DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components comprise:
an identifying component that identifies a set of inputs and outputs of a charged particle device; and
a parameterizing component that tracks the inputs and outputs of the set based on a universal clock common to the inputs and outputs of the set.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components. However, the limitations “a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory, wherein the computer executable components” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of storing and processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of storing using a memory and processing information using a processor). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Kaufmann et al. US 2022/0351936 (hereinafter, Kaufmann), ([0201], [0217]), and Ogawa et al. US 20050184252 (hereinafter, Ogawa), ([0006], [0026]). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9 and 16, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 as explained above.
5. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
6. Claim 16 is drawn to “a computer program product facilitating a process for tracking scientific device input and output….” Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111), the claim as a whole does not recite any hardware and does not fall into any of the 4 categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation “non-transitory computer program product” to the claim(s) in order to properly render the claim in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
9. Claims 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 19 recite the limitations “…the scientific instrument… .” However, the claims do not include any earlier recitation or limitation of “the scientific instrument” and as a result, it is not clear what element the description “the scientific instrument” refers to.
For examination purpose, Examiner interprets the above limitation as, charged particle device. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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)(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.
11. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaufmann et al. US 2022/0351936 (hereinafter, Kaufmann).
12. Regarding claim 1, Kaufmann discloses a system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (Fig. 7, and associated text), wherein the computer executable components comprise:
an identifying component that identifies a set of inputs and outputs of a charged particle device (FIG. 1 illustrates basic features and functions of a multi-beam charged-particle microscopy system 1 (i.e., charged particle device)…[0164], [0174], Fig. 7: a scan program 762 can be selected (i.e., input set). A scan program 762 can also be automatically selected by commands provided with an inspection task, and for example provided together with a sample or by external control commands…By AD conversion step, J streams of digital sensor data 788 are provided to digital image data selection step 754. The digital image data selection step 754 receives from scan command processing step 720 a selection control signal 744 (i.e., output set), representing the scan program 762. With the selection control signal 744, during digital image data selection step 754, J streams of digital image data values 790 are selected from J streams of digital sensor data 788,... In an example, the selection control signal 744 is equivalent to the sequence of unit scan commands 764. In an example, a sequence of flag signals is generated which provide a label for each of the unit scan commands of the stream of unit scan commands 764 which correspond to the scan points contributing to a digital image pixel to be collected by image data acquisition step 750); and
a parameterizing component that tracks the inputs and outputs of the set based on a universal clock common to the inputs and outputs of the set ([0164]: the selection control signal 744 is equivalent to the sequence of unit scan commands 764. In an example, a sequence of flag signals is generated which provide a label for each of the unit scan commands of the stream of unit scan commands 764 which correspond to the scan points contributing to a digital image pixel to be collected by image data acquisition step 750….the J streams of digital image data values 790 are written into a parallel access memory at a plurality of addresses corresponding to the sequence of unit scan commands 764 and separated for each of the J image subfields (i.e., tracks the inputs and outputs….[0168]-[0169]: the multi-beam image scanning and acquisition method 707 is separated in a first generic scan processing step 720, second specific scanning deflection control steps 730, and a third image data acquisition step 750. The method 707 of multi-beam scanning and image acquisition utilizes a common clock signal 760 for synchronization of the operation as well as for clocking and streaming the streams or sequences of data generated during the multi-beam scanning and image acquisition method 707. The common clock signal 760 is for example generated in the generic scan processing step 720 and provided to second and third steps 730 and 750).
13. Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
14. Regarding claim 2, Kaufmann discloses the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kaufmann further discloses wherein the inputs and outputs of the set comprise XY position inputs and outputs and detection inputs and outputs ([0137], [0169]).
15. Regarding claim 7, Kaufmann discloses the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kaufmann further discloses an evaluating component that identifies a time delay between different combinations of inputs, outputs or both, of the inputs and outputs of the set, according to the universal clock ([0019], [0167], [0169]).
16. Regarding claims 14 and 20, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
18. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann, in view of Auad et al. “Event-based hyperspectral EELS: towards nanosecond temporal resolution”, 2022 (hereinafter, Auad).
19. Regarding claim 3, Kaufmann discloses the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kaufmann further discloses tracks the inputs and outputs of the set based on a universal clock common to the inputs and outputs of the set ([0168]-[0169]: the multi-beam image scanning and acquisition method 707 is separated in a first generic scan processing step 720, second specific scanning deflection control steps 730, and a third image data acquisition step 750. The method 707 of multi-beam scanning and image acquisition utilizes a common clock signal 760 for synchronization of the operation as well as for clocking and streaming the streams or sequences of data generated during the multi-beam scanning and image acquisition method 707. The common clock signal 760 is for example generated in the generic scan processing step 720 and provided to second and third steps 730 and 750).
Kaufmann does not disclose:
wherein the computer executable components further comprise: a stamping component that time stamps the inputs and outputs with time stamps based on data output from the universal clock, wherein the time stamps are not affected by a change in an XY position output of the outputs.
However, Auad discloses:
wherein the computer executable components further comprise: a stamping component that time stamps the inputs and outputs with time stamps based on data output from the universal clock, wherein the time stamps are not affected by a change in an XY position output of the outputs (Abstract, page 2, section 2. Event-based hyperspectral EELS implementation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaufmann to use wherein the computer executable components further comprise: a stamping component that time stamps the inputs and outputs with time stamps based on data output from the universal clock, wherein the time stamps are not affected by a change in an XY position output of the outputs as taught by Auad. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to enable sub-frame drift correction of the charged particle (Auad, page 2).
20. Regarding claims 10 and 17, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
21. Claims 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann, in view of Ogawa et al. US 2005/0184252 (hereinafter, Ogawa).
22. Regarding claim 4, Kaufmann discloses the system of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Kaufmann further discloses a filtering component that filters out an interference frequency output ([0167]).
Kaufmann does not disclose:
a filtering component that filters out an interference frequency output, of the outputs, that is affecting imaging outputs, of the outputs, by scanning for an interference frequency, corresponding to the interference frequency output, according to the universal clock.
However, Ogawa discloses:
a filtering component that filters out an interference frequency output, of the outputs, that is affecting imaging outputs, of the outputs, by scanning for an interference frequency, corresponding to the interference frequency output, according to the universal clock ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaufmann to use a filtering component that filters out an interference frequency output, of the outputs, that is affecting imaging outputs, of the outputs, by scanning for an interference frequency, corresponding to the interference frequency output, according to the universal clock as taught by Ogawa. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to filter out interference out of the image data (Ogawa, [0005]).
23. Regarding claims 11 and 18, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
24. Regarding claim 8, Kaufmann discloses the system of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Kaufmann further discloses a recording component that records a set of XY position outputs, of the outputs, from the scientific instrument ([0169]).
Kaufmann does not disclose:
wherein the recording component omits recording of XY position outputs corresponding to beam blanking.
However, Ogawa discloses:
“blanking period noise is excluded from the SEM image” ([0005], [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaufmann to use wherein the recording component omits recording of XY position outputs corresponding to beam blanking as taught by Ogawa. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to filter out interference out of the image data (Ogawa, [0005]).
25. Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 8.
26. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann, in view of Kieft US 2018/0151326 (hereinafter, Kieft).
26. Regarding claim 5, Kaufmann discloses the system of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Kaufmann further discloses the method 707 of multi-beam scanning and image acquisition utilizes a common clock signal 760 for synchronization of the operation as well as for clocking and streaming the streams or sequences of data generated during the multi-beam scanning and image acquisition method 707. The common clock signal 760 is for example generated in the generic scan processing step 720 and provided to second and third steps 730 and 750 ([0168]-[0169]).
Kaufmann does not disclose:
a synchronizing component that determines a second timing of an excitation clock employed for dynamic excitation by the scientific instrument and synchronizes a first timing of the universal clock to the second timing of the excitation clock.
However, Kieft discloses:
“a secondary source 20, which produces repetitive excitations 20′ of the specimen S. In this particular case, the source 20 is a pulsed laser, and excitations 20′ are laser beam pulses. The operating frequencies of secondary source 20 and deflector 14 are matched to one another, so that specimen S receives one of the abovementioned primary pulse trains per secondary excitation 20′. Pulsed lasers 20 used for specimen excitation in this matter typically produce pulses at a frequency of ˜75-80 MHz, with each pulse duration of the order of ˜1 femtosecond”(see, [0067]-[0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kaufmann to use a synchronizing component that determines a second timing of an excitation clock employed for dynamic excitation by the scientific instrument and synchronizes a first timing of the universal clock to the second timing of the excitation clock as taught by Kieft. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to avoid jitter between separately timed components (Kieft, [0067]-[0069]).
27. Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 5.
28. Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufmann.
29. Regarding claim 6, Kaufmann discloses the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Kaufmann further discloses wherein the clock is employed absent an adjustment of the clock that is based on an environmental disturbance to the scientific instrument comprising a change in an XY position output, of the outputs ([0168]: the multi-beam image scanning and acquisition method 707 is separated in a first generic scan processing step 720, second specific scanning deflection control steps 730, and a third image data acquisition step 750. The method 707 of multi-beam scanning and image acquisition utilizes a common clock signal 760 for synchronization of the operation as well as for clocking and streaming the streams or sequences of data generated during the multi-beam scanning and image acquisition method 707. The common clock signal 760 is for example generated in the generic scan processing step 720 and provided to second and third steps 730 and 750….[0163], [0173]: the ADC module 1808 is configured to generate and provide the plurality of J digital data streams at a constant ADC clock between 60 MHz to 400 MHz or even more…a calibration measurement or a repeated measurement of a plurality of J image segments of the plurality of J image subfields is performed and a property such as a drift of the multi-beam charged particle microscope 1 is monitored. By repeated measurement of a plurality of J image segments and monitoring the image data corresponding to the plurality of J image segments, for example a stage movement or stage drift, an image rotation, a focus drift or other changes of the multi-beam charged particle microscope 1 can be detected (see also [0213]). Kaufmann does not explicitly discloses wherein the universal clock is employed absent an adjustment of the universal clock that is based on an environmental disturbance to the scientific instrument. However, universal clock is employed absent an adjustment of the universal clock that is based on an environmental disturbance to the scientific instrument would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Kaufmann as disclosed above.
30. Regarding claims 13 and 19, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
Conclusion
31. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner 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 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
