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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., mental processes and mathematical steps for collecting neutron dosage data and comparing the collected data with estimated neutron dosage data), and the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One – Judicial exception (Abstract Idea)
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, “methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’” 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Further, the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In the instant case, the independent claims recite limitations that, when considered in their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the abstract idea of (i) mental process (concepts formed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, and judgment) and/or (ii) mathematical concepts (relationships, predication, and comparison). For instance, the independent claim 1 recites (independent claim 19 recites similar limitations):
recording time-series data in which a beam condition including an ion species, energy, and a beam current of an ion beam that is transported along a beamline in an ion implanter and a neutron dose rate that is measured at a predetermined measurement position in the ion implanter are associated with each other in a recording device;
transporting a high-energy ion beam along the beamline;
acquiring a measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the predetermined measurement position when transporting the high-energy ion beam;
calculating an estimated value of the neutron dose rate that is estimated at the predetermined measurement position when transporting the high-energy ion beam, by using the time-series data and the beam condition of the high-energy ion beam; and
comparing the measured value with the estimated value. These limitations collectively recite creating graphs from data and extract information from those graphs. Such collection, observation and selection of data are fundamentally a form of data analysis and mathematical evaluation, activities that have long been performed by humans mentally or with pen and paper, and therefore can be characterized as an abstract idea.
These limitations collectively recite collecting historical data, performing a mathematical prediction based on historical data, and evaluating the prediction with newly acquired information. Such collection, prediction and evaluation of data are fundamentally a form of data analysis and mathematical evaluation, activities that have long been performed by humans mentally or with pen and paper, and therefore can be characterized as an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a Practical Application
The claims are not integrated into a practical application because in practice, executing all of the steps is indistinguishable from: (i) mere data acquisition from a conventional instrument environment, and (ii) generic computer implementation of the abstract analysis. That is to say that integration into a practical application is lacking where, as here, the abstract idea has no effect on the material world or the execution of the process.
Although the claims include additional elements, e.g., an ion implanter, transporting a high-energy ion beam along a beamline, a predetermined neutron measurement position, recording device, etc., these additional elements merely identify the technological environment in which the abstract idea is performed and serve as sources of data used by the abstract analysis, and thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, although the claim recites transporting a high-energy beam along a beamline of an ion implanter, the transporting step is not altered or controlled by the claimed calculation or comparison. Instead, the transporting step merely provides the environment in which neutron measurements are obtained. Accordingly, the claim merely applies the abstract idea in the field of ion implantation and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B– Significant More (Inventive Concept)
The claims do not include additional elements, either individually or as an ordered combination, that amount to significant more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, e.g., an ion implanter transporting an ion beam, a beamline, a neutron measurement position, a recording device storing date, etc., recite only generic and conventional components performing their ordinary functions. These elements merely provide the environment in which the abstract idea is performed and do not improve the functioning of the ion implanter, neutron detector, or any other technology. The claim likewise does not recite any unconventional mathematical model, prediction algorithm, detector configuration, beam control technique, or other technology improvement. Instead, the claim merely uses conventional computer functionality to receive historical data, calculate an expected value, and compare that value with a current measurement.
Claims 2-18 likewise do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations merely further specify the beam condition, operation modes, detector locations, historical data used for the estimation, or additional data comparisons, or merely apply a threshold and output an alert based on the comparison. These limitations represent additional data gathering, data selection, mathematical evaluation, or insignificant post-solution activity, and do not improve the functioning of the ion implanter, neutron detector, or any other technology.
Accordingly, considering the claim as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea using generic data acquisition and storage components in a particular technological environment.
Taken alone or as ordered combination, claims 1-19 fail to recite patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-8, 14-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by US 2020/0303161 A1 [hereinafter Matsushita].
Regarding Claim 1:
Matsushita teaches a method comprising:
recording time-series data in which a beam condition including an ion species, energy, and a beam current of an ion beam that is transported along a beamline in an ion implanter and a neutron dose rate that is measured at a predetermined measurement position in the ion implanter are associated with each other in a recording device; [0121]: “The central control unit 50 may accumulate the measurement values in the plurality of neutron ray measuring instruments 51 to 54 and analyze the relationships between the measurement values in the respective measuring instruments”);
transporting a high-energy ion beam along the beamline (para. [0026]: “The ion implanter accelerates an ion beam extracted from in an ion source, transports a ultrahigh energy ion beam obtained by the acceleration to a workpiece…along a beamline, and implants ions into the workpiece”);
acquiring a measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the predetermined measurement position when transporting the high-energy ion beam (paras. [0075, 0103]: “The ion implanter 100 includes a plurality of neutron ray measuring instruments 51, 52, 53, and 54 for monitoring neutron rays which can be generated in the implanter… the neutron ray measuring instrument is disposed in the vicinity of the neutron ray source.” “The central control unit 50 acquires the measurement value in each of the plurality of neutron ray measuring instruments 51 to 54”);
calculating an estimated value of the neutron dose rate that is estimated at the predetermined measurement position when transporting the high-energy ion beam, by using the time-series data and the beam condition of the high-energy ion beam ((para. [0123]: teaches in a case where there is a measurement value that deviates from the ratios between the respective measurement values in the neutron ray measuring instruments 51 to 54 which are determined for each operation mode, abnormality of the measuring instrument itself can be detected or the measuring instrument in which abnormality has occurred can be estimated. Since the estimate is a deviation from the ratio, the ratio is interpreted as the estimation. The beam condition is inherently used as the neutrons are generated from the ions of particular species, energy and beam current) and
comparing the measured value with the estimated value (para. [0123]: implicit to deviation between measured vale and ratio).
Regarding Claim 19:
Matsushita teaches an ion implanter comprising:
an ion source (Fig. 4 – ion source 10) that generates an ion beam;
a beamline unit (Fig. 4 – main body 58) that is configured to transport the ion beam along a beamline and includes an accelerator (Fig. 4 – beam acceleration unit 14) that accelerates the ion beam to generate a high-energy ion beam;
a neutron ray measuring instrument (Fig. 4 - neutron ray measuring instruments 51-54) that is disposed at a predetermined measurement position and measures a neutron dose rate;
a memory in which a program is stored; and a processor (Fig. 4 and para. [0072]: “The central control unit 50 is realized by elements and devices such as a CPU and a memory”,
wherein the processor executes, based on the program, performing steps, as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. Matsushita further teaches wherein the ion implanter includes a plurality of operation modes in which the ion beam that is transported along the beamline is at least partially incident into at least one of a plurality of portions in the ion implanter (para. [0073, 0108-0109]: ion implanter has different operation modes, for example, in a first operation mode, ultrahigh energy ion beam may collide with the beam profile slit 23, the energy analyzing slit 27, and the first Faraday cup 28 to generate neutron rays; in a second operation mode, the ultrahigh energy ion beam substantially collides with only the first Faraday cup 28),
the measured value is measured when the high-energy ion beam is transported in at least one of the plurality of operation modes, (paras. [0108-0109]: in the first operation mode, the neutron ray 91 which is generated in the energy analyzing slit 27 or the first Faraday cup 28 is detected mainly by the second neutron ray measuring instrument 52; in the second operation mode, the neutron ray 92 which is generated in the first Faraday cup 28 can be detected by the first neutron ray measuring instrument 51 or the second neutron ray measuring instrument 52); and
the estimated value is calculated using the neutron dose rate measured when the ion beam is transported in at least one of the plurality of operation modes, in the time-series data (para. [0123].
Regarding Claim 3:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 2. Matsushita further teaches wherein the ion implanter includes a driving device that changes a position of at least one of the plurality of portions (para. [0060]: “Each of the first Faraday cup 28 and the second Faraday cup 31 is configured to be able to be inserted into and retracted from the beamline BL by the operation of a Faraday cup driving unit (not shown)”), and
at least one of the plurality of operation modes causes at least one of the plurality of portions to be disposed on the beamline by using the driving device, and causes the ion beam to be at least partially blocked by at least one of the plurality of portions (in each operation mode, one or more beamline component, e.g., beam profile slit 23, the energy analyzing slit 27, and the first Faraday cup 28, is inserted into the beamline by the driving unit, thereby blocking the beamline).
Regarding Claim 4:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 2. Matsushita further teaches wherein the ion implanter includes a deflection device that applies at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field to deflect a trajectory of the ion beam, and at least one of the plurality of operation modes causes the ion beam to be incident into at least one of the plurality of portions provided away from the beamline by using the deflection device (para. [0216]: “The ion implanter… include a beam deflector which applies at least one of an electric field and a magnetic field to the ion beam and retracts the ion beam toward a beam dump which is provided away from the beamline”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 2. Matsushita further teaches wherein the plurality of portions include a first portion, and a second portion located on a downstream side of the beamline with respect to the first portion (as shown in Fig. 9, the beamline includes a beam profile slit 23, energy analyzing slit 27 (combined as “first portion), a downstream first Faraday cup 28 (“second portion”)), and
at least one of the plurality of operation modes causes the ion beam to be at least partially incident into the first portion and causes the ion beam to be at least partially incident into the second portion (para. [0108]: in the first operation mode, a ultrahigh energy ion beam may collide with the beam profile slit 23, the energy analyzing slit 27, (“incident into first portion”) and the first Faraday cup 28 (“incident into second portion”) to generate neutron rays).
Regarding Claim 6:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 2. Matsushita further teaches wherein the plurality of portions include a first portion, and a second portion located on a downstream side of the beamline with respect to the first portion (as shown in Figs. 9 and 11, the beamline includes a beam profile slit 23, energy analyzing slit 27, a first Faraday cup 28 (combined as “first portion), and a downstream second Faraday cup ( “second portion”) ),
the plurality of operation modes include
a first operation mode in which the ion beam is at least partially incident into the first portion (Fig. 9 and para. [0108]: in a first operation mode, “a ultrahigh energy ion beam may collide with the beam profile slit 23, the energy analyzing slit 27, and the first Faraday cup 28 to generate neutron rays”), and
a second operation mode in which the ion beam is at least partially incident into the second portion (Fig. 11 and para. [0108]: in a third operation mode, the ion beam collides with the second Faraday cup 31);
the measured value includes
a first measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the predetermined measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported in the first operation mode (para. [0108]: in the first operation mode, “neutron ray 90 which is generated in the beam profile slit 23 is detected mainly by the first neutron ray measuring instrument 51. Further, the neutron ray 91 which is generated in the energy analyzing slit 27 or the first Faraday cup 28 is detected mainly by the second neutron ray measuring instrument 52”), and
a second measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the predetermined measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported in the second operation mode (para. [0110]: in the third operation mode, “The neutron ray 93 which is generated in the second Faraday cup 31 is detected mainly by the first neutron ray measuring instrument 51 and the second neutron ray measuring instrument 52”),
the estimated value includes a first estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate measured when the ion beam is transported in the first operation mode in the time-series data, and a second estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate measured when the ion beam is transported in the second operation mode in the time-series data (para. [0123]: the estimated deviation can be determined under both operation mode);
the comparing includes comparing the first measured value with the first estimated value, and comparing the second measured value with the second estimated value (para. [0123]: comparing the estimated deviation in both operation mode).
Regarding Claim 7:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 2. Matsushita further teaches wherein the plurality of portions include a first portion (Fig. 9: beam profile slit 23, the energy analyzing slit 27, and the first Faraday cup 28), and a second portion located on a downstream side of the beamline with respect to the first portion (Fig. 11- downstream second Faraday cup 31),
the predetermined measurement position includes a first measurement position (Figs. 9-10: a first position where neutron ray measuring instrument 51 is disposed) and a second measurement position (Figs. 9-10: a second position where neutron ray measuring instrument 52 is disposed),
the plurality of operation modes include
a first operation mode in which the ion beam is at least partially incident into the first portion (para. [0107]: in a first operation mode, a ultrahigh energy ion beam may collide with the beam profile slit 23, the energy analyzing slit 27, and the first Faraday cup 28 to generate neutron rays), and a
second operation mode in which the ion beam is at least partially incident into the second portion (para. [0110]: in the third operation mode, the ion beam collides with the second Faraday cup 31),
the measured value includes
a first measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the first measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported in the first operation mode (Fig. 9 and para. [0108]: in the first operation mode, neutron ray measuring instrument 51 detects the neutron ray 90 which is generated in the beam profile slit 23);
a second measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the first measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported in the second operation mode (Fig. 11 and para. [0110]: in the third operation mode, neutron ray measuring instrument 51 detects the neutron ray 93 which is generated in the second Faraday cup 31),
a third measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the second measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported in the first operation mode (Fig. 9 and para. [0108]: in the first operation mode, neutron ray measuring instrument 52 detects the neutron ray 91 which is generated in the energy analyzing slit 27 or the first Faraday cup 28); and
a fourth measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the second measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported in the second operation mode (Fig. 11 and para. [0110]: in the third operation mode, neutron ray measuring instrument 52 also detects the neutron ray 93 which is generated in the second Faraday cup 31),
the estimated value includes a first estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate measured at the first measurement position when the ion beam is transported in the first operation mode in the time-series data, a second estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate measured at the first measurement position when the ion beam is transported in the second operation mode in the time-series data, a third estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate measured at the second measurement position when the ion beam is transported in the first operation mode in the time-series data, and a fourth estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate measured at the second measurement position when the ion beam is transported in the second operation mode in the time-series data (para. [0123]: a third a fourth deviation can be estimated the same way as for the first deviation under the third and fourth operation mode), and
the comparing includes comparing the first measured value with the first estimated value, comparing the second measured value with the second estimated value, comparing the third measured value with the third estimated value, and comparing the fourth measured value with the fourth estimated value (comparing each estimated value with measure value, in the same way as discussed in claim 1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. Matsushita further teaches wherein the predetermined measurement position includes a first measurement position (Figs. 9-10: a first position where neutron ray measuring instrument 51 is disposed) and a second measurement position (Figs. 9-10: a second position where neutron ray measuring instrument 52 is disposed),
the measured value includes
a first measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the first measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported (Fig. 9 and para. [0108]: in the first operation mode, neutron ray measuring instrument 51 detects the neutron ray 90 which is generated in the beam profile slit 23), and
a second measured value of the neutron dose rate that is measured at the second measurement position when the high-energy ion beam is transported (Fig. 9 and para. [0108]: in the first operation mode, neutron ray measuring instrument 52 detects the neutron ray 91 which is generated in the energy analyzing slit 27 or the first Faraday cup 28); and
the estimated value includes a first estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate that is measured at the first measurement position in the time-series data, and a second estimated value that is calculated using the neutron dose rate that is measured at the second measurement position in the time-series data (para. [0123], and
the comparing includes comparing the first measured value with the first estimated value, and comparing the second measured value with the second estimated value (para. [0123]).
Regarding Claim 14:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. Matsushita further teaches wherein the comparing includes determining whether or not a difference between the measured value and the estimated value exceeds a predetermined threshold (para. [0105]: “In a case where the calculated neutron dose rate … exceeds a predetermined upper limit value, the central control unit 50 may output an alert”).
Regarding Claim 15:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. Matsushita further teaches outputting an alert in a case where the difference between the measured value and the estimated value exceeds the predetermined threshold (para. [0105]: “In a case where the calculated neutron dose rate … exceeds a predetermined upper limit value, the central control unit 50 may output an alert”).
Regarding Claim 17:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. Matsushita further teaches wherein the ion implanter includes a vacuum chamber (a vacuum chamber is necessarily required for an ion implanter system, for example, included in the main body 58 and surrounding beamline) that surrounds the beamline and a casing (Fig. 6- enclosure 60) that is disposed outside the vacuum chamber, and
the predetermined measurement position is located outside the vacuum chamber and inside the casing (ray measurement instruments 51-54 is located outside the vacuum chamber and inside the enclosure 60).
Regarding Claim 18:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. Matsushita further teaches wherein the beamline includes a curved portion extending in an arc shape (Fig. 4 and para. [0057]: “The beam deflection unit 16 configures a portion extending in an arc shape of the beamline BL”, and the predetermined measurement position is located inside the curved portion (Fig. 4 shows at least the neutron ray measuring instrument 51 is located inside the curved portion).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150301454A1 [hereinafter Nanome].
Regarding Claim 9:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. Matsushita further teaches wherein an ion species of the high-energy ion beam is a boron ion, and energy of the high-energy ion beam is 3.7 MeV or higher (para. [0184: “the ultrahigh energy ion beam includes boron ions which have an energy of 4 MeV or higher”).
However, Matsushita does not expressly teach the energy of the high-energy ion beam is 10 MeV or lower.
Kanome teaches an energy of the high-energy ion beam is 10 MeV or lower [para. [0027]: expressly teaches the energy used for the ultrahigh energy implantation is 6MeV).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to configured the range disclosed in Matsushita to include a higher boundary of 10MeV since as shown in Kanome such a higher upper limit is a known energy boundary for applying ultrahigh energy implantation.
Claim 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, G., et al., (1999). Neutrons around thick target bombarded by 50 MeV/u 18O-ion beam. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 431(1–2), 194–200 [hereinafter Li].
Regarding Claim 10:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 1. However, Matsushita does not expressly teach wherein the estimated value is calculated using a neutron dose rate corresponding to a beam condition that is the same ion species as the high-energy ion beam and is high energy in a predetermined energy range in the time-series data. Li teaches wherein the estimated value is calculated using a neutron dose rate corresponding to a beam condition that is the same ion species as the high-energy ion beam and is high energy in a predetermined energy range in the time-series data (Page 2: Li teaches “The neutron yield can be fitted by a power law curve of incident ion energy per nucleon…The magnitude of the yield and the exponent in the power law depend upon the atomic number Z of the projectile.” Thus, Li teaches using neutron-does information corresponding to the same ion species and applicable energy condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to organize and select Matsushita’s accumulated neutron measurement data according to ion species, as taught by Li, which established that neutron does rate depends on those beam parameters. Doing so would permit Matsushita’s reference or expected neutron level to correspond more accurately to the current beam condition and thereby improve the reliability of abnormality detection.
Regarding Claim 11:
Matsushita in view of Li teaches the method of claim 10. Matsushita further teaches wherein the predetermined energy range is 3.7 MeV or higher and 10 MeV or lower (a range of energy above 4MeV overlaps with the claimed range of 3.7 to 10 MeV).
Regarding Claim 12:
Matsushita in view of Li teaches the method of claim 10. Li further teaches wherein the estimated value is calculated using a neutron dose rate corresponding to a beam condition that is the same energy as the high-energy ion beam in the time-series data (Page 2: Li teaches determining neutron yield and neutron dose-equivalent rate based on the incident ion energy per w, thereby teaches using of neutron-does information corresponding to the same beam energy).
Regarding Claim 13:
Matsushita in view of Li teaches the method of claim 10. Li further teaches wherein the estimated value is calculated using a neutron dose rate corresponding to a beam condition that is the same beam current as the high-energy ion beam in the time-series data (Page 2: Li teaches that the neutron dose-equivalent rate is determined using the heavy-ion beam current i, thereby teaching use of neutron-dose information corresponding to the same beam current).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5834786A [hereinafter White].
Regarding Claim 9:
Matsushita teaches the method of claim 14. Matsushita further teaches detecting that a measured neutron-does value exceeds a reference value corresponding to the current operation mode, thereby identifying a possible beam transport anomality.
However, Matsushita does not expressly teach wherein the beam condition further include a transport parameter for controlling at least one of a beam central trajectory, a beam size, and a beam shape of the ion beam that is transported along the beamline, and the method further comprises: comparing a transport parameter of the high-energy ion beam with a transport parameter included in the time-series data, in a case where the difference between the measured value and the estimated value exceeds the predetermined threshold.
White teaches wherein the beam condition further include a transport parameter for controlling at least one of a beam central trajectory, a beam size, and a beam shape of the ion beam that is transported along the beamline, and the method further comprises: comparing a transport parameter of the high-energy ion beam with a transport parameter included in the time-series data, in a case where the difference between the measured value and the estimated value exceeds the predetermined threshold (Claim 9 and 9:10-18: White teaches measuring the current-density profile of an ion beam and storing the measured profile as an array of points in computer memory. The controller compares the measured beam profile with a desired reference distribution and derives an error function representing the difference between the measured and reference profile. The beam profile thus constitutes a transport parameter controlling or representing the beam shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the effective time of filing, to compare a current beam file with a stored reference beam profile after Matsushita detects an abnormal neutron-does value, as taught by White, because an abnormal neutron dose can result when the beam shape changes and a portion of the beam strikes a beamline components, and the comparison would help determine whether the abnormal neutron measurement is attributable to an abnormal beams shape and would facilitate correction of the beam transport condition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights