Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/453,978

DIFFERENTIAL PHASE CONTRAST MICROANALYSIS USING ENERGY LOSS SPECTROMETERS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Aug 22, 2023
Examiner
KALISZEWSKI, ALINA ROSE
Art Unit
2881
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Fei Company
OA Round
2 (Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
38 granted / 47 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
92
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.1%
+14.1% vs TC avg
§102
15.8%
-24.2% vs TC avg
§112
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 47 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendments, filed 07 March 2026, with respect to the claims and the specification have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), and the objections to the drawings for failing to include reference signs mentioned in the description, have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments, filed 07 March 2026, have not resolved the objection to the listing of references in the specification, nor the objection to the drawings for including reference character(s) not mentioned in the description. See Information Disclosure Statement and Drawings below. Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. In particular, the reference cited in paragraph 0023 of the present application has not been listed in an information disclosure statement. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 2: element 260. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation “the second center of mass” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 4-14, 17-21, and 23-24 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “mapping the first center of mass of the AR-EELS image from the energy-momentum coordinate space to a momentum-momentum coordinate space” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 1. The closest prior art of record, Müller et al. (“Atomic electric fields revealed by a quantum mechanical approach to electron picodiffraction”, 2014), hereinafter Müller, teaches determining a center of mass in a momentum-momentum coordinate space (Müller, page 2, equation (1) and the surrounding paragraph). However, Müller fails to teach an energy-momentum coordinate space. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “mapping the first center of mass of the AR-EELS image from the energy-momentum coordinate space to a momentum-momentum coordinate space” as currently claimed. Claims 4-11 are allowed because of their dependence on claim 1. Claim 12 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “the first center of mass being defined for a first energy-momentum coordinate space” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 12. The closest prior art of record, Müller, teaches determining a center of mass in a momentum-momentum coordinate space (Müller, page 2, equation (1) and the surrounding paragraph). However, Müller fails to teach an energy-momentum coordinate space. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “the first center of mass being defined for a first energy-momentum coordinate space” as currently claimed. Claims 13-14 and 17-20 are allowed because of their dependence on claim 12. Claim 21 is allowed because the prior art of record fails to teach “mapping the first center of mass of the AR-EELS image from the energy-momentum coordinate space to a momentum-momentum coordinate space” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 21. The closest prior art of record, Müller, teaches determining a center of mass in a momentum-momentum coordinate space (Müller, page 2, equation (1) and the surrounding paragraph). However, Müller fails to teach an energy-momentum coordinate space. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “mapping the first center of mass of the AR-EELS image from the energy-momentum coordinate space to a momentum-momentum coordinate space” as currently claimed. Claims 23-24 are allowed because of their dependence on claim 21. Claim 22 would be allowable, because of its dependence on claim 21, if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this office action. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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. /A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 22, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 07, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 17, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597584
CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM APPARATUS AND PROCESSOR SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586768
PULSED VOLTAGE COMPENSATION FOR PLASMA PROCESSING APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586754
PHASE IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS AND PHASE IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580166
TWO STAGE ION CURRENT MEASUREMENT IN A DEVICE FOR ANALYSIS OF PLASMA PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573579
HYBRID APPARATUS, SYSTEM AND TECHNIQUES FOR MASS ANALYZED ION BEAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.1%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 47 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month