CTNF 18/593,000 CTNF 96830 DETAILED ACTION 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. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0036] and [0037] refer to ‘θ’ and ‘T1’, however, Fig. 4 shows only ‘θ1’ and ‘T’; Examiner suggests either indicating a correspondence between ‘θ’ and ‘T1’ and ‘θ1’ and ‘T’, or maintaining a consistent item number, each; Fig. 11 and the related description in [0067]-[0071] use different item identifiers for the pillars, P1-P12 and PL1-PL12, respectively; Consistent item identifiers should be used, either by altering the figure or the supporting text; [0084] recites “a predetermined number of random numbers X. The random number X is…”, which makes the item identifier X unclear, as to whether it refers to a single random number or a predetermined number of random numbers (i.e., a plurality); Item identifiers should clearly correspond as necessary and be varied appropriately for different items; [0085] recites “In order to avoid duplication of the extracted indexes ID, when the index ID extracted by…”, which makes the item identifier ID unclear, because ID was previously used to refer to all of the indexes, not a particular index, nor the extracted indexes; Item identifiers should clearly correspond as necessary and be varied appropriately for different items; Fig. 10, step 9 and the description in [0090]-[0092] are unclear; The step refers to determining whether the average value of the calculated dimensions of the pillar PL1 is within a reference range, which is indicated previously as being based on design information, however, [0091] states that when it is determined that the average value is not within the reference range, S9 goes to YES, but this does not make sense; The answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘is the value within the reference range’ (i.e., S9 in the Fig.), would appear to indicate that the average value is within the reference range, not that it is not within the reference range. Furthermore, if the dimensions are within the reference range, it is unclear why such a substrate would be excluded, as this would appear to indicate no abnormality , and rather indicate that the pillar in question corresponds to the range based on the design information; These apparent discrepancies should be ameliorated in the specification and/or drawings, as appropriate . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1, 3, and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 7, 8, and 9 each make some reference to ‘irradiating a sample with a charged particle or an electromagnetic wave’, however, in order to acquire image data of a target pattern, it would appear that a plurality of charged particles or EM waves would be necessary, as data is plural; Examiner suggest that this limitation read ‘…with a plurality of charged particles or electromagnetic waves…’; Claim 3 recites “the measurement data is acquired for each of the plurality of target patterns”, however, claim 2 refers to ‘a plurality of pieces of measurement data’, and thus, while definite, it is somewhat unclear what measurement data is being referred to, and how many are intended to be required; Examiner suggests: ‘wherein the acquiring the plurality of pieces of measurement data further comprises acquiring a plurality of pieces of measurement data for each of the plurality of target patterns…’ . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 1-14 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. The method claims (i.e., 1-6 and 9-14) frequently change from active to passive voice in a manner that makes it unclear what steps are and are not required by the claims. Each and every method step that is intended to be required by the claim needs to be positively recited as such. For example, claim 1 recites ‘generating, based on a weighting table, in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other and stored, and the first contour point group data and the second contour point group data, according to the weight’, which makes it unclear which elements of ‘based on a weighting table, in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other and stored’ are required to be performed as a part of the method, and which are intended to be performed/determined/calculated prior/outside of the method. Each step that is intended to be a part of the method(s) should be clearly indicated as such, so that the metes and bounds of the claims can be clearly defined. While the device claim has similar issues, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of such functional limitations in a device claim are merely structure capable of performing such functionality. Accordingly, while claim 7 is indefinite (see discussion below) because it has clarity issues with the intended functionality, the required structure appears to be clear. These claims have additional similar issues, which need be ameliorated such that the metes and bounds of the claims can be clearly and distinctly understood. Claim 1 recites “…generating first contour point group data in which location information of a contour point of the target pattern extracted based on the image data and an index related to an orientation angle of a line connecting a center of the target pattern and the contour point from a reference line passing through the center of the target pattern are associated with each other…”; These limitations are not understood under plain reading, either individually or as a whole, and thus it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim. First, ‘location information of a contour point of the target pattern’ is not required to be extracted or generated previously in the claim. Additionally, it would appear based on what is supported by Applicant’s disclosure that location information of the contour point is extracted from the image data. Furthermore, it is not clear what elements are intended to be referred to in the limitation ‘…are associated with each other’. Finally, it is unclear how ‘first contour point group data’ is produced for a single contour point, as it would appear that a plurality of contour points could be necessary in order to produce data, which is plural. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Claim 1 recites “…generating, based on a weighting table, in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other and stored, and the first contour point group data and the second contour point group data, according to the weight.” These limitations are not understood under plain reading, either individually or as a whole, and thus it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim. First, the claim recites ‘generating,…’ but never recites what is generated. Second, the claim does not require acquiring/determining/assigning/calculating a weighting table. Additionally, “the index and weight” lacks antecedent basis because no weight is previously discussed in the claims. Further, the claim does not previously require determining weight and/or index based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point. It is additionally not clear from the wording whether ‘determined based on a standard deviation’ is intended to refer to both the index and weight, or just to weight. The claim also does not previously require determining a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern in any direction, let alone specifically in a direction of the orientation angle. Furthermore, it is not clear what elements are intended to be referred to in the limitation ‘…are associated with each other and stored’. Finally, the limitations “…and the first contour point group data and the second contour point group data, according to the weight.” appear to be unconnected to the rest of the claim and it is wholly unclear what is intended, as ‘the second contour point group data’ lacks antecedent basis, nothing is modifying ‘and the first contour point group data and the second contour point group data’, and nothing appears to be required to be done ‘according to the weight’. It appears the claim has had several typographical/drafting errors which resulted in omissions of key claim elements. Because of these issues, it is wholly unclear what is required by these limitations, and combined with the issues with the previous clauses of the claim, what is required by the claim as a whole. Claim 2 recites “…wherein the generating the second contour point group data according to the weight includes (i) generating a random number based on the weight, (ii) repeatedly extracting the index corresponding to the random number from the weighting table, and (iii) generating a plurality of pieces of second contour point group data using the location information of the contour point corresponding to the extracted index among the first contour point group data…”. First, claim 1 does not previously require generating second contour point group data, let alone according to the weight, which lacks antecedent basis. Second, it is unclear how a plurality of data would be generated according to a single weight, or how a random number is generated ‘based on’ the weight, or what such limitations would require. Additionally, it is unclear what ‘the index corresponding to the random number from the weighting table’ requires, as the random number and weighting table have not been previously required to be associated in any way. Further, it is unclear how one would repeatedly extract the same index and not achieve the same data repeatedly, and thus how one would extract a single index and achieve a plurality of pieces of second contour point group data. It is also unclear what is intended by ‘the extracted index among the first contour point group data’, as the index was previously required to be repeatedly extracted, and ‘among’ does not indicate a clear relationship between the index and the data. Accordingly, it is not clear what is required by these steps, which appear to be modifying a method step that is not required by the claim upon which it depends. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Claim 3 recites “…a degree of dispersion for each of the plurality of target patterns and the representative value are acquired based on the measurement data, a predetermined number of target patterns are selected from the plurality of target patterns in ascending order of the acquired degree of dispersion, and a measurement value of the observation region is calculated from the representative value of the selected target pattern.” First, it is unclear whether ‘a degree of dispersion for’ is intended to refer to ‘each of the plurality of target patterns and the representative value’ or only to ‘each of the plurality of target patterns’. It is also unclear if the representative value is acquired, or only the degree of dispersion. Because of these clarity issues, it is also unclear what ‘based on the measurement data’ is intended to point to. Examiner notes the above objection regarding ‘the measurement data’. Additionally, “the acquired degree of dispersion” in the subsequent clause is unclear because of the above issues. It is further unclear what ‘are selected…in ascending order of the acquired degree of dispersion’ requires. Finally, “the selected target pattern” lacks antecedent basis, as the claims previously require ‘ a predetermined number of target pattern s ’ ( Emphases added by Examiner ), and no particular target pattern is indicated as selected. Accordingly, it is unclear what measurement value is calculated. As such, it is unclear what is required by the claim as a whole, and it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Claim 6 recites “wherein the extracting the index corresponding to the random number…”, however, claim 6 recites repeatedly extracting. Additionally, claim 6 has similar issues as previously discussed regarding what limitations alternating between active and passive voice require. Accordingly, it is unclear what is required by the extracting step. First, ‘accumulated weight’ does not make sense, since ‘weight’ lacks antecedent basis in claims 1 and 2. Additionally, the claim does not require assigning accumulated weight for each of the indexes, and the claims do not previously recite a plurality of indexes. Furthermore, it is unclear how collating accumulated weight…in an order could be possible for a repeated extraction of a single index, as discussed in regards to previous claims. The claim also recites ‘with the random number generated based on a total of the weight’, which is unclear, because the claims previously recite ‘generating a random number based on the weight’ (which is indefinite for plural reasons as discussed previously), and thus it is unclear what ‘a total of the weight’ is for a single index and single weight, and how the random number could be generated based thereon. Finally, the claim recites “extracting…the index corresponding to the accumulated weight including the random number”, which is unclear because it is ambiguous and because of the previously discussed issues regarding the accumulated weight. The limitation is ambiguous because it could reasonably be interpreted as ‘extracting…the index corresponding to the accumulated weight that includes the random number’ or as ‘extracting…the index corresponding to the accumulated weight, the extracting including the random number’. As such, it is unclear what is required by the claim as a whole, and it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Claim 7 recites “…a first contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate first contour point group data in which location information of a contour point of the target pattern extracted based on the image data and an index related to an orientation angle of a line connecting a center of the target pattern and the contour point from a reference line passing through the center of the target pattern are associated with each other; a memory configured to store a weighting table in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other…”, which is indefinite for substantially similar reasons to claim 1 with regards to the clarity and antecedent basis issues of the language of the claim. In the case of claim 7, this merely renders indefinite the capabilities requires by the device, as the BRI of the claim appears to be clear regarding structural elements, which is limited to: “an image acquisition circuit configured to acquire image data”, “a first contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate first contour point group data”, “a memory configured to store a weighting table”, and “a second contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate second contour point group data”. Claim 7 recites “a second contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate second contour point group data according to the weight based on the weighting table, and the first contour point group data”. This limitation is indefinite because “the weight” is indefinite as discussed previously. Additionally, ‘based on the weighting table, and the first contour point group data’ is unclear because of the comma, which makes ‘and the first contour point group data’ appear detached from the claim, obscuring its meaning. Presumably this is intended to be included in ‘according to’ or ‘based on’, however, it is not immediately clear which. As such, the limitation is not understood upon plain reading, and it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Claim 8 recites the limitations “…generating first contour point group data in which location information of a contour point of the target pattern extracted based on the image data and an index related to an orientation angle of a line connecting a center of the target pattern and the contour point from a reference line passing through the center of the target pattern are associated with each other; generating, based on a weighting table in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other and stored, and the first contour point group data, and the second contour point group data, according to the weight…”, which are unclear for substantially similar reasons to claim 1 discussed above. Additionally, claim 8 recites “…determining whether measurement data of the target pattern acquired based on the second contour point group data is within a reference range; and changing the formation condition of the target pattern to an appropriate condition based on the measurement data when it is determined that the measurement data is not within the reference range…”. First, “the second contour point group data” lacks antecedent basis in the claim and thus “determining whether measurement data of the target pattern acquired based on the second contour point group data” is indefinite. Additionally, no measurement data is previously required to be acquired in the claim, so making determinations as to whether such data is within a reference range does not make sense. The following limitation is indefinite because it refers to the measurement data, and because ‘when it is determined…’ is a conditional limitation without any requirement that the condition be satisfied, and as such, it is unclear whether such a limitation would be required. Examiner suggests the phrasing ‘in response to determining that…’, rather than ‘when it is determined that’, which clearly specifies a functional relationship between the determination and the resultant action. As such, it is unclear what is required by the claim as a whole, and it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Claims 9-11 and 14 are indefinite for substantially similar reasons to those of claims 1-3 and 6, respectively. See above discussion of claims 1-3 and 6. Claim 12 refers to “the representative value”, however, claim 12 depends only on claim 9, and ‘a representative value’ is recited in claim 10. Accordingly, the term lacks antecedent basis in the claims. This claim is interpreted as depending on claim 10. Claim 13 refers to “the degree of dispersion”, however, claim 13 depends on claims 9-10, and ‘a degree of dispersion’ is recited in claim 11. Accordingly, the term lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. 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 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because, for example, claim 1 requires “acquiring image data…”, “generating first contour point group data…”, and “generating…according to the weight”, which respectively amount to routine data gathering, data manipulation and/or data calculations, and (presumably, the scope of the claim is not understood) further data manipulation and/or data calculations. The method does not perform any tangible action, does not have any output, and as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, does not perform any function other than to generate data based on pre-measured gathered input data, and performs various operations on the data, without outputting any result, or performing any tangible action as a result thereof. See MPEP 2106.I The remaining elements of claim 1 are details of the data manipulations and/or calculations. Claim 9 has the additional limitation “A non-transitory storage medium storing a program, which when executed by a computer, performs a pattern shape measurement method…”, however, this amounts to requiring generic computer equipment to store a program, which performs the method that, as discussed above, performs no tangible actions, as it merely takes in pre-measured data, and performs various operations on the data, without outputting any result, or performing any tangible action as a result thereof. Dependent claims 2-6 and 10-14 only recite further details of the methods of generating the data by manipulating/performing calculations on the pre-measured input data. Claim 7 requires physical structure in the form of “an image acquisition circuit configured to acquire image data”, “a first contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate first contour point group data”, “a memory configured to store a weighting table”, and “a second contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate second contour point group data”, which Examiner interprets as requiring (i) some sort of circuitry capable of acquiring data, (ii) some sort of circuitry capable of generating data, (iii) some sort of memory storage device capable of storing a table, and (iv) some sort of circuitry capable of generating data. Examiner notes that these elements are not required to be embodied in separate physical elements, and under the BRI, the structures of the required elements are not particularly limited. However, this clearly belongs to a statutory category. Similarly, claim 8 requires tangible actions to be taken, including forming a target pattern on a substrate, irradiating the substate and imaging the target pattern, performing data manipulations/calculations to determine some kind of value (which, at present is not understood), and changing a formation condition of the target pattern as a result of the (presently not understood) value. This clearly belongs to a statutory category, and requires tangible action to be taken (even if the action is not presently, fully understood). Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as failing to claim statutory subject matter. Examiner note with respect to Prior Art Rejections Examiner notes that due to the nature and quantity of indefiniteness issues identified above, including clearly unintentional omissions from the independent claims that wholly obscure key steps, and due to the above subject matter eligibility issues, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds in a manner that would allow a precise examination of the claims. Accordingly, the following prior art mapping is performed as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hitomi (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20110208477 A1) . Examiner notes that Hitomi is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 03/11/2024. Regarding claim 1 , as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Hitomi teaches a pattern shape measurement method (See Figs. 2-6, 9; Background; [0013]-[0016]) comprising: acquiring image data of a target pattern obtained by irradiating an observation region of a sample with a charged particle or an electromagnetic wave (See Figs. 2-6, 9; Background; [0013]-[0016]; [0036]) ; generating first contour point group data in which location information of a contour point of the target pattern extracted based on the image data and an index related to an orientation angle of a line connecting a center of the target pattern and the contour point from a reference line passing through the center of the target pattern are associated with each other (See Figs. 1-5, 8; [0036]-[0041]; In particular see Fig. 2, showing equivalent of contour points, having indices, and having their coordinates based on the center point of the pattern, which is mathematically equivalent to a line connecting the two points ) ; and generating, based on a weighting table, in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other and stored, and the first contour point group data and the second contour point group data, according to the weight (See Fig. 6; [0042]-[0059]; Uses standard deviation of position of equivalent of contour points, generates further data therefrom, i.e., by limiting/choosing data ; Data corresponding the indices and standard deviations is interpreted as a weighting table where the weight is based on a standard deviation ) . Similarly, regarding claim 9 , as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Hitomi teaches a non-transitory storage medium storing a program, which when executed by a computer, performs a pattern shape measurement method (See Fig. 3; [0013]-[0016]; [0036]-[0041]) comprising: acquiring image data of a target pattern obtained by irradiating an observation region of a sample with a charged particle or an electromagnetic wave (See Figs. 2-6, 9; Background; [0013]-[0016]; [0036]) ; generating first contour point group data in which location information of a contour point of the target pattern extracted based on the image data and an index related to an orientation angle of a line connecting a center of the target pattern and the contour point from a reference line passing through the center of the target pattern are associated with each other (See Figs. 1-5, 8; [0036]-[0041]; In particular see Fig. 2, showing equivalent of contour points, having indices, and having their coordinates based on the center point of the pattern, which is mathematically equivalent to a line connecting the two points ) ; and generating, based on a weighting table, in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other and stored, and the first contour point group data and the second contour point group data, according to the weight (See Fig. 6; [0042]-[0059]; Uses standard deviation of position of equivalent of contour points, generates further data therefrom, i.e., by limiting/choosing data ; Data corresponding the indices and standard deviations is interpreted as a weighting table where the weight is based on a standard deviation ) . Regarding claim 7 , as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Hitomi teaches a pattern shape measurement device (Abstract; Fig. 3; [0013]-[0016]) comprising: an image acquisition circuit configured to acquire image data of a target pattern obtained by irradiating an observation region of a sample with a charged particle or an electromagnetic wave (See Figs. 2-6, 9; Background; [0013]-[0016]; [0036]) ; a first contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate first contour point group data in which location information of a contour point of the target pattern extracted based on the image data and an index related to an orientation angle of a line connecting a center of the target pattern and the contour point from a reference line passing through the center of the target pattern are associated with each other (See Figs. 1-5, 8; [0036]-[0041], i.e. calculation unit; In particular see Fig. 2, showing equivalent of contour points, having indices, and having their coordinates based on the center point of the pattern, which is mathematically equivalent to a line connecting the two points ) ; a memory configured to store a weighting table in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other (See Figs. 1-5, 8; [0036]-[0041], i.e., calculation unit has memory in which indices are assigned to contour points, and wherein standard deviations are calculated, which inherently has some memory ; In particular see Fig. 2, showing equivalent of contour points, having indices, and having their coordinates based on the center point of the pattern, which is mathematically equivalent to a line connecting the two points ; Data corresponding the indices and standard deviations is interpreted as a weighting table where the weight is based on a standard deviation ) ; and a second contour point group data generation circuit configured to generate second contour point group data according to the weight based on the weighting table, and the first contour point group data (See Fig. 6; [0042]-[0059], i.e., calculation unit; Uses standard deviation of position of equivalent of contour points, generates further data therefrom, i.e., by limiting/choosing data ) . Regarding claim 8 , as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Hitomi teaches a manufacturing method of a semiconductor device (Abstract; Background) comprising: forming a target pattern on a substrate in a predetermined formation condition (Abstract; Background) ; irradiating an observation region of the substrate with a charged particle or an electromagnetic wave and imaging the target pattern with an imaging device (Abstract; Background; See Figs. 2-6, 9; [0013]-[0016]; [0036]) ; acquiring image data of the imaged target pattern (Background; See Figs. 2-6, 9; [0013]-[0016]; [0036]) ; generating first contour point group data in which location information of a contour point of the target pattern extracted based on the image data and an index related to an orientation angle of a line connecting a center of the target pattern and the contour point from a reference line passing through the center of the target pattern are associated with each other (See Figs. 1-5, 8; [0036]-[0041]; In particular see Fig. 2, showing equivalent of contour points, having indices, and having their coordinates based on the center point of the pattern, which is mathematically equivalent to a line connecting the two points ) ; generating, based on a weighting table in which the index and weight determined based on a standard deviation of location information of the contour point of the target pattern present in a direction of the orientation angle are associated with each other and stored, and the first contour point group data, and the second contour point group data, according to the weight (See Fig. 6; [0042]-[0059]; Uses standard deviation of position of equivalent of contour points, generates further data therefrom, i.e., by limiting/choosing data ; Data corresponding the indices and standard deviations is interpreted as a weighting table where the weight is based on a standard deviation ) ; determining whether measurement data of the target pattern acquired based on the second contour point group data is within a reference range (See Fig. 6; [0042]-[0059]; Hitomi teaching altering the patterns after a portion is distinguished by the data analysis and imaging is interpreted as reading on determining whether measurement data of the pattern is within a reference range (i.e., a portion is determined not to be, and is excluded )) ; and changing the formation condition of the target pattern to an appropriate condition based on the measurement data when it is determined that the measurement data is not within the reference range ( Hitomi does not explicitly teach changing the formation condition of the target pattern, however, in Hitomi, some of the measurement data is determined to be within the reference range, and as such, changing the formation condition is not required under the BRI ) . Remaining Claims As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above , no prior art of record or that searched, whether alone or in combination, teaches each and every limitation of claims 2 and 10. Examiner notes that the use of random numbers to select portions of data is represented in the prior art of record and that searched, including in the same field of endeavor. However, as best understood, the prior art fails to teach the specific correspondence of the random number, the index, and the weight in order to generate additional data in the particular manner required. However, the claims stand as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 3-6 each depend on claim 2, and claims 12 (as interpreted) and 13-14 each depend on claim 10, and thus, the prior art similarly fails to disclose each and every limitation of these dependent claims. As best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above , no prior art of record or that searched, whether alone or in combination, teaches each and every limitation of claim 11. While the prior art discloses acquiring a degree of dispersion for a target pattern, and measuring a plurality of target patterns, however, the prior art fails to disclose “a predetermined number of target patterns are selected from the plurality of target patterns in ascending order of the acquired degree of dispersion, and a measurement value of the observation region is calculated from the representative value of the selected target pattern”, as the prior art of record and that searched fails to explicitly disclose selecting a predetermined number of a plurality of target patterns in ascending order of the acquired degree of dispersion , nor calculating a value from a representative value of the selected target patterns. However, the claim stands as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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 H 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. /CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 2 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 3 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 4 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 5 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 6 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 7 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 8 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 9 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 10 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 11 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 12 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 13 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 14 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 15 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 16 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 17 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 18 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 19 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 20 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 21 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 22 Art Unit: 2881 Application/Control Number: 18/593,000 Page 23 Art Unit: 2881
Prosecution Insights