CTFR 18/559,162 CTFR 95621 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 amendment and response filed 4/17/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 18 pending claims. Claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 4/17/2026 regarding claims objections in claim 1, 13, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended, and the amended claims limitations overcome the claims objections. Therefore, the claims objections in claim 1, 13, and 17 have been withdrawn. 07-37 AIA Applicant’s arguments filed 4/17/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues on pages 12-14 of the remark filed on 4/17/2026 that “… The present claims are not directed to mathematics in the abstract. … Thus, the claimed mathematical relationship is applied in a specific technological environment to improve the operation and output consistency of a physical measurement system. Moreover, the claims are associated with a specific apparatus configuration and specific technical means, not a disembodied mathematical idea. … ”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “calculating a depth index value indicating a relative depth of a pattern on a sample”, “calculates the depth index value of the predetermined pattern based on a measured value extracted from an electron image formed from an output from the detection system”, “outputs the depth index value of the predetermined pattern corrected using a mathematical model to which the correction coefficient is applied”, and “applies the correction coefficient to the depth index value using the mathematical model to reduce a device difference between the reference device and the correction target device” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The applicant argues on pages 14-19 of the remark filed that “… Applicants respectfully submit that the claims are not "directed to" an abstract idea under Step 2A. Any alleged mathematical concept is integrated into a practical application through a specific SEM-based apparatus configuration and a specific technological use, namely correction of depth index values in a correction target device to reduce device difference relative to a reference device. … It is also fully consistent with Applicants' position that the invention is integrated into a practical application because it solves a concrete technical problem in semiconductor manufacturing lines, is implemented in a specific apparatus configuration, and improves the measurement system itself by unifying measurement accuracy across the production line and improving process control. … Accordingly, after amendment, the claims expressly recite a practical application of any alleged mathematical concept in a specific technological system … ”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam” is considered necessary data gathering and thus, not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., receiving data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The additional elements “a plurality of depth measurement devices, each of the plurality of depth measurement devices”; “wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam”, “a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target”, “wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and one or more correction target devices”, and “wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement of the measurement system by unifying measurement accuracy across the production line and improving process control relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. The applicant argues on pages 17-18 of the remark filed that “… Even assuming, arguendo, that the Office were to maintain that the claims are directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A, the claims are still eligible under Step 2B. Indeed, the claimed combination is directed to solving a specific technical problem in semiconductor manufacturing lines by reducing systematic measurement errors among multiple SEMs, including magnification-related and detection-gain-related differences, through a specific recipe-linked correction mechanism in a defined measurement architecture. Further, even if the Office continues to believe that the claims previously recited an abstract idea, Applicants have now amended each independent claim to recite that … ”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Significantly more can be demonstrated by additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, the claims do not recite them. The limitations of a plurality of depth measurement devices, each of the plurality of depth measurement devices”; “wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam”, “a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target”, “wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and one or more correction target devices”, and “wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe are routine in a depth measurement and a depth index calculation for measuring a depth of a pattern, particularly, a depth of a depression such as a hole or a trench; and are well-understood and conventional. Therefore, the claim 1 does not contain additional elements that are not well-understood and conventional that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 13 and 17 recite subject matter that are similar to that of claims 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18 are also patent ineligible. Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-18 are proper . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 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. As to claim 1 , the claim recites “A depth measurement system comprising a plurality of depth measurement devices, each of the plurality of depth measurement devices calculating a depth index value indicating a relative depth of a pattern on a sample , wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam, a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam, and a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target and calculates the depth index value of the predetermined pattern based on a measured value extracted from an electron image formed from an output from the detection system , wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and one or more correction target devices, and wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe and outputs the depth index value of the predetermined pattern corrected using a mathematical model to which the correction coefficient is applied , and wherein the correction target device applies the correction coefficient to the depth index value using the mathematical model to reduce a device difference between the reference device and the correction target device .” Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed 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 (apparatus for claim 1). Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type 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 that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). In claim 1, the steps identified in bold type are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be abstract idea. 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 claim comprises the following additional elements: a plurality of depth measurement devices, each of the plurality of depth measurement devices, wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam, a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam, and a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target, wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and one or more correction target devices, wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe, and wherein the correction target device. The additional element “a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam” represents necessary data gathering and does not integrate the limitation into a practical application. The additional elements “a plurality of depth measurement devices, each of the plurality of depth measurement devices”; “wherein each of the depth measurement devices includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam”, “a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target”, “wherein the plurality of depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and one or more correction target devices”, and “wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they only add insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. In addition, a generic computer is generally recited and therefore, not qualified as a particular machine. The additional elements “depth measurement devices”, “an electron optical system”; “a detection system”; and “a correction target device” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B. The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis). For example, a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam is considered necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e., obtaining data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For example, a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target is disclosed by “Doi WO 2020095346A1 (used US 20210404801 as translation)”, FIGs. 1 and 25, [0049], [0052], and [0064]; and “Shishido US 20160379798”, FIGs. 1, 2A, 11B; [0017], [0090], [0061], [0066], [0105]. The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible. Independent claims 13 and 17 recite subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claim is also patent ineligible. With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible. Examiner' s Note Regarding Claims 1-18 , the most pertinent prior arts are “Doi WO 2020095346A1 (used US 20210404801 as translation)”, “Oyama US 20130123627”, “Taddei US 20200091014”, “Shishido US 20160379798”, and “Oosaki US 20060091309”. As to claims 1, 13, and 17 , Doi teaches a depth measurement devices, the depth measurement device calculating a depth index value indicating a relative depth of a pattern on a sample (Doi, FIGs. 1-3; [0052]), wherein the depth measurement device includes an electron optical system that irradiates the sample with an electron beam (Doi, FIGs. 1-3; [0039], [0040]), a detection system that detects an emission electron emitted from the sample irradiated with the electron beam (Doi, FIGs. 1-3; [0040]), and a computer that controls the electron optical system and the detection system by executing a depth measurement recipe that is an operation program measuring a depth of a predetermined pattern in a measurement target (Doi, FIGs. 1 and 25; [0049], [0052], and [0064]) and calculates the depth index value of the predetermined pattern based on a measured value extracted from an electron image formed from an output from the detection system (Doi, FIGs. 11B, 12A, 12B; [0035] and [0049]; FIGS. 1 to 4; [0117]). Oyama teaches wherein the depth measurement devices are classified into one reference device and one or more correction target devices (Oyama, [0020], [0061], [0118]). Taddei teaches plurality of depth measurement devices (Taddei, [0108]), and wherein the computer of the correction target device stores a correction coefficient associated with the depth measurement recipe (Taddei, [0101], [0115], [0170], [0197], [0241]). However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “the computer of the correction target device outputs the depth index value of the predetermined pattern corrected using a mathematical model to which the correction coefficient is applied”; “wherein the correction target device applies the correction coefficient to the depth index value using the mathematical model to reduce a device difference between the reference device and the correction target device” including all limitations as claimed. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1, 13, and 17. Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 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, Catherine T 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. /LAL CE MANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/559,162 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights