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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on July 21, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 21, 2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
System for microvoid analysis in crystals grown by continuous Czochralski pullers
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the at least one processor programmed to” in ll. 2-3 which is grammatically incorrect. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the at least one processor is programmed to” to correct the grammatical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
A “triple crucible” as recited in claim 3 is interpreted in light of at least Figs. 1A-B of the specification as being comprised of three crucibles with an outer, an intermediate, and an inner crucible which are nested within each other.
A “semantic segmentation network” as recited in claim 9 is interpreted as a learning model that assigns a specific class label to every single pixel in an image.
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: the “model” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claim limitations relating to the “model” in claim 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “model” coupled with functional language “trained to segment the at least one image into different classes” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
the database (820) in Fig. 8 and at least ¶[0068] of the published application which is disclosed as including one or more analysis models and/or analysis information.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
The element of claim 1 which relates to a “model trained to segment the at least one image into different classes” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. Figure 8 and ¶[0068] of the published application reference a database (820) which includes one or more analysis models and/or analysis information while at least Fig. 7 and ¶¶[0055]-[0063] repeatedly refer to the steps of training (705) and executing (715) the “model,” but do not provide any information regarding the structure of the model including information such as the algorithms utilized by the model to achieve the function of “segment[ing] the at least one image into different classes.”
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that the processor is programmed to execute “a model trained to segment the at least one image into different classes.” However, neither the claim nor the specification as originally filed appear to teach or suggest the actual structure of the model that facilitates performing the function of segmenting the image into different classes. As detailed supra with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the claim, Fig. 8 and ¶[0068] of the published application reference a database (820) which includes one or more analysis models and/or analysis information while at least Fig. 7 and ¶¶[0055]-[0063] repeatedly refer to the steps of training (705) and executing (715) the “model.” However, the specification as originally filed does not provide any information regarding the structure of the claimed model including, but not limited to the algorithms utilized by the model to achieve the function of “segment[ing] the at least one image into different classes.” Consequently, the specification as originally filed does not adequately describe the claimed “model” in such a way as to convey that the inventors had possession of the invention at the time the application was filed. Dependent claims 4-5, 7, and 9-10 also recite the “model” without sufficient disclosure regarding its structure, including any algorithms utilized to achieve the claimed function(s) and are similarly rejected. Claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 11-12 are also rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
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 1-12 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites receiving at least one image of “a silicon melt of a crystal in a crucible.” It is unclear what is meant by a “silicon melt of a crystal” since if the crystal is in liquid form then it no longer has a crystalline structure. It is assumed, for example, that applicants intended to recite the step of receiving an image of “a silicon melt in a crucible during growth of a crystal from the silicon melt by the Czochralski method.” Dependent claims 2-12 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites that the processor is programmed to execute “a model trained to segment the at least one image into different classes.” However, neither the claim nor the specification as originally filed appear to teach or suggest the actual structure of the model that facilitates performing the function of segmenting the image into different classes. As detailed supra with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of the claim, Fig. 8 and ¶[0068] of the published application reference a database (820) which includes one or more analysis models and/or analysis information while at least Fig. 7 and ¶¶[0055]-[0063] repeatedly refer to the steps of training (705) and executing (715) the “model.” However, the specification as originally filed does not provide any information regarding the structure of the claimed model including information such as the algorithms utilized by the model to achieve the function of “segment[ing] the at least one image into different classes.” Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite. Dependent claims 4-5, 7, and 9-10 also recite the “model” without providing sufficient information regarding its structure, including any algorithms utilized to achieve the claimed function(s) and are similarly rejected. Claims 2-3, 6, 8, and 11-12 are also rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 still further recites the step of “analyze segmentation to determine a quality of the crystal.” However, it is unclear as to what, exactly, is meant by the process of “analyze segmentation” and how it is used to determine a “quality of the crystal.” What is meant by “segmentation” and how can it be “analyzed” in the claimed manner. Moreover, it is unclear as to what is meant by a quality of the crystal and how is it determined based on an analysis of the segmentation? Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the analysis” in l. 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 11 also recites “the analysis.”
Claim 4 recites that the model is trained to “segment the at least one image pixel by pixel.” However, it is unclear as to what is meant by segment the image. What process is performed on the image that amounts to “segmenting” the image in a pixel-by-pixel fashion? Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim 6 recites that the processor is programmed to “mask the segmented image to determine a percentage of area associated with one or more classifications.” However, it is unclear as to what is meant by masking the segmented image. Is the image covered up with a “mask” so that only certain portions are visible? If so, how does that determine the area percent of one or more classifications? Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained, the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim 7 recites a “silicon melt liquid” in l. 3. It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the “silicon melt” recited in claim 1. It is assumed applicants intended to recite just a “silicon melt.”
Claim 8 recites a “silicon melt liquid” in l. 2. It is unclear whether this is the same as or different from the “silicon melt” recited in claim 1. It is assumed applicants intended to recite just a “silicon melt.”
Claim 9 recites that the processor is further programmed to “train the model with a plurality of pixel-labeled images for the model to classify pixels of images into pixel categories.” It is unclear as to how, exactly, the model is trained using a “plurality of pixel-labeled images” such that “pixels of images” are classified into “pixel categories.” What are “pixel-labeled images”? Are individual pixels in the image given a label? If so, how are these labels used to “train” the model? It also is unclear what is meant by “pixels of images” as images from a CCD camera are ordinarily comprised of individual pixels and the image itself is not a pixel. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily determined the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Claim 10 recites that the processor is further programmed to “retrain the model with a subsequent plurality of pixel-labeled images.” Again, what is a “pixel-labeled image” and how is a subsequent pixel-labeled image obtained. Moreover, what does it mean to “retrain” the model and how are these subsequent pixel-labeled images used in the process of retraining the model? Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily ascertained the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In at least Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0015]-[0037] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2018/0320287 to Zepeda, et al. teaches an embodiment of a CZ crystal growth system in which a barrier (140) comprised of cullets forms a tortuous path for a melt (106) to move from an outer zone (134) to an inner zone (136) formed between an outer (116) and inner (118) crucible.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights