This Office action is in response to application filed on 5/24/2024.
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 .
References Listed in Specification
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper. (i.e., Chicxulub impact structure in page 7 of the specification). Therefore, unless the references have been listed on form PTO-892 or have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, it has not been considered.
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendments filed 5/24/2024 to the specification, drawings, and claims based on the miscellaneous incoming letter of Applicant filed on 6/22/2026, are entered.
Claims 4-6, 8-13, 16-17, and 20-22 have been amended.
Claims 1-22 have been examined.
Drawing Objections
The drawings filed on 5/24/2024 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), the drawings do not include:
Figures 1, 2-6 and 8-12 do not provide the descriptive text labels, i.e., what pictures represent for, and the marks/signs in the pictures.
Figures 1, 4, 10, 11B-C, and 12 do not provide the descriptive text labels for the horizontal line of the images, i.e., what 100 µm represents for?
Figure 1 shows the words “Band Contrast, IPF Coloring, Iron bcc, Iron fcc”, and characters “32” and “230”, but are not mentioned in the specification.
Figure 2 shows the words “extra row of atoms”, but is not mentioned in the specification.
Figure 4 shows the words “Band slope”, and characters “45, 255”, bur are not mentioned in the specification. In addition, Applicant should correct either “Kernal” in figure 4 or “Kernel” in the specification “for consistency”.
Figure 6 should be provided the vertical and horizontal lines labels, i.e., what they represent and they should be described in the specification.
Figure 7 shows the phrase “Sub-area bounds”, but is not mentioned in the specification.
Figure 11A shows the words “band contrast”, but is not mentioned in the specification.
Figure 11C shows the phrase “forescatter Electron image 4”, but is not mentioned in the specification.
Figures 12 show the phrase “WBV-Val – Square/Circle 9x9”, but are not mentioned in the specification.
The numbers, i.e., “100ɥm” in figure 1 and 4, “1000ɥm” in figure 6, “200ɥm/100ɥm“ in figures 10, “2ɥm” in figures 11B-C and 12 are not mentioned in the specification.
The above objections are not mentioned in the specification, but they should be described in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Notes: Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-21: “A method” should read “The method”.
Claim 1 line 1: “analysing” should write “analyzing”, further, in line 6: extra the word “and”, it should be deleted, and line 10: “the plurality of target locations” should read “[[the]]a plurality of target locations”; further, in line 11: “a different one of the said target locations” should be “the one of the [[said]] target locations” OR “the one of the [[said]] target locations is different”, “said” is an extra or redundant.
Claim 2: “the respective region” should read “[[the]]a respective region”.
Claim 3: “the said” should be “the [[said]], “said” is an extra word.
Claim 4: “the surface” should read “[[the]]a surface, further “the plurality of target locations are” should read “the plurality of target locations [[are]]is”.
Claim 5: “the respective target locations” should read “[[the]]a respective region”.
Claim 6: “each of “ should read “the each of”.
Claim 7: “lattice distortion orientation information” should read “the crystal lattice distortion orientation information”.
Claim 8: “the pluralities of perimeter locations” should read “the plurality of the perimeter locations”, and “for the plurality of target locations are arranged” should read “for the plurality of target locations [[are]]is arranged”.
Claims 9-10 and 12: “one or more of the plurality of target locations” should be consistent with “the one
Claims 9-11: “the respective region” should read “[[the]]a respective region.
Claim 10: “the perimeter” should read “[[the]]a perimeter”.
Claim 11: “each of a plurality of target locations” should read “the each of [[a]]the plurality of target locations.
Claim 13: “each of” should read “the each of”, “the respective region” should read “[[the]]a respective region, and “the respective plurality of perimeter locations” should read “[[the]] respective
Claim 14: “the outer” should read “[[the]]an outer”.
Claim 15 line 1: “each region containing one of” should read “the each region containing the one of”.
Claim 16: “the plurality of target locations are arranged” should read “the plurality of target locations [[are]]is arranged”.
Claim 17 line 4: “each region containing one of the plurality” should read “the
each region containing the one of the plurality”, and last line “each of” should read “the each of”.
Claim 20: “wherein the resulting electrons comprise electrons backscattered” should it be “the resulting particles comprise the electrons backscattered” OR “the the electrons backscattered”?
Claim 21: “the resulting electrons comprise electrons transmitted” should it be “the resulting particles comprise the electrons transmitted” OR “the the electrons transmitted”?
Appropriate correction required.
Examiner note: Due to number of claim objections, the examiner has provided a number of examples of the claim deficiencies in the above objections, however, Applicant should refer to theses as examples of deficiencies and should make all the necessary correction to eliminate all informalities in the 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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 22 recites “A computer-readable storage medium”, however, the specification does not explicitly define “a computer readable storage medium” as only a non-transitory medium. Thus, under the broadest interpretation it can include non-transitory medium and transitory medium such as signal carrier wave, which is not statutory subject matter, see MPEP 2111.05 I.B.III, Ed. 8, Rev. 9, 2012. It is suggested the claim limitation to include “non-transitory”, i.e. “A non-transitory computer readable-storage medium”.
The examiner also suggests applicant to review the eligibility rejection of claims 1-21 (see below) and take appropriate actions with respect to claim 22.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as 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.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are system, method, and CRM which are the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
Claim 1: “for each of a plurality of target locations in a specimen: obtaining crystal lattice orientation information for the specimen at each of a plurality of perimeter locations along a path corresponding to a perimeter of a region of the specimen that contains the target location; and generating, in accordance with the obtained crystal lattice orientation information, distortion information for the target location within the region, the distortion information being representative of crystal lattice distortion attributable to crystal lattice dislocations within the region, wherein each region containing one of the plurality of target locations partially overlaps another region, containing a different one of the said target locations, and outputting a set of output data comprising the generated distortion information for the plurality of target locations” fall into the grouping of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts because the method for analyzing lattice distortion in a specimen can be done by human actions and math steps without the help of computer, i.e., scientists use math to analyze patterns and plan experiments to study crystal structures, and the final output data does involve human activity because people design the rules, build the system, and use the results. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims (see limitations in non-Italic font under step 2A - prong 1 above):
Regarding claim 1 “A method for analysing lattice distortion in a specimen, the method, comprising: for each of a plurality of target locations in a specimen: obtaining crystal lattice orientation information for the specimen at each of a plurality of perimeter locations along a path corresponding to a perimeter of a region of the specimen that contains the target location; and outputting a set of output data comprising the generated distortion information for the plurality of target locations” generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h) and add extra-solution activities (i.e., data gathering, such as obtain data, and outputting data), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the above additional limitations in claim 1, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claim 1 does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering “obtaining”), see MPEP 2106.05(g),
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., a method for analysing lattice distortion in a specimen.
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (claims 2-3, 7, 10-17, 19) that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts and mental process.
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refers to extra-solution activities, i.e., obtaining/ acquiring data (claims 4-9, 18, 20-21), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
The recitation in claim 12 “the target location is at a centroid of its respective
region” is indefinite. It is unclear whether “its” refers to the dislocation or the target location of the respective region? For examination, it is interpreted “its” refers to the dislocations of the respective region.
The recitation in claim 14, “wherein the peripheral subset of pixels substantially surround the region” is unclear because the word “substantially” is vague. It does not give a clear number, i.e., how many pixels actually surround the region. For examination, it is interpreted to delete “substantially”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 -
(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.
Claims 1-9, 12-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Wheeler et al., hereinafter Wheeler (The weighted Burgers vector: a new quantity for constraining dislocation densities and types using electron backscatter diffraction on 2D sections through crystalline materials, 2009. - IDS record). As evidenced by Reference of Masters et al. (US 2023/0175991).
As per Claim 1, Wheeler teaches a method for analysing lattice distortion in a specimen (see the Title. It is noted crystalline materials considered “specimen” because they are collected as samples for studying/analyzing), the method comprising:
for each of a plurality of target locations in a specimen: obtaining crystal lattice orientation information for the specimen at each of a plurality of perimeter locations along a path corresponding to a perimeter of a region of the specimen that contains the target location ( Orientation gradients can be estimated from gridded orientation measurements obtained by Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) mapping, so the Weighted Burgers Vector (WBV) can be calculated as a vector field on an EBSD map. The net Burgers vector content of dislocations intersecting an area of a map is calculated integration round the edge “perimeter” of that are, see Summary section, page 482, and measurements of gradients in orientation, mapping lattice orientation, see Introduction section, page 482, considered to obtain information about local changes in crystal lattice orientation at specific perimeter locations or along a boundary path ); and
generating, in accordance with the obtained crystal lattice orientation information, distortion information for the target location within the region, the distortion information being representative of crystal lattice distortion attributable to crystal lattice dislocations within the region ( Lattice distortion in crystalline materials implies the presence of defects or of large-scale elastic strains, see Introduction section, page 482, i.e., “The WBV magnitude, highlight the pattern of lattice distortion, the WBV has three significant advantages, first, a vector and carries more information, secondly, has an explicit mathematical link to the dislocation population, and thirdly, is derived via tensor calculus so it is invariant with respect to coordinate system transformations”, considered distortion attributes to crystal lattice dislocations generated within the region, also see Fig 16 shows the 'Local Misorientation' on the map ),
wherein each region containing one of the plurality of target locations partially overlaps another region, containing a different one of the said target locations ( The net Burgers vector content of dislocations intersecting an area of a map is calculated integration round the edge of that area, WBV is defined as the sum over all dislocations types of the density of intersections of dislocation lines with a map multiplied by each dislocation’s Burgers vector, see Summary section. The 3D density for each type of dislocation is “weighted”, the weighted factor is the number of dislocation lines of that type intersecting, see New Analysis section ), and
outputting a set of output data comprising the generated distortion information for the plurality of target locations ( Large-scale elastic strains, and second rank tensor “dislocation density tensor” that contains information not just on the densities of dislocations but also on their line and Burgers vectors, are considered the output data of distortion information, see Introduction section. In addition, “dislocation density tensor” in Summary section, Mathematical basis of the dislocation density tensor section ).
As per Claim 2, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein, for each target location, the generating of distortion information comprises combining the crystal lattice orientation information obtained for the plurality of perimeter locations along the path corresponding to the perimeter of the respective region ( The Weighted Burgers Vector (WBV) is defined as the sum, over all types of dislocations, of [(density of intersections of dislocation lines with a map) x (Burgers vector)], see Summary section, first 10 lines of right column, page 484. W = sum, over all types of dislocations, see New Analysis section. Fig. 16 shows “local misorientation” within the sub-area considered lattice distortion along the path, i.e., it measures the gradient or local change in crystal orientation, which represents lattice distortion along the path, i.e., how much the crystal lattice bends or twists locally “internal stress” in the materials ).
As per Claim 3, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 2, wherein the said combining comprises calculating an integration of crystal orientation gradient values around the said perimeter of the region ( The net Burgers vector content of dislocations intersecting an area of a map is calculated integration round the edge “perimeter” of that are, see Summary section ).
As per Claim 4, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of target locations are on the surface of the specimen ( Fig 16 shows the local misorientation “distortion” on the sub-area, i.e., six of 5x5 region ).
As per Claim 5, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the set of output data comprises a lattice distortion image for the specimen ( i.e., Fig 16 shows an image of local misorientation “distortion” ), the lattice distortion image comprising a plurality of pixels corresponding to the plurality of target locations and having values corresponding to the generated distortion information for the respective target locations ( Fig 6 shows “the local misorientation” using 5x5 region around each pixel for each calculation as shown in Table 1: the WBVs displayed in figures are calculated using small region of pixel around the target pixel ).
As per Claim 6, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, further comprising acquiring, based on the distortion information, dislocation classification data for each of the plurality of target locations ( local misorientation (LM) shows the same sort of pattern as the magnitude of the WBV considered “classification data”. It is noted LM and the magnitude of the WBV show similar spatial patterns, see page 493 ).
As per Claim 7, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 6, wherein, for each target location, the distortion classification data is acquired in accordance with one or more of: dislocation density information inferred from the distortion information ( Measurements of gradients to in orientation can give some information on dislocation density, which is inferred directly from crystal lattice distortion and local misorientation data, see Introduction section ), and lattice distortion orientation information inferred from the distortion information (Orientation gradients can be estimated from gridded orientation measurements obtained by EBSD mapping, so the WBV can be calculated as a vector field on an EBSD map, see Summary section ).
As per Claim 8, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of locations comprising the pluralities of perimeter locations for the plurality of target locations are arranged in a periodic grid in the specimen ( the orientations at the edge of the sub-area are required considered perimeter locations, see page 485, right column, first para. Fig 2 shows WBV having white lines indicate boundaries considered perimeter locations of dislocations are arranged in a periodic grid in the material ), preferably an orthogonal or hexagonal grid ( see Examples 1-2 ).
As per Claim 9, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein, for one or more of the plurality of target locations, the perimeter of the respective region defines a circular shape ( integration round the edge of that area considered perimeter of a circular shape meaning finding the total length around the edge of a circle which is done by integrating the arc length element along its boundary, see Summary section, last 5 lines ).
As per Claim 12, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein, for one or more of the plurality of target locations, the target location is at a centroid of its respective region ( Figs 3 and 6 show the sign “+” right side represents a centroid of target locations. See also Fig 5, page 488, left column and right column first para ).
As per Claim 13, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, comprising, for each of the plurality of target locations: defining the respective region as an array of pixels, wherein the respective plurality of perimeter locations corresponds to a peripheral subset of the array of pixels ( using rectangular arrays of pixels, with regions as small as 3 x 3 and as large as 5 x 5, see page 485, right column at section (a). the average misorientation between a point of interest and adjacent points (in a square or hexagonal array) is taken. This measure can be considered to have the dimension of µmˉ¹, see page 493 left column, para 1 ).
As per Claim 14, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 13, wherein the peripheral subset of pixels substantially surround the region and each of the peripheral subset of pixels is situated at the outer boundary of the region (“the orientations at the edge of a sub-area used in numerical line integration are considered part of the peripheral subset of pixels, as they define the outer contour or boundary layer of that specific region” is considered the peripheral subset of pixels substantially surround the region and each of the peripheral subset of pixels is situated at the outer boundary of the region, see page 485, right column, first para ).
As per Claim 15, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 14, wherein each region containing one of the plurality of target locations partially overlaps another region such that only pixels comprised by the peripheral subset of pixels of the region do not overlap any pixels of the another region (“since only the orientations at the edge of a sub-area used in numerical line integration are considered part of the peripheral subset of pixels, and restrict paths to be rectangular, but they can be any shape” because when performing a numerical line integration around a sub-area, the pixels values along the closed boundary “the edge” of that region, is considered the peripheral subset of pixels on the region do not overlap another pixels in another region, see page 485, right column, first para).
As per Claim 16, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of target locations are arranged in a regular array within the specimen ( “the local misorientation “LM” shows the same sort of pattern as the magnitude of the WBV” because both metrics scale directly with the local density and spacing of geometrically necessary dislocations, is considered the dislocations are arranged in a regular array within the specimen, see page 493, left column, para 2).
As per Claim 17, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining of the crystal lattice orientation information, but does not teach comprises: causing a particle beam to impinge upon the specimen so as to cause resulting particles to be emitted from a plurality of locations in the specimen, the plurality of locations including the plurality of perimeter locations for each region containing one of the plurality of target locations ( “electron backscatter (EBSD) diffraction on 2D sections through crystalline materials” is considered particle beam incident on a specimen, see Title. “Orientation gradients can be estimated from gridded orientation measurements obtained by EBSD mapping”, see Summary section, is considered analyzing with respect to perimeter and target locations, i.e., evaluating local misorientation, see page 493, left column para 2. See [0002], [0017], [0048]-[0049] of Reference Masters); and
monitoring the resulting particles using a detector device, so as to obtain the crystal lattice orientation information for the specimen at each of the plurality of locations (“Orientation gradients can be estimated from gridded orientation measurements using EBSD mapping, where “EBSD” considered a detector device is used to capture backscattered electron from sample to monitor and estimate crystal structure, orientation, and strain, i.e., Spatial changes in crystal orientation quantify lattice curvature relates to specific types of dislocation, and geometrically necessary dislocation (GND) densities within crystalline particles or grains, see Summary and Introduction sections, and page 493 under Plastic strain energy section. See [0002], [0009]-[0010] of Reference Masters).
As per Claim 18, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 17, wherein the particle beam is an electron beam ( EBSD is considered a particle beam technique because it uses a physical beam of electrons to scan solid sample and create diffraction patterns, i.e., EBSD patterns, see page 485 at (a)), and wherein the resulting particles comprise electrons (It is noted an EBSD detector captures a stream of electrons scattered from a sample, This stream of electrons is considered a particle beam which composed of electrons. See [0002], [0009]-[0010] of Reference Masters).
As per Claim 20, Wheeler teaches a method according claim 18, wherein the resulting electrons comprise electrons backscattered by the specimen (electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) on 2D sections is entirely based on electrons that are backscattered by the crystalline material itself, see Title).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wheeler in view of Takasone, US patent 7615472.
As per Claim 10, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein, for one or more of the plurality of target locations, the perimeter of the respective region defines a regular hexagon shape. Takasone teaches for one or more of the plurality of target locations, the perimeter of the respective region defines a regular hexagon shape ( Fig 6B shows pattern consisting of an arrangement of regular hexagonal, see column 1 lines 55-57, i.e., hexagonal patterns were regularly disposed, and decrease with a hexagonal pattern, through-dislocations occurred at each apex of the hexagons, see column 8 lines 16-41 ). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wheeler having regular hexagon shapes as taught by Takasone that would have no reduction in the dislocation defects that arise through dislocations occurring along regular hexagon intersect (Takasone, column 1 lines 55-62).
As per Claim 11, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein for each of a plurality of target locations, the respective region has the same size and shape. Takasone teaches for each of a plurality of target locations, the respective region has the same size and shape (Fig 6B shows pattern consisting of an arrangement of regular hexagonal, see column 1 lines 55-57, regular hexagon considered having same size and shape). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wheeler having regular hexagon shapes as taught by Takasone that would have no reduction in the dislocation defects that arise through dislocations occurring along regular hexagon intersect (Takasone, column 1 lines 55-62).
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wheeler in view of Masters et a., hereinafter Masters, US 2023/0175991.
As per Claim 19, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 18, but does not further teach comprising monitoring X-rays emitted from the plurality of locations, so as to obtain chemical composition information for the specimen at the plurality of perimeter locations. Masters teaches monitoring X-rays emitted from the plurality of locations, so as to obtain chemical composition information for the specimen at the plurality of perimeter locations (Fig 10B shows SiO2 obtained at the perimeter locations, see [0062], [0073], [0076]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wheeler having X-ray and obtaining chemical compound as taught by Masters that would provide a small fraction of X-ray photons that are absorbed in the inactive layers and will not give rise to any signal but any photon that reaches the active region will generate a charge signal proportional to full energy of the photon, which provides little effect for x-rays (or high-energy (100 keV) electrons), but have a significant impact for applications (Masters, [0062]).
As per Claim 21, Wheeler teaches a method according to claim 18, but does not explicitly teach wherein the resulting electrons comprise electrons transmitted through the specimen. Masters teaches the resulting electrons comprise electrons transmitted through the specimen (Fig 8 shows the resulting electrons absolutely comprise the electrons transmitted through the silicon (Si) layer, see [0042]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wheeler having X-ray and obtaining chemical compound as taught by Masters that would provide a small fraction of X-ray photons that are absorbed in the inactive layers and will not give rise to any signal but any photon that reaches the active region will generate a charge signal proportional to full energy of the photon, which provides little effect for x-rays (or high-energy (100 keV) electrons), but have a significant impact for applications (Masters, [0062]).
Claim 22 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wheeler in view of Rieske et al., hereinafter Rieske, US 2020/0343147.
As per Claim 22, Wheeler teaches executing the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code. Rieske teaches a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code configured to execute a method (computer program product having a programmable circuit including instruction codes for performing a method, see [0007]). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wheeler including a program product having a programmable circuit including program codes for performing a method as taught by Rieske that would use this program product for obtaining analyzing the weighted Burgers vector through crystalline materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0341387 of Smith (Laser method and apparatus for analyzing crystals).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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://ppairmy.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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights