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 Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: the listed equations should not have index numbers. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-25 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, although the claim language is internally consistent, when interpreted in light of the specification the claim language becomes unclear, specifically, the limitation subtracting, by the processor, the first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements obtain a longitudinal magnetoresistance value Rxx and a transverse magnetoresistance value Rxy. Paragraphs 5, 6, 21, and 26 and figure 4 of the specification support this claim limitation. However, paragraphs 49 and 50 of the specification recite subtracting each B|| magnetoresistance Rxx and Rxy from each total magnetoresistance Rxx and Rxy at operation 140, to obtain the B⊥ magnetoresistances Rxx and Rxy, which is inconsistent with the claim language, previously mentioned paragraphs, and figure 4. Clarification on this discrepancy is required for proper interpretation. To promote compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret the claim as it is written.
Claims 10, 19, 21, and 24 are analogous to claim 1, and are therefore rejected for the same discrepancy.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20, 22-23, and 25 are rejected for their dependences on claims 1, 10, 19, 21, and 24, respectively.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method of semiconductor characterization, comprising:
receiving, at a processor communicatively coupled to a memory, first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from a sample in a parallel magnetic field, the sample comprising a first channel and a second channel;
receiving, at the processor, second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the sample in a perpendicular magnetic field;
subtracting, by the processor, the first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements obtain a longitudinal magnetoresistance value Rxx and a transverse magnetoresistance value Rxy; and
determining, based on the longitudinal magnetoresistance value Rxx and the transverse magnetoresistance value Rxy, harmonic magnetoresistance coefficients a0, a2, b1, and b3.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Additionally, Claim 19 recites “A computer program product for semiconductor characterization, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium” which is not directed toward one of the four statutory categories, as it can be considered software per se (see MPEP 2106.03 I. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations). Claim 20 is rejected for its dependence on claim 19. To promote compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the computer readable storage medium to be a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
For example, steps of “subtracting, by the processor, the first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements obtain a longitudinal magnetoresistance value Rxx and a transverse magnetoresistance value Rxy (subtraction); and
determining, based on the longitudinal magnetoresistance value Rxx and the transverse magnetoresistance value Rxy, harmonic magnetoresistance coefficients a0, a2, b1, and b3 (solving for variables)” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 10.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of semiconductor characterization, comprising:
receiving, at a processor communicatively coupled to a memory, first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from a sample in a parallel magnetic field, the sample comprising a first channel and a second channel;
receiving, at the processor, second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the sample in a perpendicular magnetic field;
Claim 10: A system for semiconductor characterization, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured perform a method comprising:
receiving first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from a sample in a parallel magnetic field, the sample comprising a first channel and a second channel;
receiving second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the sample in a perpendicular magnetic field;
Claim 19: A computer program product for semiconductor characterization, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause a device to perform a method comprising:
receiving first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from a sample in a parallel magnetic field, the sample comprising a first channel and a second channel;
receiving second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the sample in a perpendicular magnetic field.
The additional element in the preamble of “A computer-implemented method of semiconductor characterization/system for semiconductor characterization” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Receiving first longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from a sample in a parallel magnetic field, the sample comprising a first channel and a second channel; and
receiving second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance measurements from the sample in a perpendicular magnetic field represent mere data gathering steps and only add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. A memory or computer readable storage medium (generic memory) and a computer or processor (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections for claims 1-25, which will be explained in detail below.
The claimed invention, as described by representative claim 24 recites a system for semiconductor testing and characterization, comprising a testing module of dipole-line magnets, applying both parallel and perpendicular magnetic fields to measure both a longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance for both applied magnetic fields. A difference is calculated between the two magnetoresistances to determine magnetoresistance values Rxx and Rxy, which are used to determine harmonic magnetoresistance coefficients.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gunawan (US 20180095147 A1) is considered by the Examiner to be the closest prior art of record. Gunawan teaches a Hall measurement apparatus that includes two dipole line magnets (Gunawan [0024] due to ferromagnetic coupling between two dipole lines, a rotation in one dipole line will be mirrored by the other. Thus, if one cylindrical dipole line magnet 202 is employed in the system that is motor-driven, and another cylindrical dipole line magnet 204 is employed in the system that rotates freely, then the second dipole line magnet 204 always mirrors the orientation of the first dipole line magnet 202. See FIG. 2. As shown in FIG. 2, the first cylindrical dipole line magnet 202 and the second cylindrical dipole line magnet 204 produce counter-rotating fields.). Gunawan also teaches that a magnetic field is applied to a mounted sample either perpendicular or parallel, based on how the sample is mounted (Gunawan [0041] the sample stage permits the sample to be mounted in one of two orientations: perpendicular or parallel relative to the total magnetic field. When the sample is mounted perpendicular to the total magnetic field (e.g., sample is on the y-z plane in FIG. 2), Hall measurements can be made. When the sample is mounted parallel to the total magnetic field (e.g., sample is on the x-z plane in FIG. 2), PEM measurements can be made. A different sample mount is needed to mount the sample in these two orientations.), and the magnetoresistance measurements can be made with one or two channels (Gunawan [0050] The voltmeter can be made of a high precision Analog Digital Converter (ADC) chip such as a 24- to 32-bit ADC with one or two channels for simultaneous measurement of MR signals (e.g., R.sub.XY and R.sub.XX)).
Gunawan, as best understood by the Examiner, when considered alone and in combination with the remaining prior art of record, does not seem to fairly teach or suggest applying, using the dipole-line magnets, a perpendicular magnetic field at the sample in the testing module;
measuring, in the perpendicular magnetic field, a second longitudinal magnetoresistance and a second transverse magnetoresistance of the sample;
subtracting the first longitudinal magnetoresistance and the first transverse magnetoresistance from the second longitudinal magnetoresistance and the second transverse magnetoresistance to obtain longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistance values Rxx and Rxy; and
determining, based on the longitudinal magnetoresistance value Rxx and the transverse magnetoresistance value Rxy, harmonic magnetoresistance coefficients a0, a2, b1, and b3. That is, Gunawan does not seem to teach using the test system to measure both first and second longitudinal and transverse magnetoresistances, then subtracting the first two magnetoresistances from the second magnetoresistances to obtain magnetoresistances Rxx and Rxy.
Gunawan et al. (US 20160299201 A1) discloses A Rotating Magnetic Field Hall Measurement System.
Vieux-Rochaz et al. (US 6069476 A) discloses a Magnetic Field Sensor Having A Magnetoresistance Bridge With A Pair Of Magnetoresistive Elements Featuring A Plateau Effect In Their Resistance-magnetic Field Response.
Gunawan et al. (US 11835333 B2) discloses a Rotational Oscillation Sensor With A Multiple Dipole Line Trap System.
Gunawan et al. (US 11585871 B1) discloses a Rapid Carrier-resolved Photo-hall Analysis.
Sampson et al. ("Magnetoresistance Elements for the Measurement and Control of Harmonics in Superconducting Accelerator Magnets," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1157-1159, June 1975, doi: 10.1109/TNS.1975.4327834.) discloses a system for continuously monitoring the harmonic coefficients of a superconducting accelerator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2863