Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-183205, filed on 11/10/21.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/3/24, 7/2/24, 10/27/25 and 12/25/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
5. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
5. Regarding claim 1, the limitation of “subjecting a semiconductor sample to be evaluated to measurement with a photoconductivity decay method to acquire a decay curve; subjecting the decay curve to signal data processing by a model expression including an exponential decay term and a constant term; and determining a recombination lifetime of the semiconductor sample from an expression of exponential decay obtained by the signal data processing” recites an abstract idea of using a mathematical function/algorithm and carrying out data processing which is part of software to be implemented.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations recite computer functions, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (semiconductor sample/wafer lifetime evaluation).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no physical elements or structural arrangement is claimed and using a generic computer or a processor is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of art. Prior art(s) of record listed here shows using generic computer or processor to carry out similar functions (Inui Masahiro (JP 2012195531), Figures 1-5, Abstract; Hiroshi Takeno (US 2016005664), Figures 1-11)). Both references are provided in the IDS. Note: Specification mentions using computer or known PCD measurement device to carry out functions.
6. Claims 2-6, 13 and 14 are also rejected as they further limit claim 1.
7. Regarding claim 7, the limitation of “a measurement part which subjects a semiconductor sample to be evaluated to measurement with a photoconductivity decay method to acquire a decay curve; a processing part which subjects the decay curve to signal data processing by a model expression including an exponential decay term and a constant term; and a recombination lifetime calculation part which determines a recombination lifetime of the semiconductor sample from an expression of exponential decay obtained by the signal data processing” recites an abstract idea of using a mathematical function/algorithm and carrying out data processing which is part of software to be implemented.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations recite computer functions, generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (semiconductor sample/wafer lifetime evaluation).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no physical elements or structural arrangement is claimed and using a generic computer or a processor is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of art. Prior art(s) of record listed here shows using generic computer or processor to carry out similar functions (Inui Masahiro (JP 2012195531), Figures 1-5, Abstract; Hiroshi Takeno (US 2016005664), Figures 1-11)). Both references are provided in the IDS. Note: Specification mentions using computer or known PCD measurement device to carry out functions.
8. Claims 8-12 are also rejected as they further limit claim 7.
Note: no prior art rejection is made at the moment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights