Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/340,845

DEVICES, SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR ANALYSIS AND CHARACTERIZATION OF SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY

Non-Final OA §101§102
Filed
Jun 24, 2023
Examiner
LAU, TUNG S
Art Unit
2857
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
921 granted / 1112 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
1150
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§103
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1112 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 . 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. DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions A response on 12-23-2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-27. Claim 28 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given on action dated 10/23/2025, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 1-27 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. Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes), Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method of characterizing a surface topography, comprising: determining scale-dependent parameters, each of scale dependent parameter representing a statistical characterization of a distribution of at least one of a first-order or higher-order derivative of surface height or h determined from one or more measurements of the surface at each of multiple distance scales which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes. Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? then additional elements of wherein for at least one of the one or more measurements, the first- order or higher-order derivative of surface height is determined at the multiple distance scales in real space defined via a scaling factor n which is greater than or equal to 1 and which is multiplied by a smallest possible distance scale or resolution provided by the at least one of the one or more measurement are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two: NO. Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? There is no more additional element. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible. Claim 24, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes), Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a system for characterizing a surface topography, comprising: an algorithm to determine scale-dependent parameters each of which is a statistical characterization of a distribution of at least one of a first-order or higher-order derivative of surface height or h determined from one or more measurements of the surface at each of multiple distance scales which is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes. Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? then additional elements of wherein for at least one of the one or more measurements, the first- order or higher-order derivative of surface height is determined at the multiple distance scales in real space using a scaling factor ri which is greater than or equal to 1 and which is multiplied by a smallest possible distance scale or resolution provided by the at least one of the one or more measurements are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application, Step 2A Prong Two: NO. Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? The additional element of a processor system, and a memory system in comunicative connection with the processor system, the memory system appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 24 not eligible. Claim 2, related to statistically characterizing the distribution of each of a plurality of derivatives of surface height of different order at the multiple distance scales in characterizing the surface topography merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2 not eligible. Claim 3, related to wherein at least one of the scale-dependent parameters is determined (i) by statistically characterizing the distribution of the at least one of the first- order or higher-order derivatives determined from the one or more measurements of the surface over the multiple distance scales via a numerical method, or (ii) in a case of a second cumulant or a second moment, from a surface topography parameter which is not determined from a statistical characterization of the distribution of the first-order or higher-order derivatives of surface height determined via a numerical method, by application of a determined mathematical relationship to the surface topography parameter to convert the surface topography parameter to the scale-dependent parameter merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3 not eligible. Claim 4, related to wherein the surface topography parameter is selected from the group of an autocorrelation function characterization, a variable bandwidth method characterization, or a power spectral density characterization merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4 not eligible. Claim 5, related to wherein the numerical method is a finite difference method, a finite-elements method, a Fourier interpolation or another interpolation method using compact or spectral basis sets merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5 not eligible. Claim 6, related to wherein the at least one of the first-order or higher-order derivatives are determined over multiple distance scales for lines of the one or more measurements of the surface or for areas of the one or more measurements of the surface merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6 not eligible. Claim 7, related to wherein the distribution of the at least one of the first- order or higher-order derivatives is determined over the multiple distance scales for lines of the one or more measurements of the surface and averaged over multiple lines of the one or more measurements of the surface merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7 not eligible.7. Claim 8, related to wherein derivatives for lines of the one or more measurements for points xk on the lines is provided by the formula: PNG media_image1.png 144 662 media_image1.png Greyscale merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible. Claim 9, related to PNG media_image2.png 38 314 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 176 292 media_image3.png Greyscale appears further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible. Claim 10, related to wherein the first-order or higher-order derivatives are determined for areas of the one or more measurements of the surface and the first-order or higher-order derivatives are provided by the formula: PNG media_image4.png 160 650 media_image4.png Greyscale appears further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10 not eligible. Claim 11, related to wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is determined from a second or higher cumulant thereof or a second or higher moment thereof merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 11 not eligible. Claim 12, related to wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is selected from the group consisting of variance, skewness, and kurtosis merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 12 not eligible. Claim 13, related to wherein the distribution is provided by the formula: PNG media_image5.png 102 544 media_image5.png Greyscale appears further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 13 not eligible. Claim 14, related to wherein the S function is broadened into individual bins and the number of occurrences of a certain derivative value is counted merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 14 not eligible. Claim 15, related to wherein a tip-radius effect for a measurement methodology used for the one or more measurements is determined as a function of a minimum value of a second-order derivative at a specific scale C merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 15 not eligible. Claim 16, related PNG media_image6.png 24 366 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 32 410 media_image7.png Greyscale appears further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 16 not eligible. Claim 17, related to PNG media_image8.png 22 374 media_image8.png Greyscale PNG media_image9.png 200 634 media_image9.png Greyscale appears further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 17 not eligible. Claim 18, related to wherein more than one measurement is used in defining the scale-dependent parameters, wherein the more than one measurement are created via different measurement methodologies and have different smallest possible distance scales or resolutions merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 18 not eligible. Claim 19, related to wherein the different measurement methodologies are selected from the group consisting of stylus profilometry methodologies, optical profilometry methodologies, cross-section or side-view microscopy methodologies and reflectance methodologies merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 19 not eligible. Claim 20, related to wherein data from the one or more measurement are combined over the multiple distance scales in determining the scale-dependent parameters merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 20 not eligible. Claim 21, related to wherein at least one of the one or more derivatives of surface height h is a third- or higher-order derivative merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 21 not eligible. Claim 22, related to wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is determined from a third or higher cumulant thereof or from a third or higher moment thereof merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 22 not eligible. Claim 23, related to determining a feature vector from the one or more measurements of the surface, wherein a plurality of features of the feature vector are determined from scale dependent parameters, and based upon the feature vector, determining at least one characteristic of the subject surface merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 23 not eligible. Claim 25, related to wherein the algorithm statistically characterizes the distribution of each of a plurality of derivatives of surface height of different. order at the multiple distance scales merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 25 not eligible. Claim 26, related to wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is determined from a third or higher cumulant therefor is a third or higher moment thereof merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 26 not eligible. Claim 27, related to a measurement system for measuring surface height over an area of a surface in communicative connection with the processor system merely further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 27 not eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 24, 2, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 3, 4, 5, ,6, 7, 25, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by . JONAS GARDING (Direct Computation of Shape Cues Using Scale-Adapted Spatial Derivative Operators, International Journal of Computer Vision 17(2), 163-191 (1996), © 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands., page 163-191) Regarding claim 1: JONAS GARDING described a method of characterizing a surface topography, comprising (abstract, surface orientation from monocular texture foreshortening): determining scale-dependent parameters, each of scale dependent parameter representing a statistical characterization of a distribution of at least one of a first-order (page 2, describes the local variance of blurred first-order directional Gaussian derivatives, page 9, graphically represents the local statistics of the first-order directional derivatives computed at the local scale) or higher-order derivative of surface height or h determined from one or more measurements of the surface at each of multiple distance scales, wherein for at least one of the one or more measurements, the first- order or higher-order derivative of surface height is determined at the multiple distance scales in real space defined via a scaling factor n which is greater than or equal to 1 (page 9-10, first-order directional derivatives computed at the local scale t and the integration scale s. In particular, the area PNG media_image10.png 24 106 media_image10.png Greyscale of the ellipse reflects the average magnitude of these derivatives scaling factor of 1 or more) and which is multiplied by a smallest possible distance scale or resolution provided by the at least one of the one or more measurement (page 9-10, section 3.5, table 1, tQ scale of 0.00). Regarding claim 24: JONAS GARDING described a system for characterizing a surface topography, comprising (abstract, surface orientation from monocular texture foreshortening): a processor system, and a memory system in communicative connection with the processor system, the memory system comprising (page 2, computer systems) an algorithm to determine scale-dependent parameters each of which is a statistical characterization of a distribution of at least one of a first-order (page 2, describes the local variance of blurred first-order directional Gaussian derivatives, page 9, graphically represents the local statistics of the first-order directional derivatives computed at the local scale) or higher-order derivative of surface height or h determined from one or more measurements of the surface at each of multiple distance scales, wherein for at least one of the one or more measurements, the first- order or higher-order derivative of surface height is determined at the multiple distance scales in real space using a scaling factor ri which is greater than or equal to 1 (page 9-10, first-order directional derivatives computed at the local scale t and the integration scale s. In particular, the area PNG media_image10.png 24 106 media_image10.png Greyscale of the ellipse reflects the average magnitude of these derivatives scaling factor of 1 or more) and which is multiplied by a smallest possible distance scale or resolution provided by the at least one of the one or more measurements (page 9-10, section 3.5, table 1, tQ scale of 0.00). Regarding claim 2, JONAS GARDING further described statistically characterizing the distribution of each of a plurality of derivatives of surface height of different order at the multiple distance scales in characterizing the surface topography (page 2, three-dimensional surface). Regarding claim 11, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is determined from a second or higher cumulant thereof or a second or higher moment thereof (page 2, second moment matrix). Regarding claim 12, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is selected from the group consisting of variance (fig. 2, varies signature), skewness, and kurtosis. Regarding claim 15, JONAS GARDING further described wlherein a tip-radius effect for a measurement methodology used for the one or more measurements is determined as a function of a minimum value of a second-order derivative at a specific scale C (page 9, second moment matrices, with the size rescaled to be proportional to sub S, table 1 from minimum of 0.0). Regarding claim 18, JONAS GARDING further described wherein more than one measurement is used in defining the scale-dependent parameters, wherein the more than one measurement are created via different measurement methodologies and have different smallest possible distance scales or resolutions (page 9-10, tQ). Regarding claim 19, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the different measurement methodologies are selected from the group consisting of stylus profilometry methodologies , optical profilometry methodologies, cross-section (page 25, The visual angle across the diagonal of each image is 32 °) or side-view microscopy methodologies and reflectance methodologies. Regarding claim 20, JONAS GARDING further described wherein data from the one or more measurement are combined over the multiple distance scales in determining the scale-dependent parameters (page 4, verified that the distance from the center to the perimeter of the ellipse). Regarding claim 21, JONAS GARDING further described wherein at least one of the one or more derivatives of surface height h is a third- (page 25, third order image pair was acquired with two CCD cameras and depicts a nursery wallpaper. The camera geometry was (/z = 5.6 °, y = -4.0°). ) or higher-order derivative. Regarding claim 22, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is determined from a third or higher cumulant thereof or from a third or higher moment thereof (page 25, third moment image pair was acquired with two CCD cameras and depicts a nursery wallpaper. The camera geometry was (/z = 5.6 °, y = -4.0°). Regarding claim 23, JONAS GARDING further described determining a feature vector from the one or more measurements of the surface, wherein a plurality of features of the feature vector are determined from scale dependent parameters, and based upon the feature vector, determining at least one characteristic of the subject surface (page 4, corresponding eigenvectors of figure 1). Regarding claim 3, JONAS GARDING further described wherein at least one of the scale-dependent parameters is determined (i) by statistically characterizing the distribution of the at least one of the first- order or higher-order derivatives determined from the one or more measurements of the surface over the multiple distance scales via a numerical method (page 4, first derivatives are proportional to the components of the second moment of the power spectrum, linearized perspective mapping from the surface to the image in the shape-from-texture case, distance from the center to the perimeter of the ellipse in some direction is equal to the inverse of the average squared magnitude of the directional derivative of L(x, y) in that direction.), or (ii) in a case of a second cumulant or a second moment, from a surface topography parameter which is not determined from a statistical characterization of the distribution of the first-order or higher-order derivatives of surface height determined via a numerical method, by application of a determined mathematical relationship to the surface topography parameter to convert the surface topography parameter to the scale-dependent parameter. Regarding claim 4, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the surface topography parameter is selected from the group of an autocorrelation function characterization (page 3, autocorrelation function to estimate foreshortening), a variable bandwidth method characterization, or a power spectral density characterization. Regarding claim 5, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the numerical method is a finite difference method (page 5, semidefinite symmetric solution to the equation), a finite-elements method, a Fourier interpolation or another interpolation method using compact or spectral basis sets. Regarding claim 6, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the at least one of the first-order or higher-order derivatives are determined over multiple distance scales for lines of the one or more measurements of the surface or for areas of the one or more measurements of the surface (page 6, first order, page 15, the distance from the focal point, and b =p x t ). Regarding claim 7, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the distribution of the at least one of the first- order or higher-order derivatives is determined over the multiple distance scales for lines of the one or more measurements of the surface and averaged over multiple lines of the one or more measurements of the surface (page 6, first order, page 15, the distance lines from the focal point, and b =p x t surface). Regarding claim 25, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the algorithm statistically characterizes the distribution of each of a plurality of derivatives of surface height of different. order at the multiple distance scales (page 15, first order, page 12, second order, page 15, surface scales ). Regarding claim 26, JONAS GARDING further described wherein the statistical characterization of the distribution is determined from a third or higher cumulant thereof or is a third or higher moment thereof (page 25, third moment image pair was acquired with two CCD cameras and depicts a nursery wallpaper. The camera geometry was (/z = 5.6 °, y = -4.0°). Regarding claim 27, JONAS GARDING further described a measurement system for measuring surface height over an area of a surface in communicative connection with the processor system (page 21, three-dimensional depth). Claim Objections Claims 13, 14, 16, 17, 8, 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (assuming other rejection are overcome) if rewritten in independent form including all the limitation of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: prior art fail to teach: Regarding claim 13: PNG media_image11.png 148 652 media_image11.png Greyscale Claim14 is objected due to their dependency on claim 13. Regarding claim 16: PNG media_image12.png 64 658 media_image12.png Greyscale Claim 17 is objected due to their dependency on claim 16. Regarding claim 8: PNG media_image13.png 224 666 media_image13.png Greyscale Claim 9 is objected due to their dependency on claim 8. Regarding claim 10: PNG media_image14.png 256 668 media_image14.png Greyscale 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.” Contact information 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM EST. 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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Technology Center 2800 January 6, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596049
SEALING COMPONENT INSPECTION METHOD, INSPECTION DEVICE, AND INSPECTION PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596034
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ADAPTING TO SPECIFIC TARGET PAINT APPLICATION PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584964
SYSTEM FOR DIAGNOSING DRY ELECTRODE MIXTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584948
CONSUMED POWER CALCULATION METHOD FOR ELECTRIC MOTOR AND INDUSTRIAL MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575364
ABNORMALITY DETECTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+14.0%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1112 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month