DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. This Office Action is in response to the reply to Election of Species filed on 7/13/26. The applicant elected species II claims 4-7.
III. Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined, where claims 4 and 6 is/are rejected, claim 5 and 7 is/are objected. Claims 1-3 and 8-13 are withdrawn. Explanations will be provided below.
IV. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
V. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 4-7 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “a classification scheme matching unit configured to match the SADP classification scheme with a classification scheme in crystallography, wherein the classification scheme in crystallography includes space groups and information concerning zone axes, and labels in the SADP classification scheme are one-to-one matched with the space groups or the labels are matched with the space groups in one-to-multi relation” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of classification scheme in crystallography, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
[2] 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 4-7 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(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.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under U.S.C. 102(b)(1) as being anticipated by Aguiar et al (J. A. Aguiar et al. ,Decoding crystallography from high-resolution electron imaging and diffraction datasets with deep learning.Sci. Adv.5,eaaw1949, 2019).
Regarding claim 4, Aguiar discloses a classification system comprising:
a diffraction pattern analyzing unit configured to generate a selected area diffraction pattern (SADP) classification scheme having multiple labels in two-dimensional (2D) pattern by grouping SADP images photographed by a transmission electron microscope (TEM) according to specific reference (See Results section, the images are captured by STEM and see figure 1 description, where on the basis of either electron diffraction or FFT of an atomic image, a two-dimensional azimuthal integration translates this information into a relevant one-dimensional diffraction intensity profile from which the relative peak positions in reciprocal space can be indexed. arb. units, arbitrary units); and
PNG
media_image1.png
98
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
96
1229
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a classification scheme matching unit configured to match the SADP classification scheme with a classification scheme in crystallography (see figure 1, classification grouping is read as the classification scheme),
PNG
media_image3.png
267
925
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the classification scheme in crystallography includes space groups and information concerning zone axes, and labels in the SADP classification scheme are one-to-one matched with the space groups or the labels are matched with the space groups in one-to-multi relation (see figure 1 description below, each layer from family to space group forming a nested architecture. On the basis of the derived peak positions in the azimuthal integration profile, the prediction on STO is reported in Table 2, figure 2, the confusion matrices shows one to one matching score).
Regarding claim 6, Aguiar discloses the classification system of claim 4, further comprising:
a learning unit configured to learn a diffraction pattern classifying algorithm to classify the SADP images through a machine learning (see figure 1 below, machine learning is the 1D CNN model, which learns the different crystal shape); and
PNG
media_image4.png
302
925
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a probability-based space group inferring unit configured to infer probabilistically a space group of an object by analyzing the classification scheme in crystallography matched with a label obtained by applying the diffraction pattern classifying algorithm to an SADP image of the object (see Results section the softmax layer is read as the probability-based space group inferring unit, see figure 2, this reference employs a supervised learning which requires labels, also see Optimization and modeling pipelining for crystallographic analysis below, during testing the model accuracy is calculated, table 1):
PNG
media_image5.png
80
611
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
[4] Claim Objections
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 5, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the classification system of claim 4, wherein the specific reference is information concerning an internal angle of a triangle including one diffraction point and two diffraction points nearest to the one diffraction point and forbidden reflection information in the SADP image, and wherein SADP images having similar information concerning the internal angle and similar forbidden reflection information belong to the same label; in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 4.
YANG (US 20220380933) discloses the classification system of claim 4, wherein the specific reference is information concerning an internal angle of a triangle including one diffraction point (see figure 1, this triangle crystal planes which should have at least on diffraction point when light is projected onto it), but does not disclose two diffraction points nearest to the one diffraction point and forbidden reflection information in the SADP image, and wherein SADP images having similar information concerning the internal angle and similar forbidden reflection information belong to the same label.
With regards to claim 7, the examiner cannot find any applicable prior art providing teachings for the following limitation(s): the classification system of claim 6, wherein the probability-based space group inferring unit draws final probability in consideration of probabilities inferred from the SADP images, or accumulates the inferred probabilities and selects a space group having maximum value of the accumulated probabilities; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
Madsen et al. (Madsen, J., Liu, P., Kling, J., Wagner, J.B., Hansen, T.W., Winther, O. and Schiøtz, J. (2018), A Deep Learning Approach to Identify Local Structures in Atomic-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy Images. Adv. Theory Simul., 1: 1800037, 2018) discloses the classification system of claim 6, wherein the probability-based space group inferring unit draws final probability in consideration of probabilities inferred from the SADP images, or accumulates the inferred probabilities (see equation 4 below) but does not select a space group having maximum value of the accumulated probabilities.
PNG
media_image6.png
183
696
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 7/24/26
Prosecution Insights