing calculations on input data. The shape of a figure is a mathematical fact, and generally determining that shape can be performed by generic mathematical calculations. Similarly, intersection points within figure data is a mathematical fact, and generally performing some form of intersection determination processing (e.g., counting intersections, classifying/categorizing shapes, modifying the data in preparation or post-analysis, etc.) can be performed by generic mathematical calculations, as can the determination of whether a particular shape is monotone in a reference direction.
Claims 13-24 recite similar judicial exceptions.
In step 2A, prong two (MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2), the inquiry ask whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1-12 clearly do not have additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as they merely recite the judicial exception (claims 1-4), or further expand on portions of the judicial exception with additional data analysis/manipulation steps (claims 5-12), and thus recite insignificant extra-solution activity, or additional judicial exceptions. Furthermore, the judicial exception is not used to take any tangible action in the claims. Claims 13-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as only generic storage devices and generic data processing/computing devices are required by the claims. Claims 21-24 require ‘an electron beam lithography apparatus’ that includes the same generic storage devices and data processing/computing devices, and additionally includes a writing mechanism configured to write a pattern on a target object with an electron beam. However, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application by this inclusion, as these are generic elements that are not required to specifically use the judicial exception steps, i.e., the intersection determination processing (that the corresponding circuit is configured to perform) or the results of the shape determination (that the corresponding circuit is configured to perform), and thus is viewed as both linking to field of use and insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, a generic electron beam writing mechanism in a lithography system would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan to be capable of writing selected patterns on a target object. Accordingly, claims 21-24 also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements recited in the claims are those discussed in step 2A, prong two, which are all generic elements, and thus cannot amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As such, claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being patent ineligible as presently claimed.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 1998031751 A).
Examiner notes that Nishihara is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 10/28/2025 as JP 10-31751 A. The publication cited above was used merely for convenience.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishihara teaches a method for determining line segment intersections in a figure of writing data ([0001]-[0012]), comprising:
storing writing data in a storage device (Examiner notes that Nishihara does not explicitly disclose storing writing data in a storage device, however, it would necessarily need to be stored and read from in order to perform the data processing disclosed, and thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Nishihara as implicitly disclosing storing and reading data to and from a storage device);
reading the writing data from the storage device (See previous note) and determining a shape of a figure for each of figures ([0009]-[0022]) with one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction (See Fig. 4; [0009]-[0022], x and y directions defined); and
performing different intersection determination processing according to the shape of the figure ([0009]-[0022]; [0024]-[0036], intersection determination processing depends on the shape determined) and outputting a result ([0020]-[0023]),
wherein in a case that the shape of the figure is an xy-monotone polygon and a convex polygon as a result of the shape determination, the intersection determination processing is omitted (Examiner notes that there is no requirement that the writing data contain any xy-monotone polygons, and that the claim does not previously require determining whether the shape of the figure is monotone in any direction; Accordingly, since determining that the shape of the figure is xy-monotone is not previously required, this limitation is not required under the BRI; Examiner additionally notes, that in the case of an xy-monotone polygon that is convex, Nishihara discloses performing the appropriate action, and not performing the steps for a non-convex polygon, and not performing the second and/or third determination processing, which Examiner interprets as equivalent).
Regarding claims 2-4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the claims are rejected mutatis mutandis as being anticipated by Nishihara similar to claim 1.
Examiner notes that when the procedure of Nishihari determines that a shape is x or y monotone, the final limitation (i.e., those of claims 2-3) is also disclosed by Nishihari, which discloses (See Fig. 3; [0009]-[0022]) setting a reference line monotone in the x direction, wherein intersection between the reference line and line segments of the figure is determined, while line segments that do not intersect do not have intersection determined.
Examiner notes that when the procedure of Nishihari determines that a shape is x or y monotone, the final limitation (i.e., that of claim 4) is also disclosed by Nishihari, which discloses (See Fig. 3; [0009]-[0022]; [0024]-[0036]) determining all of the vertex data, which is mathematically equivalent to determining the displacements between the vertices, choosing a scanning direction along the direction that has fewer vertices changing direction from positive to negative (see, e.g., Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishihara teaches the method according to claim 1.
Nishihara further teaches wherein the performing of the intersection determination processing includes:
when the shape of the figure is a non-monotone polygon as a result of the shape determination (Examiner notes that determining whether or not a polygon is monotone is not previously required in the claims, and thus, this limitation is not interpreted as limiting), replacing each line segment of a target figure as the non-monotone polygon in parallel to a predetermined scanning direction and creating a list of line segments parallel to a scanning direction ([0009]-[0022]; Examiner notes that the drawing line projection described inherently includes each line segment projection along the scanning direction of the figure);
sorting a created line segment list ([0009]-[0022], in particular [0019]); and
extracting a line segment likely to intersect with a predetermined reference line (See above 112(b) interpretation; [0009]-[0022], disclosing extracting line segments with intersections).
Regarding claims 6-8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the claims are rejected mutatis mutandis as being anticipated by Nishihara similar to claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishihara teaches the method according to claim 1.
Nishihara further teaches further comprising:
storing, for line segments intersecting with each other as a result of the intersection determination, information on a figure, a pair of line segments intersecting with each other, and intersection coordinates in a storage device ([0009]-[0022]; Examiner notes that all of this information is necessarily stored, at least temporarily, during calculation, during transfer to the writing system, etc.).
Regarding claims 10-12, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the claims are rejected mutatis mutandis as being anticipated by Nishihara similar to claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishihara teaches an apparatus for determining line segment intersections in a figure of writing data ([0001]-[0012]), comprising:
a storage device configured to store writing data (Examiner notes that Nishihara does not explicitly disclose storing writing data in a storage device, however, it would necessarily need to be stored and read from in order to perform the data processing disclosed, and thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand Nishihara as implicitly disclosing storing and reading data to and from a storage device);
a shape determination circuit configured to read the writing data from the storage device and determine a shape of a figure for each of figures ([0009]-[0022]; Examiner notes that some form of circuitry would necessarily be required to perform the shape determination operations disclosed, and no particular circuit is required) with one of two directions perpendicular to each other as an x direction and the other as a y direction (See Fig. 4; [0009]-[0022], x and y directions defined); and
an intersection determination processing circuit configured to perform different intersection determination processing according to the shape of the figure ([0009]-[0022]; [0024]-[0036], intersection determination processing depends on the shape determined; Examiner notes that some form of circuitry would necessarily be required to perform the intersection determination processing operations disclosed, and no particular circuit is required),
wherein in a case that the shape of the figure is an xy-monotone polygon and a convex polygon as a result of the shape determination, the intersection determination processing is omitted (Examiner notes the above 112(b) interpretation regarding the method step).
Regarding claims 14-16, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the claims are rejected mutatis mutandis as being anticipated by Nishihara similar to claim 13.
Regarding claims 17-20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the claims are rejected mutatis mutandis as being anticipated by Nishihara similar to claims 1-4, as Nishihara also discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing for the method of claims 1-4 ([0023]).
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.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 1998031751 A) in view of Ivansen (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20080260283 A1).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Nishihara teaches each and every limitation in the same manner, mutatis mutandis, as discussed in regards to claim 13 above, and further teaches a writing mechanism configured to write a pattern of each figure where line segments do not intersect with each other ([0009]-[0023]; Examiner notes that the disclosed device is capable of writing a pattern where directed, including where line segments do not intersect with each other, and further notes that the BRI of such a functional limitation in an apparatus claim requires a structure capable of the function, which is satisfied by the disclosure of Nishihara)
Nishihara does not explicitly teach an electron beam lithography apparatus and a writing mechanism configured to write a pattern of each figure where line segments do not intersect with each other on a target object by using an electron beam (Emphases added by Examiner).
However, a generic electron beam lithography apparatus for writing a pattern on a target pattern with an electron beam is well represented in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be readily apprised thereof, and could readily apply a writing evaluation and analysis technique to the specific writing mechanism of a lithography apparatus.
Nevertheless, Ivansen teaches an electron beam lithography apparatus and a writing mechanism configured to write a pattern…on a target object by using an electron beam (Abstract; [0002]-[0015], and [0049]-[0113] for specific lithography pattern techniques and embodiments, many of which read on many limitations of the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nishihara to include applying their techniques to the technical field, such as in the manner of that taught by Ivansen.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as the use of pattern evaluation and analysis is disclosed for lithography systems in Ivansen, and the particular form of pattern evaluation of Nishihara could readily be applied to lithography specific figure data and the technical environment of lithography that relies upon similar data and analysis/evaluation techniques, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 22-24, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, the claims are rejected mutatis mutandis as being unpatentable over Nishihara in view of Ivansen similar to claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights