DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's application filed on 29 August 2023. Currently, claims 1-12, 14 are pending. 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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 6-9, 12, 14 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (device, method and a recording medium). Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 14 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. Claims 1, 7 and 14 recite the abstract idea of receiving a measured value of a response signal generated from a sample by incidence of a probe and analyzing a depth profile of the sample based on the measured value, wherein the analyzing includes minimizing a sum of square deviations between a theoretical value of the response signal and the measured value of the response signal using the theoretical value of the response signal when the sample is modeled into a multilayer body including a plurality of layers, and the minimizing the sum of square deviations includes calculating a relative concentration so as to satisfy a maximum smoothness condition that the relative concentration of chemical species of the sample smoothly change in the plurality of layers of the multilayer body. The claims are directed to a type of data analysis and calculation based on measured data. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculations and because the claims mental processes performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Applicant’s claims are mathematical concepts because the claims are performing a mathematical concept by the minimizing of a sum of square deviations on data and the claims are mental process performed in the mind because the claims are an evaluation (calculation) of the measured data. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a data analysis device that analyzes depth profile of a sample based on a response signal generated from the sample by incidence of a probe, an input circuitry, an analysis circuitry, a measurement device, a recording medium in which a program is recorded causing a computer to execute steps) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a data analysis device that analyzes depth profile of a sample based on a response signal generated from the sample by incidence of a probe, an input circuitry, an analysis circuitry, a measurement device, a recording medium in which a program is recorded causing a computer to execute steps (as evidenced by para [0108]-[0123] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-3, 8-9 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing wherein the maximum smoothness condition is a condition that a sum of squares of differences in the relative concentrations between adjacent layers is minimized for all chemical species and all layers in the multilayer body and wherein the minimizing the sum of square deviations includes applying a charge neutral condition related to the chemical species in addition to the maximum smoothness condition in minimizing the sum of square deviations. Dependent claims 6 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as wherein the measurement device is an angular resolution photoelectron spectroscopic device, and the response signal is an optoelectronic signal (as evidenced by para [0108]-[0123] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
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.
The term “smoothly changes” in claims 1, 7 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “smoothly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-6, 8-12 depend from claims 1 and 7, inherit the same deficiencies and thus rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US 9,702,835 B1) (hereinafter Campbell) in view of Robles et al. (US 2021/0025818 A1) (hereinafter Robles).
Claims 1, 7 and 14:
Campbell, as shown, discloses the following limitations of claims 1, 7 and 14:
A data analysis device (and corresponding method and recording medium – col 3, line 3-47, showing equivalent computing functionality and components) that analyzes a depth profile of a sample based on a response signal generated from the sample by incidence of a probe, the data analysis device comprising: an input circuitry that receives a measured value of the response signal from a measurement device measuring the response signal (col, 1, line 13 to col 2, line 20, especially "A method for generating cross-sectional profiles using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) includes scanning a sample with an electron beam to gather an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) spectrum for at least one energy level to determine element composition across an area of interest. A mesh is generated to locate positions where a depth profile will be taken. EDS spectra is gathered for a plurality of energy levels at a plurality of mesh locations. A number of layers is determined by distinguishing differences in chemical composition between depths as beam energies are stepped through. A depth profile is generated for the area of interest by compiling the number of layers and the element composition across the mesh. Another method for generating cross-sectional profiles using a SEM includes scanning a sample with an electron beam to gather an EDS spectrum for at least one energy level; identifying elements present in the sample using the EDS spectrum; generating a mesh on a region of interest in a SEM image of the sample to locate positions at intersections of the mesh where a depth profile will be taken; gathering EDS spectra for a plurality of energy levels at a plurality of mesh locations; determining a number of layers of the sample by distinguishing differences in chemical composition between depths of the sample as beam energies are stepped through; analyzing the chemical compositions between adjacent layers in the depth profile to determine whether a substantial difference exists; and if a substantial difference exists, generating a depth profile for the area of interest by compiling the number of layers and the element composition across the mesh." where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the gathered spectrum is a response signal); and
an analysis circuitry that analyzes the depth profile of the sample … between a theoretical value of the response signal and the measured value of the response signal using the theoretical value of the response signal when the sample is modeled into a multilayer body including a plurality of layers (col, 1, line 13 to col 2, line 20, especially "Another method for generating cross-sectional profiles using a SEM includes scanning a sample with an electron beam to gather an EDS spectrum for at least one energy level; identifying elements present in the sample using the EDS spectrum; generating a mesh on a region of interest in a SEM image of the sample to locate positions at intersections of the mesh where a depth profile will be taken; gathering EDS spectra for a plurality of energy levels at a plurality of mesh locations; determining a number of layers of the sample by distinguishing differences in chemical composition between depths of the sample as beam energies are stepped through; analyzing the chemical compositions between adjacent layers in the depth profile to determine whether a substantial difference exists; and if a substantial difference exists, generating a depth profile for the area of interest by compiling the number of layers and the element composition across the mesh. A system for depth profiling a sample includes a SEM configured to scan a sample with an electron beam and at least one energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) detector to gather EDS spectra for a plurality of energy levels to determine element composition and layer interfaces across an area of interest. A mesh is generated to locate positions where a depth profile will be taken. A processor is coupled to the SEM and includes an associated memory. A data reconstruction module is stored in the memory and is configured to gather EDS spectra for a plurality of energy levels at a plurality of mesh locations to determine a number of layers and their composition at each mesh location by distinguishing differences in chemical composition between depths as beam energies are stepped through. The data reconstruction module is further configured to generate a depth profile for the area of interest by compiling the number of layers and the element composition across the mesh."),
wherein the analysis circuitry calculates a relative concentration (col 2, line 64 to col 3, line 2, "beam penetration (which has a tear drop shape) is measured at various beam energy levels. As the beam energy is progressively increased or decreased, the composition that is measured by EDS detectors changes. These changes will be employed to determine a depth, shape and/or composition of the layers or structures of the sample.") so as to satisfy a maximum smoothness condition that the relative concentration of chemical species of the sample smoothly changes in the plurality of layers of the multilayer body in minimizing the sum of square deviations (Examiner notes this is considered intended use and thus not given patentable weight)
Campbell, however, does not specifically disclose by minimizing a sum of square deviations. In analogous art, Robles discloses the following limitations:
by minimizing a sum of square deviations (see para [0081], "The regularization parameter was determined with generalized cross validation (GCV), as it requires no prior information about image or noise power. The GCV estimate of α is given in linear algebra formalism [[by the disclosed equation]] where A is a convolution matrix representation of the point spread function of the system, ƒ is a solution for a given value of α, g is the collected image data, I is the identity matrix, and A(α)=AA*(AA*+αI).sup.−1. Despite the recondite formalism, this approach has an intuitive explanation. The numerator in Eq. (14) represents the mean square error between the captured phase gradient image and the reconstructed phase gradient image. This reconstructed phase gradient can be produced by filtering the reconstructed quantitative phase object image through the system transfer function a second time, as if it were the original object being imaged. This reproduces a second phase gradient image similar to the one originally captured, only distorted slightly by having been processed a second time. The more similar the original captured phase gradient image is to the reprocessed one, the more faithfully the deconvolution procedure inverts the transfer function of the system. Therefore, minimizing this difference reduces the error introduced by the regularization parameter. The denominator in Eq. (14) represents the square sum deviation from unity when the forward transfer function of the system is deconvolved from itself, according to Eq. (12). This term mirrors the error in the numerator by analogy, but it serves to normalize the numerator by the amount of error the regularization parameter induces on the reprocessed transfer function itself. Images captured of different scenes with different ambient illumination intensity may alter the minimum value found with the numerator error term alone. The denominator term, then, ensures that the regularization parameter chosen is invariant with different images processed from the same modality. Because of this normalization term, this procedure can be performed once for a given imaging sample, rather than for each phase image. Alternatively, this procedure can be performed more than once for a given imaging sample, depending on desired resolution.")
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Robles with Campbell because implementing a sum of squares algorithm enables more effective understanding of the imaging data (see Robles, para [0002]-[0005]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the cell imaging system as taught by Robles in the system for cross sectional depth composition generation utilizing scanning electron microscopy of Campbell, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2 and 8:
Campbell does not specifically disclose wherein the maximum smoothness condition is a condition that a sum of squares of differences in the relative concentrations between adjacent layers is minimized for all chemical species and all layers in the multilayer body. In analogous art, Robles discloses the following limitations:
wherein the maximum smoothness condition is a condition that a sum of squares of differences in the relative concentrations between adjacent layers is minimized for all chemical species and all layers in the multilayer body (see para [0080], showing the theoretical optimal choice for the algorithm is maximizing the smoothing shown in para [0081] where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the algorithm could be applied to the differences in the concentrations shown in Campbell as it improves imaging – see Robles, para [0003]-[0005] )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the cell imaging system as taught by Robles in the system for cross sectional depth composition generation utilizing scanning electron microscopy of Campbell, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6 and 12:
Further, Campbell discloses the following limitations:
wherein the measurement device is an angular resolution photoelectron spectroscopic device, and the response signal is an optoelectronic signal (col, 1, line 13 to col 2, line 20, especially "A method for generating cross-sectional profiles using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) includes scanning a sample with an electron beam to gather an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) spectrum for at least one energy level to determine element composition across an area of interest. A mesh is generated to locate positions where a depth profile will be taken. EDS spectra is gathered for a plurality of energy levels at a plurality of mesh locations. A number of layers is determined by distinguishing differences in chemical composition between depths as beam energies are stepped through. A depth profile is generated for the area of interest by compiling the number of layers and the element composition across the mesh. Another method for generating cross-sectional profiles using a SEM includes scanning a sample with an electron beam to gather an EDS spectrum for at least one energy level; identifying elements present in the sample using the EDS spectrum; generating a mesh on a region of interest in a SEM image of the sample to locate positions at intersections of the mesh where a depth profile will be taken; gathering EDS spectra for a plurality of energy levels at a plurality of mesh locations; determining a number of layers of the sample by distinguishing differences in chemical composition between depths of the sample as beam energies are stepped through; analyzing the chemical compositions between adjacent layers in the depth profile to determine whether a substantial difference exists; and if a substantial difference exists, generating a depth profile for the area of interest by compiling the number of layers and the element composition across the mesh.")
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5, 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cohen (US 2011/0210246 A1), a system for the determination of depth profiling with improved accuracy and reliability by obtaining spectroscopic data from the sample while under at least two different electrical conditions of the sample, the spectroscopic data comprising a signal of charged particles emitted from the sample, and being indicative of a change in amplitude, spectral position and spectral shape of the signal from the sample while under different electrical conditions of the sample, the change being indicative of the compositional profile and spatial distribution for at least one chemical element in the sample along a direction through the sample
Koyama et al. (JP 2010216818 A), a system for quantifying chemical species on a solid surface from the absorbance of an IR absorption spectrum
Esposito et al. "Depth profiles in confocal optical microscopy: a simulation approach based on the second Rayleigh-Sommerfeld diffraction integral", a paper on recovering the intensity depth profile, by confocal optical microscopy, in transparent and amorphous samples with low scattering
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is 571-270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights