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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraph 00102) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
A drive system (claim 20);
A scanning electron microscope (claim 27);
A computing system comprising a processor and a memory (claim 28);
A computer program product (claim 29);
A processor (claim 30).
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
L
3
(paragraph 00048).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
FIG. 3: element 354
FIG. 16: element 153
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.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
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 limitations are:
Claim 20: “a drive system…for moving the imaging unit”;
Claim 30: “an imaging unit configured to perform an imaging process”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification fails to describe a corresponding structure for performing the claimed function of moving the imaging unit as recited in claim 20. See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 below.
The corresponding structure described in the specification for an imaging unit configured to perform an imaging process is a camera (paragraph 00034); a dark-field microscopy inspection tool (paragraph 00044); a scanning electron microscope imaging tool (paragraph 00044); or a brightfield microscopy tool (paragraph 00050, in combination with the brief description of FIG. 1 at paragraph 00042).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, when read in light of the instant specification, covers both non-transitory and transitory forms of signal transmission. The specification identifies examples (paragraph 00033) of the claimed “computer program product” as including “a program stored in non-transitory form on a recording medium, such as a CD-ROM” (non-transitory media) or “downloadable software” (transitory signals or software per se). Transitory signals and software per se are held to be non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d at 1294-95, 112 USPQ2d at 1134; Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675; MPEP 2106 – 2106.03.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 may be overcome by amending the claim such that the claim falls within at least one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter, for example, amending the claim to encompass only non-transitory computer-readable media storing program instructions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 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 20 is further 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.
The limitation “a drive system…for moving the imaging unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation supra) and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The only disclosure of the claimed “drive system” in the instant specification (paragraph 00034 and clause 53 at page 34, lines 1-3) merely recites the function of the drive system, i.e., “a drive system for moving the at least one product and/or the imaging unit”, with no disclosure of any structure, material, or acts to perform said function. Therefore, the specification fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to claim 20; and claim 20 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted this limitation as being met by any structure(s) which is/are capable of performing the claimed function(s).
Claims 16-30 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.
When claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938) and United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234, 55 USPQ 381 (1942).
In this case, independent claims 16 and 30 recite an achieved result, i.e., obtaining a product model of the at least one product, without reciting the particular structure, materials, or steps that achieve the result. The boundaries of the claim scope are unclear; without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim. Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Therefore, the claim is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 17-29 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 16.
Claim 17 is further rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. A Markush claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. A Markush grouping is proper if the members of a group share a single structural similarity and a common use, and if the alternative members are listed as a closed group (i.e., the claim recites a group “consisting of” the alternative members, rather than “comprising” or “including” the alternative members). In this case, claim 17 recites alternative imaging parameters as an open group (“the imaging parameters are selected from the group comprising”, emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022); MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Still further, claim 17 recites the limitation “a focal position of the imaging process relative to the product”. It is unclear what is meant by a position of a process relative to an object which is acted upon by said process. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “a focal position of the imaging process relative to the product” to mean “a focal position of the imaging unit relative to the product”, in accordance with independent claim 16 and the instant specification at page 2, line 37 (“a focal position of the imaging device relative to the product”).
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the plurality of acquired images”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the plurality of acquired images” to mean “the multiple images of the at least one imaging region”.
Claims 22-26 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 21.
Claim 22 recites the limitations “the target product”; “the plurality of acquired images”; and “the first product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted these limitations to mean “the at least one product”; “the multiple images of the at least one imaging region”; and “the at least one product”, respectively.
Claims 23-26 are rejected because of their dependence on claim 22.
Claim 24 recites the limitations “the image of the target product”; and “the image of the primary product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted these limitations to mean “the image of the at least one product”; and “the image of the at least one product”, respectively.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the corresponding acquired image”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “the corresponding acquired image” to mean “the corresponding of the at least one product”.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “upon being performed by the processor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner has interpreted “upon being performed by the processor” to mean “upon being performed by [[the]]a processor”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-20 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0193680 A1), hereinafter Zhang, in view of Zheng et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0118529 A1), hereinafter Zheng.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses a method of measuring (paragraph 0063) at least one product of a fabrication process (paragraph 0072, semiconductor devices formed on a wafer), the method comprising:
imaging the at least one product using an imaging system by an imaging process having at least one imaging parameter (paragraph 0071), wherein an imaging unit of the imaging system captures multiple images of the at least one product for multiple different corresponding realisations of the at least one imaging parameter (paragraph 0071, lines 12-14); and
using the multiple images to obtain a product model of the at least one product (paragraph 0071, lines 12-16).
Zhang fails to disclose that the imaging unit captures multiple images of at least one imaging region.
However, Zheng discloses that the imaging unit captures multiple images of at least one imaging region (paragraph 0059, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang to include that the imaging unit captures multiple images of at least one imaging region, based on the teachings of Zheng that collecting more images enables greater overlapping of regions in Fourier space for faster high-resolution image reconstruction (Zheng, paragraphs 0086-0087).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the imaging parameters are selected from the group comprising:
a distance of an sensor from the at least one product;
an orientation of the at least one product with respect to an imaging direction of the imaging process;
a translational position of the at least one product transverse to an imaging direction of the imaging process;
a focal position of the imaging process relative to the product (paragraph 0073, focus); and
a frequency of electromagnetic radiation employed in the imaging process.
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the imaging process is brightfield microscopy (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 18 discloses the method of claim 18.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the imaging parameters include a frequency of electromagnetic radiation used in the brightfield microscopy (paragraph 0073 discloses that the imaging parameter includes a wavelength; by definition, frequency changes with wavelength due to the equation: frequency = velocity / wavelength (“Frequency”, The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide)).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Zhang discloses moving, using a drive system, the at least one product and/or for moving the imaging unit of the imaging system, to vary the imaging parameters (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the imaging process is performed with a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and the images are scanning electron microscope SEM images (paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 28, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Zhang discloses a computing system comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program instructions operative, upon being performed by the processor to cause the processor to perform the method (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 29, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16.
In addition, Zhang discloses a computer program product storing program instructions operative, upon being performed by the processor to cause the processor to perform the method (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 30, Zhang discloses an imaging system comprising:
an imaging unit (paragraphs 0048-0049) configured to perform an imaging process (paragraph 0063); and
a processor configured to control the imaging system (paragraph 0064) to perform a method measuring (paragraph 0063) at least one product of a fabrication process (paragraph 0072, semiconductor devices formed on a wafer), wherein and the processor controls the imaging system to:
image at least one product using an imaging process characterized by at least one imaging parameter (paragraph 0071), wherein an imaging unit of the imaging system captures multiple images of the at least one product for multiple different corresponding realisations of the at least one imaging parameter (paragraph 0071, lines 12-14); and
uses the multiple images to obtain a product model of the at least one product (paragraph 0071, lines 12-16).
Zhang fails to disclose that the imaging unit captures multiple images of at least one imaging region.
However, Zheng discloses that the imaging unit captures multiple images of at least one imaging region (paragraph 0059, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang to include that the imaging unit captures multiple images of at least one imaging region, based on the teachings of Zheng that collecting more images enables greater overlapping of regions in Fourier space for faster high-resolution image reconstruction (Zheng, paragraphs 0086-0087).
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (CN Patent No. 113034642 A), hereinafter Yu (English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Zheng as applied to claim 16 discloses the method of claim 16, including the at least one imaging region of the at least one product.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the product model comprises a plurality of reconstructed images (paragraph 0097), wherein the reconstructed images represent the imaging regions of the at least one product with a higher spatial resolution than the corresponding plurality of acquired images (paragraph 0088).
Zhang in view of Zheng fails to disclose the reconstructed images having a one-to-one correspondence to the plurality of acquired images.
However, Yu discloses the reconstructed images (page 5, paragraph 3, the plurality of first images) having a one-to-one correspondence to the plurality of acquired images (page 5, paragraph 3, the plurality of original images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Zheng to include the reconstructed images having a one-to-one correspondence to the plurality of acquired images, based on the teachings of Yu that this improves the consistency, resolution, and precision of the reconstructed images (Yu, page 5, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang in view of Zheng and Yu as applied to claim 21 discloses the method of claim 21, including the at least one imaging region of the at least one product.
In addition, Zhang discloses training a neural network model having a plurality of network parameters (paragraph 0100), the neural network model being configured to receive as input the multiple images of the at least one imaging region (paragraph 0095) and to generate as output a reconstructed image of the at least one imaging region (paragraph 0098), the generated output image representing the target product with a higher spatial resolution than the input images (paragraph 0098, high resolution images);
wherein a training of the neural network model comprises generating a training dataset comprising a plurality of training items (paragraph 0090), each training item comprising one of the plurality of acquired images of the first product (paragraph 0090, input tuples) and the corresponding reconstructed image (paragraph 0090, expected output tuples), and training the neural network model using the training dataset (paragraph 0090).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang in view of Zheng and Yu as applied to claim 22 discloses the method of claim 22.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the imaging process for capturing the images of the at least one product is performed by an imaging device (paragraphs 0048-0049) and is characterized by at least one imaging parameter (paragraph 0071), and wherein each training item further comprises a realisation of the at least one imaging parameter that characterises the imaging process used to capture the respective image of the at least one product comprised in the training item (paragraph 0090: image acquired with mode 1, image acquired with mode 2,…).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang in view of Zheng and Yu as applied to claim 23 discloses the method of claim 23.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the image of the target product has been captured by performing the imaging process using the imaging device (paragraph 0094), and the neural network model is configured to receive as input the image of the primary product and a realisation of the at least one imaging parameter characterizing the imaging process used to capture the image of the primary product (paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 25, Zhang in view of Zheng and Yu as applied to claim 22 discloses the method of claim 22.
In addition, Yu discloses that training the neural network model using the training dataset comprises iteratively adjusting the network parameters to reduce a discrepancy between each of the reconstructed images of the training dataset and a respective output image generated by inputting the corresponding acquired image into the neural network model (page 16, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Zhang in view of Zheng and Yu to include that training the neural network model using the training dataset comprises iteratively adjusting the network parameters to reduce a discrepancy between each of the reconstructed images of the training dataset and a respective output image generated by inputting the corresponding acquired image into the neural network model, based on the additional teachings of Yu that this improves the accuracy of the model (Yu, page 16, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 26, Zhang in view of Zheng and Yu as applied to claim 22 discloses the method of claim 22.
In addition, Zhang discloses that the neural network model comprises at least one of an auto-encoder, a variational auto-encoder, and a U-Net architecture (paragraph 0096).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tripodi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0378012 A1), hereinafter Tripodi, teaches an imaging system comprising: an imaging unit configured to perform an imaging process; and a processor configured to control the imaging system to perform a method measuring at least one product of a fabrication process, wherein the processor controls the imaging system to: image at least one product using an imaging process characterized by at least one imaging parameter.
Yang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,508,037 B2), hereinafter Yang, teaches a neural network model comprising a U-Net architecture, the neural network model being configured to receive an image as input and to generate an image as output.
Middlebrooks et al. (WO Patent No. 2020200993 A1), hereinafter Middlebrooks, teaches training a neural network model having a plurality of network parameters, wherein training the neural network comprises generating a training dataset comprising a plurality of training items, each training item comprising a realisation of the at least one imaging parameter that characterises the imaging process used to capture images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881 /MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights