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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the objection to the Title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the objections to the Abstract and Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 3 of Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 15 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 of Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant removed the term “about” from claim 7. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented in the prior Office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 of Remarks, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The Examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument that none of the references applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 teach “the first region has a different cross-sectional area than the second region and the first region is wholly within [the] second region.” The rejections have been withdrawn. Applicant’s remaining arguments concerning rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should recite “is wholly within the second region” instead of “is wholly within second region” as written. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
“an image output unit configured to output an inspection image for an inspection target including an oxide semiconductor” in claims 1 and 6-13;
“a storage unit configured to store a plurality of reference images and a plurality of reference data indicating oxygen vacancy distribution which are generated through an artificial neural network” in claims 1 and 6-13;
“a neural network processing unit configured to compare the inspection image with the reference images and select a selection reference image corresponding to the inspection image, and output an oxygen vacancy distribution image based on selection reference data corresponding to the selection reference image” in claims 1 and 6-13; and
“a detection unit configured to detect whether the inspection target is defective based on the oxygen vacancy distribution image” in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As currently amended, the inspection device of claim 1 describes the “comparison data” as a structural component of the inspection device itself in the same manner as the image output unit, storage unit and neural network processing unit. Data only has physical structure when it is retained in some kind of storage medium and the claims do not specify where the comparison data is stored. Therefore, the Examiner cannot suitably define the metes and bounds of claim 1. For purposes of applying prior art, claim 1 is interpreted to describe generating the reference images and the reference data by learning (i) comparison images for a plurality of comparison targets comprising an oxide semiconductor and (ii) the comparison data indicating oxygen vacancy distributions. Dependent claims 6-13 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the objection for minor informalities set forth in this Office action. Claims 6-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the objection to claim 1 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection to claim 14 for minor informalities set forth in this Office action. Dependent claims 17-20 are objected to for depending on claim 14, but otherwise containing allowable subject matter. Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection to claim 14 for minor informalities set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights