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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment filed on 12/06/2024 noted by the examiner, claims 32-38 are pending.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05. Although the prior art discloses several unclaimed, some claimed limitation. The closest Prior Art of record are considered to be defined by:
Fu (US Patent 9741418 B2) described a write apparatus configured to perform a write operation for a magnetic memory that stores information using a magnetic domain, wherein the apparatus comprises: a first drive port; a second drive port; a first information storage area; a second information storage area; and an information buffer, wherein one end of the first drive port is connected to the first information storage area, wherein the other end of the first drive port is configured to connect to a power supply, wherein one end of the second drive port is connected to the second information storage area, wherein the other end of the second drive port is configured to connect to the power supply, wherein a first area locates between the first information storage area and the information buffer, wherein a second area locates between the second information storage area and the information buffer, wherein the first information storage area, the second information storage area, and the information buffer are made of a first magnetic material, wherein the first area and the second area are made of a second magnetic material, wherein the first magnetic material is different from the second magnetic material, wherein magnetic energy of the first magnetic material is higher than magnetic energy of the second magnetic material, wherein the first information storage area is configured to write first data to the information buffer when the first drive port is driven by the power supply, wherein the first data is represented by an electron set having a first spin direction, wherein the second information storage area is configured to write second data to the information buffer when the second drive port is driven by the power supply, wherein the second data is represented by an electron set having a second spin direction, wherein the first spin direction is reverse to the second spin direction, wherein the information buffer is configured to buffer data written from the first information storage area or the second information storage area, and wherein the buffered data is written to a magnetic domain of the magnetic memory.
MARIS, WO 9741418 A1, Date Published: 1997-11-06, CPC G01N 21/00 described a method for characterizing a sample, comprising the steps of: (a) acquiring data from the sample using at least one probe beam wavelength to measure, for times less than a few nanoseconds, a change in the reflectivity of the sample induced by a pump beams; (b) analyzing the data to determine at least one material property by comparing a background signal component of the data with data obtained for a similar delay time range from one or more samples prepared under conditions known to give rise to certain physical and chemical material properties; and (c) analyzing a component of the measured time dependent reflectivity caused by ultrasonic waves generated by the pump beam using the at least one determined material property. The first step of analyzing may include a step of interpolating between reference samples to obtain an intermediate set of material properties. The material properties may include sound velocity, density, and optical constants. In one embodiment, only a correlation is made with the background signal, and at least one of the structural phase, grain orientation, and stoichiometry is determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 32-38 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 32-39, the terms “a desired characteristic” “artifact” “Deep learning” are vague and a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The terms “a desired characteristic” “artifact” “Deep learning” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably appraised of the scope of the invention. An artisan doing measuring and testing would not know at what point “a desired characteristic” “artifact” “Deep learning” within the scope of the claim had been accomplished because nothing within the disclosure establishes when a sufficient “a desired characteristic” “artifact” “Deep learning” occur.
Note: In view of the PTO compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that due to the indefiniteness issues described above all consideration of the merits of the claims in view of prior art is as best understood.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 32-38 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of 17/454,759 now US Patent 11199507, claims of 1-8 of 16/724,042 now US Patent 10551325. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the claims in the current application are encompassed in the previous application. The latter pending application encompasses the same process as the pending application and is a slightly different version of the previous application because of rearrangement of the claims language.
Note: The examiner is aware there were a restriction on some of the case but the restricted claims were different than the current pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 32-38 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.
Claim 32, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to an automated method of characterizing electrical properties of a sample, the method comprising: receiving a Second Harmonic Generation (SHG) signal from the sample; detecting the SHG signal using an optical detector to generate a detected SHG signal appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of under the control of a hardware computing device, processing the detected signal to extract features from the detected SHG signal to estimate a desired characteristic of the sample from the processed detected SHG signal using machine learning are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of directing a beam of electro-magnetic radiation from an optical source to a wafer comprising said sample appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 32 not eligible.
Claim 33 related to processing the received signal comprises processing the received signal using a physically derived machine learning model, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 33 not eligible.
Claim 34 related to the physically derived machine learning model is trained to remove from the SHG signal the effect of a characteristic of the sample different from the desired characteristic, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 34 not eligible.
Claim 35 related to the physically derived machine learning model comprises layer thickness, artifact detection, artifact identification and artifact quantification, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 35 not eligible.
Claim 36 related to extracting the features comprises extracting features using a machine learning kernel, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 36 not eligible.
Claim 37 related to estimating the desired characteristic of the sample comprises decoding the extracted features using a linear decoder trained based on an ensemble of SHG signals together with training labels using a model, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 37 not eligible.
Claim 38 related to Logistic regression, L1-regularized logistic regression, Support vector machine (SVM), sparse support vector machine, Neural network and/or Deep learning, its recites further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 38 not eligible.
Contact information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights