DETAILED ACTION This action is filed in response to the application filed on 08/02/2023 . 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 Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed on 8/02/2023 and 12/21/2023 . These IDS have been considered. 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- 7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. Claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts in BOLD of: A method comprising: receiving a target measurement signal indicative of a measurement of one or more structures disposed on a wafer by a target metrology system, wherein the target measurement signal is determined based at least in part on an amount of raw measurement data collected by the target metrology system and one or more system parameter values associated with the target metrology system; determining a model-based, target measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by the target metrology system; determining a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system; generating a composite measurement matching signal based on the target measurement signal, the model-based target measurement signal, and the model-based, reference measurement signal; determining an indication of a match between the target metrology system and the reference metrology system based on the composite matching signal, wherein the determining involves a trained error evaluation model operating on the composite matching signal; and storing the indication of the match in a memory. Claim 11 and similarly Claim 19 recite the following abstract concept in BOLD of: A metrology system, comprising: an illumination source configured to provide an amount of illumination light to one or more metrology targets disposed on a wafer; a detector configured to detect an amount of light from the one or more metrology targets in response to the amount of illumination light and generate measurement signals in response to the amount of detected light; and one or more computing systems configured to: receive a target measurement signal indicative of a measurement of one or more structures disposed on a wafer by a target metrology system, wherein the target measurement signal is determined based at least in part on an amount of raw measurement data collected by the target metrology system and one or more system parameter values associated with the target metrology system ; determine a model-based, target measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by the target metrology system; determine a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system; generate a composite measurement matching signal based on the target measurement signal, the model- based target measurement signal, and the model-based, reference measurement signal; determine an indication of a match between the target metrology system and the reference metrology system based on the composite matching signal, wherein the determining involves a trained error evaluation model operating on the composite matching signal; and store the indication of the match in a memory. Under S tep 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category as Claim 1 teaches a method and claims 11 and 19 teach a system. Under Step 2A, Prong One , we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation s th at fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps . The step s of determining a target measurement signal, dete rmining a reference measurement signal, generating a composite measurement matching signal, and determining an indication of a match can all be interpreted as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind . Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two , we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. All of the independent claims recite a metrology system, and an object disposed on a Wafer, but t he se elements merely indicate a field of use as it imposes no meaningful limitation of the claim s . Furthermore, the light source and detector recited in Claims 11 and 19 also indicate field of use but do not constitute a particular machine or technology. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state. Under Step 2B , we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because Claim 1 recites a general “model,” a trained error evaluation model, and a memory. Additionally, Claims 11 and 19 recite one or more computer systems and a detector, and Claim 19 further recites a non-transient computer readable storage medium and processors. Examiner notes all these components are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. Furthermore, the limitation regarding determining the indication of a match involving the trained error evaluation model, is merely instructions to “apply it,” meaning the limitation is solely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. This does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) “ claim limitations that do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners should explain why they do not meaningfully limit the claim in an eligibility rejection … When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. ” Additionally , the limitation in all the independent claims regarding receiving a signal i n dicative of a measurement recites necessary data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Claims 2-7 and 9-18, and 20 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea : Claims 2, 4, 12, and 14 teach training the error evaluation model which is generally used to apply the abstract mental processes in claims 1 and 11, therefore these claims serve only to further limit the mental processes of Claim 1 and do not integrate them into a practical application. Claims 3, 13, and 20 teach determining a set of values which can be interpreted as data gathering which does not integrate the abstract ideas of Claims 1, 11 and 19 into a practical application. The limitation s amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 further limit the abstract mental processes described in Claims 1 and 11 by disclosing an additional abstract idea of performing mathematics. Claims 6, 9, 10, 16, and 18 recites necessary data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering) . Regarding Claim 8, Examiner notes that claim 8 recite s limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 . Claim 8 ties the abstract ideas in Claim 1 to the particular machines of spectroscopic ellipsometers. Allowable Subject Matter There are no prior art rejections for claims 1-20. Claim 8 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 1, Examiner notes the closest prior art to be Mieher (US7242477B2), Kwak (US10605722 B2), Li (US20070229855A1), Flock (US20130245985 A1), Pandev (WO2017031014 A1), and Stanke (US20070268497 A1). Mieher teaches a method comprising: receiving a target measurement signal indicative of a measurement of one or more structures disposed on a wafer by a target metrology system (e.g. see [ Col 2 lines 51-53 ] “ A scatterometry overlay technique is then used to analyze the measured optical signals of the periodic targets , ” and [Col 43 lines 56-59] “ the scatterometry targets or scatterometric target areas may be located at the corners of one or more devices being formed on a wafer ” ) wherein the target measurement signal is determined based at least in part on an amount of raw measurement data collected by the target metrology system and one or more system parameter values associated with the target metrology system (e.g. see [Col 11 lines 51-55] “ The signals could alternatively or additionally be measured as a function of incidence angle, detection angle, polarization, azimuthal angle of incidence, detection azimuthal angle, angular distribution, phase, or wavelength or a combination of more than one of these parameters ”) ; determining a model-based, target measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by the target metrology system (e.g. see [Col 4 lines 18-23] “ In another embodiment, a plurality of theoretical scatterometry signals are generated for a plurality of target configurations and/or process conditions and/or overlay errors configurations using a model or calibrated data. The plurality of theoretical scatterometry signals and their associated target configuration sand/or process conditions and/or overlay errors are stored ”) ; and storing the indication of the match in a memory (e.g. see [Col 18 lines 10-13] “ The memory or memories may also be configured to store scatterometry data obtained from the targets and overlay error results and optionally other overlay measurement data ”). Mieher does not explicitly disclose determining a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system . In the same field of endeavor, Kwak teaches determining a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system (e.g. see [Col 13 lines 5-13] “ Similarly, the same structural parameter of the calibration specimen may be estimated based on a regression of the reference system measurement model on the spectral data associated with the measurement of the calibration specimen by the reference system. The differences between the structural parameter values generated by the reference system and the target system can be used to drive an optimization of the system parameters of the target system measurement model ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the model based signals of Mieher with the reference signals of Kwak for the purpose of evaluating error with the advantage of matching experimentally derived signals with model generated signals in order to determine deviations from expected signals. Examiner notes none of the cited prior art teaches or renders obvious the method as claimed comprising “ generating a composite measurement matching signal based on the target measurement signal, the model-based target measurement signal, and the model-based, reference measurement signal; and determining an indication of a match between the target metrology system and the reference metrology system based on the composite matching signal, wherein the determining involves a trained error evaluation model operating on the composite matching signal .” Examiner notes both Mieher and Kwak teach comparing the target measurement signal to model based signals, however neither reference teaches combining the target measurement signal, the model-based target measurement signal, and the reference signal into one new signal and using that newly generated signal to locate a match. Claims 2-10 would be allowable based on their dependence on Claim 1. Regarding Claim 11, Examiner notes the closest prior art to be Mieher (US7242477B2), Kwak (US10605722 B2), Li (US20070229855A1), Flock (US20130245985 A1), Pandev (WO2017031014 A1), and Stanke (US20070268497 A1). Mieher teaches a metrology system, comprising: an illumination source configured to provide an amount of illumination light to one or more metrology targets disposed on a wafer (e.g. see [Col 22 lines 22-24] “ As shown, the system 600 includes a broadband source 602 for generating a multiple wavelength incident light beam 604 towards sample 606 ”) ; a detector configured to detect an amount of light from the one or more metrology targets in response to the amount of illumination light and generate measurement signals in response to the amount of detected light (e.g. see [Col 2 lines 63-67] “ The method includes (a) using an optical system having a broadband source for generating an optical incident beam having multiple wavelengths, a detector for detecting a measured signal from the sample in response to the incident beam and a filter for selectively passing particular one or more wavelengths of the output signal to the detector ”) ; and one or more computing systems (e.g. see [Col 17 line 32-37] “ s everal of the techniques of the present invention may be implemented using any suitable combination of software and/or hardware system. For example, the techniques may be implemented within an overlay metrology tool. Preferably, such metrology tool is integrated with a computer system ”) configured to: r eceiv e a target measurement signal indicative of a measurement of one or more structures disposed on a wafer by a target metrology system (e.g. see [Col 2 lines 51-53] “ A scatterometry overlay technique is then used to analyze the measured optical signals of the periodic targets ,” and [Col 43 lines 56-59] “ the scatterometry targets or scatterometric target areas may be located at the corners of one or more devices being formed on a wafer ”) wherein the target measurement signal is determined based at least in part on an amount of raw measurement data collected by the target metrology system and one or more system parameter values associated with the target metrology system (e.g. see [Col 11 lines 51-55] “ The signals could alternatively or additionally be measured as a function of incidence angle, detection angle, polarization, azimuthal angle of incidence, detection azimuthal angle, angular distribution, phase, or wavelength or a combination of more than one of these parameters ”); determin e a model-based, target measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by the target metrology system(e.g. see [Col 4 lines 18-23] “ In another embodiment, a plurality of theoretical scatterometry signals are generated for a plurality of target configurations and/or process conditions and/or overlay errors configurations using a model or calibrated data. The plurality of theoretical scatterometry signals and their associated target configuration sand/or process conditions and/or overlay errors are stored ”); and stor e the indication of the match in a memory (e.g. see [Col 18 lines 10-13] “ The memory or memories may also be configured to store scatterometry data obtained from the targets and overlay error results and optionally other overlay measurement data ”). Mieher does not explicitly disclose determin e a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system. In the same field of endeavor, Kwak teaches determ ine a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system (e.g. see [Col 13 lines 5-13] “ Similarly, the same structural parameter of the calibration specimen may be estimated based on a regression of the reference system measurement model on the spectral data associated with the measurement of the calibration specimen by the reference system. The differences between the structural parameter values generated by the reference system and the target system can be used to drive an optimization of the system parameters of the target system measurement model ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the model based signals of Mieher with the reference signals of Kwak for the purpose of evaluating error with the advantage of matching experimentally derived signals with model generated signals in order to determine deviations from expected signals. Examiner notes none of the cited prior art teaches or renders obvious the method as claimed comprising “generat e a composite measurement matching signal based on the target measurement signal, the model-based target measurement signal, and the model-based, reference measurement signal; and determin e an indication of a match between the target metrology system and the reference metrology system based on the composite matching signal, wherein the determining involves a trained error evaluation model operating on the composite matching signal.” Examiner notes both Mieher and Kwak teach comparing the target measurement signal to model based signals, however neither reference teaches combining the target measurement signal, the model-based target measurement signal, and the reference signal into one new signal and using that newly generated signal to locate a match. Claims 12-18 would be allowable based on their dependence on Claim 11. Regarding Claim 19, Examiner notes the closest prior art to be Mieher (US7242477B2), Kwak (US10605722 B2), Li (US20070229855A1), Flock ( US 20130245985 A1), Pandev (WO2017031014 A1), and Stanke (US20070268497 A1). Mieher teaches a metrology system, comprising: an illumination source configured to provide an amount of illumination light to one or more metrology targets disposed on a wafer (e.g. see [Col 22 lines 22-24] “ As shown, the system 600 includes a broadband source 602 for generating a multiple wavelength incident light beam 604 towards sample 606 ”) ; a detector configured to detect an amount of light from the one or more metrology targets in response to the amount of illumination light and generate measurement signals in response to the amount of detected light (e.g. see [Col 2 lines 63-67] “ The method includes (a) using an optical system having a broadband source for generating an optical incident beam having multiple wavelengths, a detector for detecting a measured signal from the sample in response to the incident beam and a filter for selectively passing particular one or more wavelengths of the output signal to the detector ”) ; and a non-transient, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (e.g. see [Col 1 8 line s 4-8] “ Regardless of the system's configuration, it may employ one or more memories or memory modules configured to store data, program instructions for the general-purpose inspection operations and/or the inventive techniques described herein ”), causes the one or more processors to : r eceiv e a target measurement signal indicative of a measurement of one or more structures disposed on a wafer by a target metrology system (e.g. see [Col 2 lines 51-53] “ A scatterometry overlay technique is then used to analyze the measured optical signals of the periodic targets ,” and [Col 43 lines 56-59] “ the scatterometry targets or scatterometric target areas may be located at the corners of one or more devices being formed on a wafer ”) wherein the target measurement signal is determined based at least in part on an amount of raw measurement data collected by the target metrology system and one or more system parameter values associated with the target metrology system (e.g. see [Col 11 lines 51-55] “ The signals could alternatively or additionally be measured as a function of incidence angle, detection angle, polarization, azimuthal angle of incidence, detection azimuthal angle, angular distribution, phase, or wavelength or a combination of more than one of these parameters ”); determin e a model-based, target measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by the target metrology system(e.g. see [Col 4 lines 18-23] “ In another embodiment, a plurality of theoretical scatterometry signals are generated for a plurality of target configurations and/or process conditions and/or overlay errors configurations using a model or calibrated data. The plurality of theoretical scatterometry signals and their associated target configuration sand/or process conditions and/or overlay errors are stored ”); and stor e the indication of the match in a memory (e.g. see [Col 18 lines 10-13] “ The memory or memories may also be configured to store scatterometry data obtained from the targets and overlay error results and optionally other overlay measurement data ”). Mieher does not explicitly disclose determin e a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system. In the same field of endeavor, Kwak teaches determ ine a model-based, reference measurement signal indicative of a simulated measurement of the one or more structures by a reference metrology system (e.g. see [Col 13 lines 5-13] “ Similarly, the same structural parameter of the calibration specimen may be estimated based on a regression of the reference system measurement model on the spectral data associated with the measurement of the calibration specimen by the reference system. The differences between the structural parameter values generated by the reference system and the target system can be used to drive an optimization of the system parameters of the target system measurement model ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the model based signals of Mieher with the reference signals of Kwak for the purpose of evaluating error with the advantage of matching experimentally derived signals with model generated signals in order to determine deviations from expected signals. Examiner notes none of the cited prior art teaches or renders obvious the method as claimed comprising “generat e a composite measurement matching signal based on the target measurement signal, the model-based target measurement signal, and the model-based, reference measurement signal; and determin e an indication of a match between the target metrology system and the reference metrology system based on the composite matching signal, wherein the determining involves a trained error evaluation model operating on the composite matching signal.” Examiner notes both Mieher and Kwak teach comparing the target measurement signal to model based signals, however neither reference teaches combining the target measurement signal, the model-based target measurement signal, and the reference signal into one new signal and using that newly generated signal to locate a match. Claim 20 would be allowable based on its dependence on Claim 19. Conclusion Examiner notes while there are no prior art rejections, Examiner is unable to comment on the allowability of the claims until the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections are addressed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NYLA GAVIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1592 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5:30pm . 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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. /NYLA GAVIA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857