DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 May 2026.
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(s) is/are:
“an equipment front end module” in claims 1 and 20—a chamber
“an XRD station to determine an orientation information for the workpiece to facilitate channeling of the ion beam into the crystalline structure of the workpiece” in claim 1—x-ray source and detector.
“a reader associated with the XRD station to detect an identifier, wherein the identifier is used to create a unique workpiece identifier” in claim 1—RFID reader or OCR reader to detect the serial number or equivalents such as a barcode reader (MPEP 2183 barcode readers perform the claimed function, is not excluded by any explicitly definition in the specification for an equivalent and is an equivalent of the means plus function limitation).
a central controller in communication with the reader and the XRD station, so as to associate the orientation information from the XRD station with the unique workpiece identifier in claim 1. (general purpose computer computer)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 lacks written description for a controller comprises a…other data structure that correlates a unique workpiece identifier with orientation information”. Specifically, MPEP 2161.01 (I)recites “similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.”
Here, the specification only discloses the use of tables to achieve the claimed result. However, it is devoid of any suggestion of any other data structure to achieve the claimed result raising the question of possession of “other data structures” as required in the alternative in claim 18.
Claims 19-20 fail to meet the written description requirement by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 18.
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.
Claim 1 and 7-14 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 1 recites the limitation “the identifier is used to create a unique workpiece identifier” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function (i.e. the reader and controller). The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. controller and reader, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the controller and reader in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claims 7-14 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein, after the orientation information is determined, the workpiece is transferred from the XRD station to the EFEM, the unique workpiece identifier is detected by the additional reader in the EFEM or in the process chamber, and transmitted to the central controller.” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function (i.e. the determination, the transferring and transmitting). The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. controller and reader, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the controller and reader in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
Claims 11-12 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 10.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the cassette number is combined with a slot number to create the unique workpiece identifier, and wherein, after the orientation information is determined for all workpiece in the cassette, the cassette is transferred from the XRD station to the EFEM, the unique workpiece identifier is detected by the additional reader in the EFEM or in the process chamber, and transmitted to the central controller..” is vague and indefinite because the claim does not provide a discernable boundary on what performs the function (i.e. the combining of slot number and cassette number, determination of orientation information, transferring the cassette and transmission). The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim i.e. controller and reader, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the controller and reader in a certain manner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is and is not covered by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(g) for more information.
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.
Claims 1, 7-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (JP2021120944)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 10 July 2025 in the parent application 18/091,041) in view of Hirai et al. (US pgPub 2024/0404787) (note: this application is a CIP, the limitations relied upon by Hirai et al. are not supported in the parent application, therefore these limitations receive the date the instant application was filed 08 November 2023, which is after the date Hirarai et al. was effectively filed (30 May 2023). See MPEP 2133.01 for more information).
Regarding claim 1, Ikejiri et al. teach a system (fig. 1), comprising:
an ion implanter (fig. 1) including an ion source (11) to generate an ion beam (IB);
a process chamber (13) comprising a platen (electrostatic chuck 71 of holding device 70 see figure 3 and [0047]) to support a workpiece (S) having a crystalline structure (along crystal axis C of the substrate, see paragraph [0053]);
an equipment front end module (EFEM) (14 is a chamber interpreted as the module) in communication with the process chamber via a load lock (14 in communication with 13 via load lock 17);
an XRD station (30 including x-ray source 31 and x-ray diffraction detector 32, see paragraph [0026]) to determine an orientation information for the workpiece to facilitate channeling of the ion beam into the crystalline structure of the workpiece ([0026] and [0053]).
Ikejiri et al. fails to disclose a reader associated with the XRD station to detect an identifier, wherein the identifier is used to create a unique workpiece identifier; and a central controller in communication with the reader and the XRD station, so as to associate the orientation information from the XRD station with the unique workpiece identifier.
However, Hirai et al. teaches a reader ([0044] reader or paragraph [0045] sensor/reader) associated with the XRD station to detect an identifier ([0044] note measured crystal axis information included in a barcode, thus associated with the XRD ([0067]) by virtue of having information recorded thereby included in the barcode), wherein the identifier is used to create a unique workpiece identifier (by reader or scanner the barcode is used to create a unique workpiece identifier including crystal axis ([0044]). Specifically, paragraph [0045] teaches the crystal information for each wafer cassette or wafer may be stored in advance in the controller C1 or C2 and based on information of the wafer read from the barcode C1 or C2 may read out the crystal axis information that is stored); and
a central controller (C1/C2) in communication with the reader and the XRD station, so as to associate the orientation information from the XRD station with the unique workpiece identifier ([0045] “the crystal axis information M for each wafer cassette or wafer may be stored in advance in the controller C1 and/or the controller C2. Based on the information of the cassette or wafer read from the barcode, the controller C1 and/or the controller C2 may read out the crystal axis information M that is stored”. That is, XRD measures the crystal orientation output to be stored by controller C1/C2 which is in communication with the reader to associate the crystal axis information (i.e. from the XRD) with the barcode measured by scanner or reader).
Hirai et al. modifies Ikejiri et al. by suggesting a barcode and barcode reader to be associated with each cassette or wafer and a reader for associating crystal axis orientation with that of the specific wafer.
Since both inventions are directed towards x-ray diffraction to determine crystal axis orientation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ikejiri et al. to include the barcodes and readers of Hirai et al. because it would facilitate correction of any angular misalignment between the ion beam and the crystal axis so as to ensure proper alignment for each wafer identified by C1/C2 from the barcode. Additionally, the barcode would prevent mistakes in wafer/crystal axis orientation when processing a large number of wafers due to wafers falling out of their sequenced order.
Regarding claim 7, Ikejiri in view of Hirai teaches wherein the central controller directly or indirectly controls the platen based on the orientation information associated with the unique workpiece identifier (Hirai, [0079] teaches measurement of crystal orientation implemented by transmitting the crystal axis information measured by the barcode (see discussion in paragraphs [0044]-[0045]), wherein based on this the wafer W is adjusted using the tilt devices ([0080])).
Regarding claim 8, Ikejiri in view of Hirai teaches wherein the XRD station is located outside the ion implanter, the EFEM and the process chamber (Hirai teaches at paragraph [0077] a special measurement chamber of the crystal orientation measurement or paragraph [0078] teaches placements where cassettes are stored or placed. In either case outside of the ion implanter EFEM of Ikejiri and process chamber (i.e. in a special chamber or in a cassette location). Note: see also JP).
Regarding claim 9, Hirai teaches a manual barcode reading or automatic, wherein “In the manual case, an operator of the ion implanter IM may read the barcode with a scanner. In the automatic case, when the cassette is installed in the ion implanter IM, the barcode is read by a sensor/barcode reader in the installation position of the cassette” ([0045]). That is, in the manual case the reader is located outside of the chamber (i.e. in order for the operator to read the barcode with the scanner and not destroy the vacuum of the ion implanter) and in the automatic case the barcode is read after installed in the ion implanter (i.e. in process chamber 8). In otherwords, Hirai envisioned either a reader inside the process chamber or outside.
However, Ikejiri in view of Hirai fail to teach two readers, thus fail to disclose an additional reader disposed in the EFEM or in the process chamber.
Since Ikejiri teaches either an automatic reader inside the process chamber (claimed additional reader) or a manual reader located outside (reader interpreted as the reader of claim 1 for the purpose of this claim), it would have been obvious to have both the manual reader and the automatic reader to allow the operator to have the flexibility of tracking the wafers not only when they have been loaded in the ion implanter but when they are external thereof for upstream/downstream transferring/processing ensuring correct identification of wafers throughout processing.
Regarding claim 10, Ikejiri in view of Hirai teaches wherein, after the orientation information is determined (Hirai teaches in fig. 13 step S3 crystal axis measurement, thus after step 3) the workpiece is transferred from the XRD station to the EFEM ([0079] teaches the crystal axis information is transmitted from the bar code. Since the X-ray diffraction is performed either in the cassette region 53 or in its own special chamber 52 (see paragraphs [0077]-[0078]) the XRD is outside of the EFEM of Ikeijri and the combination would naturally require a transferring the workpiece form the crystal axis measurement chamber to the EFEM of Ikejiri), the unique workpiece identifier is detected by the additional reader in the EFEM or in the process chamber, and transmitted to the central controller (see discussion in claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 11, Ikejiri in view of Hirai teaches wherein if the central controller determines that a XRD process was already performed on the workpiece ( Hirai, [0045] in automatic reading the axis information is stored in advance in the controller(s). based on the information read from the barcode the controller(s) read out the crystal axis information (i.e. determining the x-ray process has been performed)), the central controller directly or indirectly controls the platen based on the orientation information associated with the unique workpiece identifier ([0080]).
Regarding claim 12, Ikejiri in view of Hirai fails to explicitly disclose what happens if the information read from the bar code does not have corresponding crystal axis information stored in C1/C2.
However, since the purpose of the barcode is to ensure the crystal axis measured matches the wafer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an error be reported because if the XRD process has not been performed or there is no corresponding information of the crystal axis the implantation would result in error ([0006] of Hirai). Thus, when there is no corresponding crystal axis information detected to detected information from the barcode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the controllers (C1/C2) to issue an error to prevent the wafer from being implanted in an non-optimal orientation, thus preventing manufacturing errors. Moreover as evidenced by JPH01170013 it was known that if a recognition error occurs (i.e. indicating the wrong order or in the case of Hirai failed to perform XRD) a buzzer sounds to give warning so that processing in an incorrect order is prevented (see page 5, first four lines of ‘013).
Claim 18 is commensurate in scope with claims 1 and 7 and taught in the citations discussed herein above.
Regarding claim 19, Ikejiri in view of Hirai teach a second controller (C1 interpreted as second controller in Hirai) dedicated to the ion implanter ([0040]), wherein the controller forwards the orientation information to the second controller to control the platen ([0045] information may be stored in advance in controller C1 and/or C2 and based on the information of the cassette or wafer read from the barcode, the controller C1 and/or the controller c2 may read out the crystal axis information stored. That is, this teaching suggests C1 may store the crystal axis information and C2 may read out the crystal axis information based on the information from the barcode. In order to read out from C2, C1 must forward the orientation information to C2. Note, paragraph [0041] teaches C1outputs angle information to C2, thus suggesting ability to output measured crystal orientation to C2).
Regarding claim 20 is taught as above in the citations discussed in claims 1 and 9 discussed above.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (JP2021120944)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 10 July 2025 in the parent application 18/091,041) in view of Hirai et al. (US pgPub 2024/0404787) and further in view of JPH01170013 (herein ‘013)(machine translation and publication submitted with the office action of 10 July 2025 in the parent application 18/091,041).
Regarding claim 9, Hirai teaches a manual barcode reading or automatic, wherein “In the manual case, an operator of the ion implanter IM may read the barcode with a scanner. In the automatic case, when the cassette is installed in the ion implanter IM, the barcode is read by a sensor/barcode reader in the installation position of the cassette” ([0045]). That is, in the manual case the reader is located outside of the chamber (i.e. in order for the operator to read the barcode with the scanner and not destroy the vacuum of the ion implanter) and in the automatic case the barcode is read after installed in the ion implanter (i.e. in process chamber 8). In otherwords, Hirai envisioned either a reader inside the process chamber or outside.
However, Ikejiri in view of Hirai fail to teach two readers, thus fail to disclose an additional reader disposed in the EFEM or in the process chamber.
However, ‘013 teaches an additional reader disposed in the EFEM or in the process chamber (fig. 3 shows an additional optical reader 41 on robot arm 21 of the interpreted EFEM chamber (room where robot 21 is located) in addition to process reader 4).
‘013 modifies the combined device by providing two optical readers one without the chamber and one within a chamber.
Since both inventions are directed towards wafer/cassette identification via barcodes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an additional reader so as to check that the cassettes/wafers are in the correct order at later points during the processing procedure by comparison of previously recorrd3ed cassette processing order (see page 6, lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 13, Ikejiri in view of Hirai teach wherein the workpiece is disposed in a cassette (implicitly to wafers and cassettes in paragraphs [0044]-[0045]) wherein, after the orientation information is determined for all workpiece in the cassette, the cassette is transferred from the XRD station to the EFEM, the unique workpiece identifier is detected by the additional reader in the EFEM or in the process chamber ,and transmitted to the central controller (same rational as claim 10 above, wherein paragraphs [0044]-[0045] teach a cassette or wafer suggesting all the workpiece in the cassette).
The combined device differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing the reader detects a cassette number and the cassette number is combined with a slot number to create the unique workpiece identifier.
However ‘013 teaches the reader detects a cassette number and the cassette number is combined with a slot number to create the unique workpiece identifier (fig. 1 shows cassette 1 having barcode a and wafer 2 having barcode a, wherein page 8, first full paragraph of the machine translation teaches an optical information processing device (i.e. reader) may be used to irradiate laser light onto identification parts on the wafer, such as a combination of their positions, to identify the wafer and transport it…since the cassette and the wafer are provided with recognizable identification parts, the wafers can be processed in the correct order in the sequential processing steps without being out of order” That is, the cassette number is combined with a slot number (i.e. combination of positions within cassette) to create the unique workpiece identifier (i.e. recognizable identification parts recognized by optical information processing device) so that wafers can be processed in the correct order with a history of their processing).
Since both inventions are directed towards ion implantation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a barcode to both the wafer and the cassette so as to create a unique identifier (i.e. recognizable identification parts which is a combination of slot number and cassette number because combination of wafer positions is disclosed to be an identification part on the wafer and the wafers are within the cassette) because it would ensure the wafers are processed in the correct order and their history is accurately recorded (see page 8).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikejiri et al. (JP2021120944)(copy of publication and machine translation submitted with the office action of 10 July 2025 in the parent application 18/091,041) in view of Hirai et al. (US pgPub 2024/0404787) in view of Zhang (US pgPub 2016/0077025) (submitted with IDS) and further in view of JPH01170013.
Regarding claim 14, Ikejiri in view of Hirai et al. fails to disclose a second XRD station located outside the EFEM and the process chamber.
However, Zhang teaches a second XRD station located outside the EFEM and the process chamber (fig. 1 shows 180 in 110 (a metrology chamber) and 180 in 130 (a factory interface), wherein 105 and 104 are interpreted as the respective EFEM and process chambers, thus both metrology tools 180 (i.e. XRD) are located outside of both).
Zhang modifies the combined device by suggesting multiple locations for the x-ray metrology tool.
Since both inventions are directed towards taking x-ray diffraction measurements in an ion implantation device, it would have been obvious to provide the additional XRD device of Zhang in the combined device because decisions can be made as to whether additional processing may be needed throughout the processing procedure ([0021]).
While Zhang teaches a robot 140 to move a wafer from one location to the next (i.e. including the metrology chamber 110), the combined device differs from the claimed invention by not disclosing a second reader associated with the second XRD station to determine a unique workpiece identifier; and wherein the central controller in communication with the second reader and the second XRD station, so as to receive the unique workpiece identifier and associate orientation information with that unique workpiece identifier.
However, ‘013 teaches a robot 21 with a second optical information processing device (i.e. reader) 41.
‘013 modifies the combined device by suggesting appending a second optical information processing device to the robot of the combined device.
Since both inventions are directed towards moving substrates from one location to another in a processing device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attach a second reader to the robot of the combined device because it would allow for ensuring the wafers are in the correct order throughout the processing.
It is noted that the combination would naturally result in the second reader associated with the second XRD station to determine a unique workpiece identifier because Haria already discloses communication between the XRD station and a central controller as discussed above, therefore the modification would naturally result in the communication between the second XRD station of Zhang and the second reader of ‘013. Moreover, the combination would naturally result in the central controller in communication with the second reader and the second XRD station, so as to receive the unique workpiece identifier and associate orientation information with that unique workpiece identifier because that is the express purpose of Haria, therefore the duplication of the XRD and reader as suggested by Zhang in view of ‘013 would result in the controller C1/C2 of Haria generating a unique identifier associated with the crystal axis orientation to the second XRD and reader. MPEP 2112 (IV) recites: “the court stated that a proper finding of inherency does not require that all limitations are taught in a single reference, and that inherency may meet a missing claim limitation when the limitation is "the natural result of the combination of prior art elements." Here, since the claim limitations would be the natural result of the combination of references, these limitations are considered inherent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights