DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s filing, received 28 September 2023, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
There are no domestic applications for which benefit is claimed.
This application claims benefit of foreign application:
JAPAN 2022-157711, filed 30 September 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received 28 September 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received 28 September 2023 have been accepted.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“processing circuitry configured to acquire…” in claims 1 and 3-8.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses a structure for the generic placeholder:
“processing circuitry configured to acquire…” in claims 1 and 3-8, at paragraph [0063] (e.g., processing apparatus 400 including CPU and memories and may be PC terminals or servers on the cloud); and at paragraph [0071] (e.g., the processing apparatus 400 is configured from a computer formed by connecting CPU, ROM, RAM and a memory to a bus).
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “create the structural model.” While there appears to be antecedent basis in claim 1 for ‘a structural model’, claim 1 recites “acquire a structural model,” and therefore it is unclear as to whether a new model (further configured steps of claim 4) is created and as such lacks antecedent basis, and further not clear as to how a newly created structural model in claim 4 is related to the structural model first acquired in claim 1.
Claim 6 is indefinite for depending from claim 4 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the value" in line seven. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because the claim previously recites “a lower limit value determined based on ‘the value’…”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the boundary" in line eight. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because it is not clear as to what defines ‘the boundary’, e.g., a single sharp boundary or a gradual, continuous crossover.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sample" in line four. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is indefinite for reciting “acquire the first structure factor” in line ten, because in line five the claim recites “calculate the first structure factor…” and therefore it is not clear as to whether the claim requires acquiring the first structure factor or calculating the first structure factor, or alternatively, requires two different ‘first’ structure factors.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the sample" in lines three and four. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “creating the structural model.” While there appears to be antecedent basis in claim 9 for ‘a structural model’, claim 9 recites “acquiring a structural model,” and therefore it is unclear as to whether a new model (further comprising steps of claim 13) is created and as such lacks antecedent basis, and further not clear as to how a newly created structural model in claim 13 is related to the structural model first acquired in claim 9.
Claim 15 is indefinite for depending from claim 13 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 13.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the value" in line five. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because the claim previously recites “a lower limit value determined based on ‘the value’…”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the boundary" in line six. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because it is not clear as to what defines ‘the boundary’, e.g., a single sharp boundary or a gradual, continuous crossover.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the sample" in line two. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 is indefinite for reciting “acquire the first structure factor” in line eight, because in line three the claim recites “calculate the first structure factor…” and therefore it is not clear as to whether the claim requires acquiring the first structure factor or calculating the first structure factor, or alternatively, requires two different ‘first’ structure factors.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 1-7 recite a processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry for processing a structure factor (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture); claim 8 recites a system comprising an X-ray diffractometer comprising an X-ray source, a detector for detecting X-rays, a goniometer for controlling the rotation of the sample, and the processing apparatus according to claim 1 (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture); claims 9 and 11-16 recite a method for processing a structure factor (i.e., a process); and claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture).
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
separate the first structure factor into a short-range correlation and a long-range correlation (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formulas (2), (3), (4), (5) and/or (6)) provided in the specification));
calculate a short-range scattering intensity of the structural model (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formula (7) provided in the specification); and
calculate a second structure factor from the short-range scattering intensity and the long-range correlation (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formulas (9) and/or (10) provided in the specification).
Independent claims 9 and 10 recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
separating the first structure factor into a short-range correlation and a long-range correlation;
calculating a short-range scattering intensity of the structural model; and
calculating a second structure factor from the short-range scattering intensity and the long-range correlation.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 11-16 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 2 further recites:
a value of a boundary between the short-range correlation and the long-range correlation is determined based on a size and a shape of a region of the structural model (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formulas (12) and (13) provided in the specification).
Dependent claim 3 further recites:
calculate a degree of coincidence or a degree of deviation between the first structure factor and the second structure factor (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formula (11) provided in the specification).
Dependent claim 4 further recites:
create the structural model (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., a statistical and computational modeling method that functions as a mathematical framework to solve inverse problems (e.g., a Reverse Monte Carlo simulation)).
Dependent claim 5 further recites:
calculate the degree of coincidence or deviation between the first structure factor and the second structure factor within a range equal to or greater than a lower limit value determined based on the value of the boundary between the short-range correlation and the long-range correlation (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formula (15) provided in the specification).
Dependent claim 6 further recites:
generate the structural model by a Reverse Monte Carlo (RMC) method (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., a statistical and computational modeling method that functions as a mathematical framework to solve inverse problems).
Dependent claim 7 further recites:
calculate the first structure factor based on a type of a radiation source, a wavelength, a background, a shape of the sample, an arrangement, kinds of a constituent element, a composition, and an absorption coefficient of the total scattering data (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formula (1) provided in the specification).
Dependent claim 11 further recites:
a value of a boundary between the short-range correlation and the long-range correlation is determined based on a size and a shape of a region of the structural model (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., calculating a size and/or shape of a region).
Dependent claim 12 further recites:
calculating a degree of coincidence or a degree of deviation between the first structure factor and the second structure factor (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formula (11) provided in the specification).
Dependent claim 13 further recites:
creating the structural model (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., a statistical and computational modeling method that functions as a mathematical framework to solve inverse problems (e.g., a Reverse Monte Carlo simulation)).
Dependent claim 14 further recites:
calculating the degree of coincidence or deviation between the first structure factor and the second structure factor within a range equal to or greater than a lower limit value determined based on the value of the boundary between the short-range correlation and the long-range correlation (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formula (15) provided in the specification).
Dependent claim 15 further recites:
generating the structural model by a Reverse Monte Carlo (RMC) method (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., a statistical and computational modeling method that functions as a mathematical framework to solve inverse problems).
Dependent claim 16 further recites:
calculate the first structure factor based on a type of a radiation source, a wavelength, a background, a shape of the sample, an arrangement, kinds of a constituent element, a composition, and an absorption coefficient of the total scattering data (i.e., mental processes and mathematical concepts, e.g., by using Formula (1) provided in the specification).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., separate the first structure factor into a short-range correlation and a long-range correlation), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., calculate a short-range scattering intensity of the structural model) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-16 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
In the instant application, the independent claims provide additional elements to acquire and process data, however once the data is acquired, the subsequent steps only perform a series of calculations in a process to ‘calculate a second structure factor from the short-range scattering intensity and the long-range correlation’. Thus, the claims do not recite any limitations to which the ‘second structure factor’ result is practically applied.
Dependent claims 2, 11, 12, 14 and 15 do not further recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claim 1 include:
processing circuitry configured to acquire a first structure factor based on measured total scattering data; and
acquire a structural model indicating an atomic arrangement in a finite region.
The additional elements in independent claim 8 include:
an X-ray diffractometer comprising an X-ray source;
a detector for detecting X- rays;
a goniometer for controlling the rotation of the sample;
processing circuitry configured to acquire a first structure factor based on measured total scattering data; and
acquire a structural model indicating an atomic arrangement in a finite region.
The additional elements in independent claim 9 include:
acquiring a first structure factor based on measured total scattering data; and
acquiring a structural model representing an atomic arrangement in a finite region.
The additional elements in independent claim 10 include:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions;
a computer;
acquiring a first structure factor based on measured total scattering data; and
acquiring a structural model representing an atomic arrangement in a finite region.
The additional elements in dependent claims 3-7, 13 and 16 include:
processing circuitry (claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7);
output the structural model in which the degree of coincidence or the degree of deviation satisfies a predetermined condition (claim 4);
acquire total scattering data of the sample (claim 7);
acquire the first structure factor (claim 7);
outputting the structural model in which the degree of coincidence or the degree of deviation satisfies a predetermined condition (claim 13);
acquiring total scattering data of the sample (claim 16); and
acquiring the first structure factor (claim 16).
The additional elements of processing circuitry (claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (claim 10); and a computer (claim 10); invoke a computer and/or computer-related components merely as tools for use in the claimed process, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and therefore are not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional elements of acquire/acquiring a first structure factor based on measured total scattering data (claims 1, 8, 9 and 10) (i.e., gathering data); acquire/acquiring a structural model indicating an atomic arrangement in a finite region (claims 1, 8, 9 and 10) (i.e., gathering data); acquire/acquiring total scattering data of the sample (claims 7 and 16) (i.e., gathering data); and acquire/acquiring the first structure factor (claims 7 and 16) (i.e., gathering data); are merely pre-solution activities of gathering data for use in the claimed process – i.e., nominal or tangential additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of output/outputting the structural model in which the degree of coincidence or the degree of deviation satisfies a predetermined condition (claims 4 and 13); is merely a post-solution activity of outputting data for use in the claimed process – a nominal or tangential addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of an X-ray diffractometer comprising an X-ray source (claim 8); a detector for detecting X-rays (claim 8); and a goniometer for controlling the rotation of the sample (claim 8); are tools used in the pre-solution activities of gathering data for use in the claimed process – i.e., nominal or tangential additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-16 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-16 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 2, 11, 12, 14 and 15 do not further recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claims 1, 8, 9 and 10 and dependent claims 3-7, 13 and 16 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of processing circuitry (claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8); a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions (claim 10); a computer (claim 10); gathering data (claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 16); and outputting data (claims 4 and 13); are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
The additional elements of an X-ray diffractometer comprising an X-ray source (claim 8); a detector for detecting X-rays (claim 8); and a goniometer for controlling the rotation of the sample (claim 8); are conventional. Evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Bunaciu et al. (“X-ray diffraction: Instrumentation and applications.” Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 2015, vol. 45, pp. 289-299).
Bunaciu et al. reviews the scientific trends associated with the rapid development of the technique of X-ray diffraction pertaining to the fields of pharmaceuticals, forensic science, geological applications, microelectronics, and glass manufacturing, as well as in corrosion analysis (Abstract), an shows that X-ray diffraction is now a common technique for the study of crystal structures and atomic spacing, and is based on constructive interference of monochromatic X-rays and a crystalline structure (page 289, col. 1, para. 2). Bunaciu et al. further shows that X-ray diffractometers consist of three basic elements: an X-ray tube, a sample holder, and an X-ray detector (page 289, col. 2, para. 2) and explains that X-rays are generated in a cathode ray tube by heating a filament to produce electrons, accelerating the electrons toward a target by applying a voltage, and bombarding the target material with electrons, and when the electrons have sufficient energy to dislodge inner shell electrons of the target material, characteristic X-ray spectra are produced (page 289, col. 2, para. 3). Bunaciu et al. further shows that the geometry of an X-ray diffractometer is such that the sample rotates in the path of the collimated X-ray beam at an angle θ while the X-ray detector is mounted on an arm to collect the diffracted X-rays and rotates at an angle of 2θ, and the instrument used to maintain the angle and rotate the sample is termed a goniometer (page 290, col. 1, para. 2; and Fig. 1).
Therefore, when taken alone (i.e., individually), all additional elements in claims 1-16 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-16 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this application.
The closest art of record is Hiroi et al. (JP 2020-94945, cited in the Information Disclosure Statement received 28 September 2023). The specification in the instant application explains that in the method described in Patent Document 1 (i.e., Hiroi et al.), parameters having wave number dependency such as a resolution function and an atomic scattering factor would be strictly handled, and therefore, it is necessary for the user to set various parameters, which takes calculation cost. The specification further explains that the related art requires that many complicated parameters need to be set by the user, and it is not easy to generate a structural model that can explain actual measurement data (paras. [0002] - [0008]).
While the art of record shows determining a parameter known as the structure factor from which the arrangement of the atoms in the unit cell can be calculated, the art of record does not provide or make obvious the particular combination of steps for calculating a short-range scattering intensity of the structural model and then calculating a second structure factor from the short-range scattering intensity and the long-range correlation.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/STEVEN W. BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights