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 § 112
1. 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.
Claim 14 is 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, in line 2 of claim 14, the phrase use of images and/or text and/or parameters is indefinite since the specification does not provide for this combination , this combination is not clear to the Examiner .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because a computer program, at best, is a functional descriptive material per se. Descriptive material can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." Both types of "descriptive material" are non-statutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology
permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) )(discussing patentable weight of data structure limitations in
the context of a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency) and >In re< Warmerdam, 33 F.3d *>1354,< 1360-61,31 USPQ2d *>1754,< 1759 (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim) with Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361,31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data
structure per se held non-statutory). See MPEP 2106.01.
The rejection of claim 21 above can be overcome by amending the claim by adding "A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 1”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 22 is drawn to a computer readable- medium (also called machine readable medium or storage medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non- transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, specification does not show, any "non- transitory medium". Therefore, it is not specifically defined that computer readable medium is a transitory medium or not. Claim 22 may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non- transitory" to computer readable medium. Please see the memo regarding Eligibility of Computer Readable Media. (1351 OG 212 February 23, 2010).
Examiner suggestion “A non-transitory computer-readable medium, on which a computer program executable by a computing device is stored, the computer program comprising code for executing a method according to claim 1”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence US 20240167874 in view of Zhang et al. US 20250046055(hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1 Lawrence provides for obtaining a representation of a design of the photolithography mask ( see “ [0064] FIG. 9 is an overview of grayscale photolithography. A first mask 920 has large feature sizes and openings between features that are larger than the resolution limit for the exposing wavelength and optical stepper. Accordingly, patterns on the first mask 920 are reproduced in the photoresist 910 with high fidelity. FIG. 9 also shows masks 922, 924 with grating patterns where the feature sizes are smaller than the resolution limit for the exposing wavelength and optical stepper used to “pattern” the photoresist 910. In these cases, the masks 922, 924 create aerial images of uniform intensity”) . Lawrence does not provide for applying a trained conditional diffusion model that is configured to sequentially revert a stochastic process to an initial sample in order to generate an aerial image of the photolithography mask, wherein the trained conditional diffusion model is conditioned on the representation of the design of the photolithography mask. Zhang teaches the above missing limitation of Lawrence ( see [0037] of Zhang, see “ [0037] Furthermore, in one or more embodiments, a diffusion neural network (or sometimes referred to as diffusion model) includes a generative model (e.g., a machine learning model) that iteratively denoises a noise representation (e.g., Gaussian noise, random noise) to generate a digital image. In some instances, a diffusion neural network includes a deep generative model that (in training) adds noise to training data and reverses the noise (e.g., denoising) to recover the training data (to learn to remove noise to generate a representation of the training data). Indeed, in one or more embodiments, a trained diffusion neural network denoises random noise representations to generate images”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Zhang with the system and method of Lawrence, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via a trained diffusion neural network denoises random noise representations to generate images, a finding that one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Lawrence does not provide for , wherein the stochastic process is a noising process. Zhang teaches the above limitation (see [0037], see “a trained diffusion neural network denoises random noise representations to generate images”), random noise corresponds to stochastic process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Zhang with the system and method of Lawrence, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via a trained diffusion neural network denoises random noise representations to generate images, a finding that one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Lawrence does not provide for, wherein the initial sample depends on the stochastic process of the trained conditional diffusion model (see [0037], see “a trained diffusion neural network denoises random noise representations to generate images”), random noise corresponds to stochastic process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Zhang with the system and method of Lawrence, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via a trained diffusion neural network denoises random noise representations to generate images, a finding that one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 21, Lawrence does not provide for a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method according to claim 1.
Zhang teaches the above missing limitations of Lawrence ( See [0114], see “In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., memory), and executes those instructions”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Zhang with the system and method of Lawrence, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via for a computer program comprising instructions, for the same reasons and rational as claim1.
Regarding claim 22, Lawrence does not provide for a computer-readable medium, on which a computer program executable by a computing device is stored, the computer program comprising code for executing a method according to claim 1. Zhang teaches the above missing limitations of Lawrence ( See [0114], see “In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., memory), and executes those instructions”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of Zhang with the system and method of Lawrence, in order to obtain the claimed invention, via for a computer program comprising instructions, for the same reasons and rational as claim1.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 4-13,15-20 and 23-26 are 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of Lawrence US 20240167874 in view of Zhang et al. US 20250046055, failed to teach or suggest for features/limitations of claims 4-13,15-20 and 23-26. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KANG et al. US 20240168372, is cited because the reference teaches “[0073] The photolithography process forms a pattern for a semiconductor circuit where the circuit design is created on a wafer. A photosensitive layer is applied on the wafer and then a mask is placed over the photosensitive layer. The photolithography process uses the mask to create patterns on the photosensitive layer. The photosensitive layer is then exposed to an intense light where there are openings in the mask. On the other hand, some portions of the wafer may be masked so that the light does not contact the photosensitive layer”.
WANG et al. US 20230046682, is cited because the reference teaches “[0084] In some embodiments, mask pattern 732 can be a pattern of a mask to be inspected. In some embodiments, mask pattern 732 can be a layout file for a wafer design corresponding to mask pattern 732”.
PENG et al. US 20210116816, is cited because the reference teaches “ Thus, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure, mask patterns may be designed and a corresponding mask may be fabricated not only based on forward simulation of the patterning process, but also additionally based on manufacturing limitations of the mask manufacturing apparatus/process. Thus, a manufacturable curvilinear mask producing high yield (i.e., minimum defects) and high accuracy in terms of, for example, EPE or overlay on the printed pattern may be obtained”, see [0100].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights