CTFR 18/367,231 CTFR 91753 DETAILED ACTION Final Rejection Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/04/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1, 4, 11,14 and 20 have been amended. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Each of claims1-11 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. Each of claims 1-10 fall within category of process; Each of claim 11-20 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech , 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee , 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); Regarding Claims 1-10 Step 2A – Prong 1 Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of predicted structure of the grating. The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations: 1. A computer-implemented method, in a processing device of an Optical Critical Dimension (OCD) metrology system, comprising: receiving grating parameters as input to a neural network; generating, by the neural network , an output comprising a predicted optical response of a grating based on the grating parameters; responsive to determining that a difference between the predicted optical response and a measured optical response of the grating is within a specified threshold, outputting the grating parameters as a predicted structure of the grating; and responsive to determining that the difference is greater than the specified threshold, iteratively updating the grating parameters based on a gradient of a loss function with respect to the grating parameters computed by backpropagation through the neural network until the predicted optical response and the measured optical response converge ; adjusting one or more fabrication parameters based on the predicted structure of the grating. The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. For example, the limitations “generating [..]a predicted optical response [..]; [..]determining that a difference[..]within a specified threshold[..]a predicted structure[..];[..]determining that the difference is greater than the specified threshold[..] iteratively updating the grating parameters based on a gradient of a loss function[..] measured optical response converge” are mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). For example, the limitation “adjusting one or more fabrication parameters [..]” is mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Step 2A – Prong 2 Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, first additional first element is “ receiving grating parameters as input to a neural network” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For example, 2nd additional first element is “in a processing device of an Optical Critical Dimension (OCD) metrology system ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with generic computer component, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). For Examples, 3rd additional element is “through the neural network”: This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components with high level of generality (apply it) , which is well understood routine and conventional and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic OCD system with computer component and software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Step 2B Claim1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. n a processing device of an Optical Critical Dimension (OCD) metrology system”, generic metrology devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II). Dependent Claims 2-10 Dependent claims 2-6 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-10 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. For Examples, claim 2-5: imitations above represent a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) . For Examples, claim 6-8 and 10: only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) . For Examples, claim 9: This claim, limitation amounts to mere use of a generic computer components with high level of generality (apply it) , which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). Regarding Claims 11-20 Claims 11-20 contains language similar to claims 1-10 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). Furthermore, claim11 contain the additional elements “A processing device comprising: a processor; and a prediction module implemented at the processor, the prediction module implementing a neural network and configured by the processor to”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with computer components with high level of generality, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). And claim 20 contain the additional elements “A near-eye display system comprising: an image source to project light comprising an image; at least one lens element; and a waveguide including at least one grating having a structure verified by a process”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with computer components with high level of generality, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d). 12-261 AIA Response to Argument Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, 11 and 20, The applicant did not agree with it. The Applicant argus that “This structure is also analogous to USPTO Example 25 (Rubber Manufacturing), in which repeated calculation and comparison against measured data to determine equivalence was held eligible because the mathematical operations were integrated into a technical control process. Here, the amended claims similarly use iterative comparison and convergence in conjunction with measured optical response data to determine physical grating structure parameters and to adjust fabrication parameters of the grating based on the predicted structure, thereby integrating the mathematical operations into a real-world technical process” see, pages 8-18 In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because in examples 20, the claim recites a series of acts including determining the temperature of the mold and providing that temperature to the computer. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites a limitation of repetitively calculating the Arrhenius equation (the mathematical formula: ln v = CZ+x) for reaction time during the cure. This limitation sets forth a judicial exception, because calculating the reaction time using the Arrhenius equation is a mathematical relationship that the courts have held is representative of a law of nature (e.g., the mathematical formula in Flook). Mathematical relationships such as this have also been characterized by the courts as abstract ideas. Additionally, the claim limitations of performing repetitive calculations and comparisons between the calculated time and the elapsed time could be performed by a human using mental steps or basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have also been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (e.g., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics). Thus, the claim is directed to at least one exception (Step 2A: YES).Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exceptions (the mathematical relationship and the critical thinking steps of calculating and comparing). Since there are multiple abstract ideas recited in the claim, the Step 2B analysis needs to be conducted for each abstract idea individually, until the analysis shows ineligibility for one or eligibility for all. The Step 2B analysis is first conducted for the mathematical relationship. Besides the mathematical relationship, the claim recites additional elements of providing a digital computer with a data base of values, initiating an interval timer, constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly providing the computer with the temperature, using the computer to perform the calculations and comparisons, and opening the press automatically when the comparison indicates equivalence . Some of the additional elements/steps, such as accessing a database and using a computer to perform calculations and comparisons, are routine computer activities or generic functions performed by a computer that taken alone do not add significantly more to the process instructions in the claim. By themselves, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer that are well ‐ understood, routine and conventional (e.g., accessing a data base to receive and store data, and performing mathematical operations on a computer). Likewise, initiating a timer and determining a temperature, taken alone, are mere data gathering steps to obtain data necessary to calculate the time using the Arrhenius equation. However, when viewing the claim as a whole, the combination of all these steps taken together, including the constant determination of the temperature of the mold, the repetitive calculations and comparisons, and the opening of the press based on the calculations, amount to significantly more than simply calculating the mold time using the Arrhenius equation because they add meaningful limits on use of the equation. The claim does not merely recite the equation in isolation, but integrates these ideas into the molding process. The additional steps specifically relate to the particular variables used, how the variables are gathered, the process by which the rubber is molded and cured, and how the result of the cure time calculation is used. The totality of the steps act in concert to improve another technical field, specifically the field of precision rubber molding, by controlling the operation of the mold. In addition, the claimed steps taken as a combination effect a transformation of the raw, uncured synthetic rubber into a different state or thing, i.e., a cured and molded rubber product. Thus, the claim amounts to significantly more than the mathematical relationship (i.e., the abstract idea of the Arrhenius equation). Because the claim is eligible with respect to the first abstract idea, it is expected that the additional limitations will amount to significantly more than the second abstract idea (the critical thinking steps of calculating and comparing). This is true in this example. The additional limitations discussed above are significantly more than the critical thinking skills of calculating and comparing results. As previously stated, evaluating the additional limitations both individually and as an ordered combination demonstrates that the claim improves the technical field of precision rubber molding and transforms the raw, uncured synthetic rubber into a different state or thing. Taking all the claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (Step 2B: YES). The claim recites patent eligible subject matter. However, current claim invention is not like that. The limitations of claims, specially claim 1, 11 and 20, represent a combination of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and a mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claim 1, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic metrology system with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments with respect 103 rejection are persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. a) Dong et al. (US 20230325999) teaches the reconstruction model based on a sample color image and a sample spectrum image, and calculate a loss function based on the sample spectrum image and a predicted reconstructed spectrum image output by the reconstruction model. When the loss function converges and a value of the loss function is less than or equal to a threshold, a parameter of the reconstruction model that is used to generate the predicted reconstructed spectrum image output by the reconstruction model is determined as a parameter of the reconstruction model that is finally used to generate the reconstructed spectrum image based on the color image. The loss function is calculated based on the sample spectrum image and the predicted reconstructed spectrum image. After a plurality of iterations, when the loss function converges and a value of the loss function is less than or equal to a threshold, the parameter of the reconstruction model is acquired. When the loss function converges and a value of the loss function value is greater than a threshold, the parameter of the reconstruction model is adjusted, and the reconstruction model continues to be trained by using the foregoing method. b) Cho et al. (US 20210181090) disclose a normal incidence ellipsometer and a method for measuring the optical properties of a sample by using same. The purpose of the present invention is to provide: a normal incidence ellipsometer in which a wavelength-dependent compensator is replaced with a wavelength-independent linear polarizer such that equipment calibration procedures are simplified while a measurement wavelength range expansion can be easily implemented; and a method for measuring the optical properties of a sample by using same. c) Feng et al (US 20190311083) disclose the computational process calculates a predicted optical response, it may compute a reflectance spectrum or ellipsometric response by simulating reflection of electromagnetic radiation off of said computed etch profile. The reflectance spectrum or ellipsometric response may be generated using, for example, a Rigorous Coupled Wave Analysis (“RCWA”) simulation or a Finite Difference Time-Domain (“FDTD”) simulation. d) Lai et al. (US 20210157228) disclosehe one or more cameras of the sensor 238 and lens 226 may be mounted, integrated, incorporated or arranged on an HMD to correspond to a left-eye view of a user or wearer of the HMD and a right-eye view of the user or wearer. For example, an HMD may include a first camera with a first lens mounted forward-facing on the left side of the HMD corresponding to or near the left eye of the wearer and a second camera with a second lens mounted forward-facing on the right-side of the HMD corresponding to or near the right eye of the wearer. The left camera and right camera may form a front-facing pair of cameras providing for stereographic image capturing. In some embodiments, the HMD may have one or more additional cameras, such as a third camera between the first and second cameras an offers towards the top of the HMD and forming a triangular shape between the first, second and third cameras. This third camera may be used for triangulation techniques in performing the depth buffer generations techniques of the present solution, as well as for object tracking. e) Sarwer et al. (US 12481894) disclose An artificial reality system performs local user adaptation of machine learning models and global improvement of the machine learning models while ensuring data security and privacy. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.. 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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 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 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. /MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/367,231 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights