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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
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 12-20 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.
Claims 12 and 20 recite “each pixel of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection and a location; group, into at least one cluster, pixels of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection above a predetermined threshold and a location along with at least one other pixel also having an energy of detection above the predetermined threshold and being within a predetermined distance of the location”. It is unclear what an energy of detection is and how the energy of detection follows from the structure of the apparatus claim. It is not clear if the energy of detection is the result of the actions of the detector apparatus or is some other energy of detection.
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 without significantly more.
MPEP 2106(III) provides the flow chart for determining whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility. The analysis below shows the claims fail to meet the eligibility requirements.
Claim 1 recites a method of performing energy sensitive imaging of ionizing radiation comprising:
Limitation
Analysis
acquiring a first frame, the first frame including a plurality of pixels, each pixel of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection and a location;
This element of the claim, acquiring a pixelated image via an electron beam as detailed in [0096] of the instant specification, is mere data gathering that does not add meaningful limitation to the claim. This step is insignificant extra-solution activity because acquiring an image is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the instant application in [0055], [0006], [0096]. See MPEP 2106(g).
grouping, into at least one cluster, pixels of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection above a predetermined threshold and a location along with at least one other pixel also having an energy of detection above the predetermined threshold and being within a predetermined distance of the location;
This step is a mathematical concept because the information is being organized and manipulated through mathematical correlations. Namely, grouping the pixels based on meeting an energy threshold (pixel energy of detection > threshold) and being within a particular distance ((x,y) of pixel ≤ (x+xdistance, y+ydistance)) are mathematical relationships expressed in words. See [0097] of the instant application.
summing the energy of detection of all pixels within the at least one cluster to determine a cluster energy;
Summing is a mathematical calculation. See [0097] of the instant application.
determining a location of the at least one cluster based on a distribution and an intensity of the summed energy of detection of the pixels in the at least one cluster;
The determination of the location is a mathematical calculation, as evidenced by [0098] of the instant application.
generating an electron energy distribution based on the cluster energy of the at least one cluster, each at least one cluster corresponding to a single electron detection event, wherein the electron energy distribution is composed of discrete cluster energies, each discrete cluster energy representing the energy of a single detected electron;
This step is a mathematical concept because the information is being organized and manipulated through mathematical correlations, as evidenced by Fig. 2A of the instant application.
generating an electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) map based on the determined cluster energy and the determined location of the at least one cluster; and
This step is a mathematical concept because the information is being organized and manipulated through mathematical correlations, as evidenced by Figs. 3A-C
applying a gradient to the EBSD map based on a part of the generated electron energy distribution to generate an integrated EBSD map describing a number of the at least one cluster, the location of the at least one cluster, and the cluster energy.
This step is a mathematical concept because the information is being organized and manipulated through mathematical correlations. Namely, applying a gradient to the EBSD map is a mathematical relationship, as seen in Fig. 4D of the instant application where the gradient is based on the numerical value of the energy (see [0078]).
Step 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, a process.
Step 2A: prong one: does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a mathematical concept, as analyzed above. MPEP 2106.04(a) enumerates mathematical concepts as abstract ideas. As discussed above, each of the calculation steps are understood in light of the specification to be mathematical concepts.
Step 2A: prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claim 1 requires acquiring a first frame, the first frame including a plurality of pixels, each pixel of the plurality of pixels having an energy of detection and a location. This step is mere data gathering that amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed above.
Lastly note—the disclosed improvement is towards image analysis, which is an abstract idea. Improvement to an abstract idea is not an improvement towards a technological field.
Claims 2-11 further limit the abstract idea, and does not amount to significantly more, therefore these claims also fail to meet the eligibility requirement for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is similar to claim 1, but is directed to a detector apparatus.
The detector apparatus comprises an array of a plurality of detector elements, each element of the plurality of detector elements including a monolithic active pixel sensor (MAPS) having an epitaxial silicon layer configured to be exposed to backscattered electrons and to prevent charge from being trapped at a surface thereof, and processing circuitry that essentially performs the method of claim 1.
Here, the detector apparatus is merely used to perform the data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity, as discussed above) and calculations directed towards an abstract idea on a generic computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Note that “processing circuitry configured to…” is equivalent to “apply it”.
Additionally, as admitted in the applicant’s own disclosure the detector apparatus is known (see [0055], [0006], [0096] of the instant aplication). Consequently, these elements do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because they are understood, routine, and conventional.
Claims 13-29 further limit the abstract idea, and does not amount to significantly more, therefore these claims also fail to meet the eligibility requirement for the same reasons as claim 12 above.
Claim 20 is broader than claim 12, and therefore the analysis above applies mutatis mutandis to claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights