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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim amendments, the applicant argues that amendments clarify that the "perturbed object" is a "periodic structure on a semiconductor substrate" and that the purpose of the evaluation is "to determine a physical structural parameter of the periodic structure." Applicant further discloses amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they are integrated into a practical application that provides a tangible, real-world result. The claimed method is a specific improvement to the technology of X-ray scatterometry.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments as disclosed only add to the abstract idea. The applicant’s amendment attempts to integrate the claims into a practical application, but falls short. The amendment “to determine a physical structural parameter of the periodic structure,” is broad and vague. A physical structural parameter could be anything and fails to show how determining said parameter correlates to improvement in technology. It is for this reason, the examiner maintains the 101 rejection. To overcome this rejection, examiner suggest considering incorporating the last sentence of [0237] of the spec into Claim 1.
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 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for evaluating non-diffused x-ray signals that were received from a periodic structure on a semiconductor substrate, the periodic structure being a perturbed object, the method comprises: calculating, using a processor, an estimated field for each of multiple non-perturbed objects, the multiple non-perturbed objects represent perturbances of the perturbed object; the perturbances are of an order of a wavelength of the non-diffused x-ray signals; and evaluating the non-diffused x-ray signals based on the field of the multiple non-perturbed objects to determine a physical structural parameter of the periodic structure, wherein the non-diffused x-ray signals were received due to an illumination of the perturbed object with an x-ray beam.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 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 claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the 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 limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “calculating, using a processor, an estimated field for each of multiple non-perturbed objects, the multiple non-perturbed objects represent perturbances of the perturbed object; the perturbances are of an order of a wavelength of the non-diffused x-ray signals;” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “evaluating the non-diffused x-ray signals based on the field of the multiple non-perturbed objects to determine a physical structural parameter of the periodic structure, wherein the non-diffused x-ray signals were received due to an illumination of the perturbed object with an x-ray beam” are treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 8-10 and 19-20.
Next, under the 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.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a processor;
In Claim 9: a processor;
In Claim 19: a non-transitory computer readable medium;
In Claim 20: a processor.
The additional element of “a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor (generic processor)” are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-7 and 11-18 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 and 47 would be allowable if written overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, no prior art, either teaches nor fairly suggest, a method for evaluating non-diffused x-ray signals that were received from a periodic structure on a semiconductor substrate, the periodic structure being a perturbed object, the method comprises: calculating, using a processor, an estimated field for each of multiple non- perturbed objects, the multiple non-perturbed objects represent perturbances of the perturbed object; the perturbances are of an order of a wavelength of the non-diffused x- ray signals; and evaluating the non-diffused x-ray signals based on the field of the multiple non- perturbed objects to determine a physical structural parameter of the periodic structure, wherein the non-diffused x-ray signals were received due to an illumination of the perturbed object with an x-ray beam.
Claim 8, 9, 10, 19 and 20 includes analogous, though not necessarily coextensive, features in conjunction with Claim 1, an is, therefore, along with its dependencies, for similar rationale as disclosed above, allowed.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights