DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1; the variables n, N1 and N2 are not defined in the claim and it is unclear to what value these variables correspond.
Regarding claims 2-4; these claims inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5; the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 6-12; these claims inherit the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13; the variables B, T, and
g
→
are not defined in the claim and it is unclear to what value these variables correspond.
Regarding claim 14; the variable αi is not defined in the claim and it is unclear to what value this variable corresponds.
Regarding claim 15; the variable k is not defined in the claim and it is unclear to what value this variable corresponds.
Regarding claim 16; the variables k and N’ are not defined in the claim and it is unclear to what value these variables correspond.
Regarding claim 17; claim 17 inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18; claim 18 recites a “bulge-shaped function”. Since a bulge may have any number of specific shapes, it is unclear what specific shape would be considered “bulge-shaped”, as claimed.
Regarding claim 19; the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 20; the variables n, N1 and N2 are not defined in the claim and it is unclear to what value these variables correspond.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1; Campbell et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,625,398 discloses a system for non-destructive characterization of specimens, the system comprising: an electron beam (e-beam) source for projecting e-beams at one or more e-beam landing energies on a specimen being tested (“scanning a sample with an electron beam to gather an energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) spectrum for an energy level to determine element composition across an area of interest” [Abstract]); an X-ray detector for sensing X-rays emitted from the tested specimen (“An EDS detector may be employed for elemental analysis to analyze an intensity and spectrum of electron-induced luminescence in specimens” [col. 1; lines 26-28]); and processing circuitry configured to: receive from the X-ray detector X-ray measurement data pertaining to one or more e-beam landing energies (“The energy exchange between the electron beam 18 and the sample 16 results in the reflection of high-energy electrons by elastic scattering, emission of secondary electrons by inelastic scattering and the emission of electromagnetic radiation (including X-rays), each of which can be detected by specialized detectors including EDS detectors 22” [col. 6; lines 59-65]). However, there is no explicit disclosure of extracting from the X-ray measurement data a vector specifying values of key features of the X-ray measurement data and estimating values of one or more structural parameters of the tested specimen based on the claimed relation.
Kooijman et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0322194 discloses a system for non-destructive characterization of specimens, the system comprising: processing circuitry (“Processor 1120 can comprise a computer processor” [0033]) configured to: extract from X-ray measurement data, received from an X-ray detector (“When the electrons in the electron beam strike sample 1102, the sample gives off low energy secondary electrons, back-scattered electrons, and x-rays whose energy correlates to the elements in the sample… Emitted x-rays are collected by x-ray detector 1140, preferably an energy dispersive detector of the silicon drift detector type, although other types of detectors could be employed, which generate a signal having an amplitude proportional to the energy of the detected x-ray” [0032]), a vector specifying values of key features of the X-ray measurement data (“multiple localized scans, and their various coordinates and calculated normal vectors, provide sufficient data to characterize the size, contours, and topology of the target feature, and may further provide enough scan data through the saved detector output data of each localized circular scan to provide the desired analytical insights needed to characterize the feature” [0048]). However, Kooijman does not disclose estimating values of one or more structural parameters of the tested specimen based on the claimed relation.
The prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the other claim limitations, a system for non-destructive characterization of specimens, the system comprising: processing circuitry configured to: extract from X-ray measurement data, received from an X-ray detector pertaining to one or more electron beam landing energies on a specimen being tested, a vector specifying values of key features of the X-ray measurement data and estimate values of one or more structural parameters of the tested specimen based on the claimed relation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-1489. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM-5:00PM 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, 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.
/JASON L MCCORMACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2881