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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 & 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claim 15 in line 2 recites the limitation "the". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is the first instance of this limitation and so should be preceded with “a”.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Otherwise, the claim would likely raise 35 U.S.C § 112(b) antecedent basis issues.
Claim 13 in line 2 recites the limitation "wherein the threshold deviation range comprises three σ". This wording makes it unclear whether threshold for the “magnitude difference” is greater than or less than three σ.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1, 16, & 20 in lines 2-3, lines 6-7, & lines 3-4 (respectively) recites the limitation "receiving measurement data, wherein the measurement data is indicative of ". It is not clear what is being measured and what sort of sensor(s) are being used to collect the measurement data. There is no detail about the necessary step of obtaining the data.
Claims 1, 16, & 20 in lines 4-5, lines 8-9, & lines 5-6 (respectively) recites the limitation "extracting from the measurement data, using a Bayesian machine learning algorithm, a set of extracted discrete levels;". It is not clear what the levels are levels of or what the units of the measurement data in these levels is.
Claims 1, 16, & 20 in lines 6-7, lines 10-11, & lines 7-8 (respectively) recites the limitation "quantizing the measurement data by assigning each data point of the measurement data to a corresponding extracted discrete level;". It is not clear why measurement data wouldn’t be quantized and what is being done to the measurement data to make it quantized.
Claims 1, 16, & 20 in lines 8-9, lines 12-13, & lines 9-10 (respectively) recites the limitation "determining, based on the quantized measurement data, a number of possible defect configurations;". It is not clear what the defect configurations are in or what different configurations are possible.
Claims 7, & 18 in lines 1-2 (each claim) recites the limitation "wherein applying the Bayesian machine learning algorithm comprises initially determining an optimal noise level.". It is not clear what an “optimal noise level” is or for what functionality optimization is being done. Also, it is not clear why zero noise would not be the optimal noise level.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim(s) were rejected’:
Claims 2-15 & 17-19 in line 1 (each claim) recites the limitation "The method [according to][of] claim 1[3][11], The computing system of claim 1".
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 1-20 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“extracting from the measurement data, using a Bayesian machine learning algorithm, a set of extracted discrete levels;”
“quantizing the measurement data by assigning each data point of the measurement data to a corresponding extracted discrete level;”
“determining, based on the quantized measurement data, a number of possible defect configurations;”
“applying a Markov Chain model to the extracted discrete levels to provide a state transition matrix, wherein the state transition matrix comprises, for each extracted discrete level, a transition probability of transitioning to a different extracted discrete level;”
“forming, based on a magnitude difference between respective discrete levels and the transition probabilities, a magnitude transition probability space;”
“applying a clustering model to the magnitude transition probability space to reduce a total number of plausible level combinations to a filtered set of plausible level combinations;”
“determining, using a maximum likelihood estimator, a base leakage value;”
“and determining, by mapping the extracted discrete levels to a linear superposition of each level of a set selected from the filtered set of plausible level combinations, a best fit data reconstruction of the measurement data and corresponding predicted levels.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “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.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation these limitations are directed towards either mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional limitations of:
“receiving measurement data, wherein the measurement data is indicative of a random telegraph noise (RTN) signal;”
The claim recites no additional elements.
Explanation:
Rule
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity.”
Analysis:
These limitations are directed towards necessary extra solution activity pre-solution data gathering which is not significantly more than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). The judicial exceptions of mathematical concepts inherently act upon data to create data, and this does not by itself provide detail about elements or functionality outside of the judicial exception; rather data about the data.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional limitations listed in step 2A prong 2 (as above) are no more than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). They are then not significantly more than the judicial exception(s). They are not significantly more than data upon which the judicial exception(s) act.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein the measurement data comprises information indicative of a stress-induced leakage current (SILC) measurement.”
The claim recites no additional elements.
Explanation:
This limitation is no more than necessary pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional limitations & elements listed in step 2A prong 2 (as above) are no more than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). They are then not significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein receiving measurement data comprises receiving electrical signals from a semiconductor device, wherein the semiconductor device comprises a high-k gate dielectric layer of a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET), wherein at least a portion of the RTN signal is indicative of a time-dependent dielectric breakdown (TDDB) of the gate dielectric layer.”
The claim recites the additional element of:
“a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET)”
Explanation:
This limitation is no more than necessary pre-solution activity of data gathering.
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.”
Analysis:
The claims are not directed towards “a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET)”, but rather acquire data from “a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET)”. The inventive concept acts upon the data from the MOSFET.
Conclusion:
The a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) is a field of art or technological environment limitation and does not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim recites the additional element of:
“a semiconductor device” which is “a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET)”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “When making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)),”
&
“2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc”
Analysis:
The element of a MOSFET is well understood, routine, conventional activity, as demonstrated by at least the references of:
US 12474390 B2 “Apparatus And Method Estimating Breakdown Voltage Of Silicon Dioxide Film Using Neural Network Model” (Chung) see column 5 lines 52-58: “Because the destruction 310 of a gate silicon dioxide film causes a large amount of leakage current, a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) including the destroyed gate silicon dioxide film will not operate properly and product defects may arise.”
US 9723578 B2 “Random Telegraph Signal Identification And Measurement” (Melanson) see Column 3 lines 53-57: “Thus, system 100 may enable an operator of system 100 to identify portions (e.g. one or more scan areas 114) in which one or more semiconductor structures (e.g., MOSFETs) which generate RTS noise are expected to be located.”
US 9778313 B2 “Devices Under Test” (Chen) see column 3 lines 18-23: “In the present example, each DUT 52, 54, 56 AND 58 is illustrated as being a p-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor (MOSFET) or simply a p-MOS, but in other examples, other devices could be tested, such as an n-channel MOSFET (n-MOS) could be tested as well.”
Conclusion:
Therefore the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein the measurement data was obtained under normal operating conditions of the semiconductor device, wherein the normal operating conditions of the semiconductor device comprise a standard operating bias voltage as recommended by a manufacturer of the semiconductor device.”
The claim recites no additional elements.
Explanation:
This limitation is no more than necessary pre-solution activity of data gathering. The additional limitations are no more than that which is necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s). They are then not significantly more than the judicial exception(s). details about the characteristics of the data is necessary data for the judicial exception(s).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein the measurement data was not obtained under accelerated operating conditions of the semiconductor device, wherein accelerated operating conditions comprise an elevated bias voltage.”
The claim recites no additional elements.
Explanation:
This limitation is no more than necessary pre-solution activity of data gathering and/or data about that data.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein the RTN signal is based on a presence of defects in a gate oxide of the semiconductor device.”
The claim recites no additional elements.
Explanation:
This limitation is no more than necessary pre-solution activity of data gathering and/or data about that data.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein applying the Bayesian machine learning algorithm comprises initially determining an optimal noise level.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein applying the clustering model comprises initially normalizing the state transition matrix such that respective error bars for transition probability and level difference are similar.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein the clustering model comprises an affinity propagation algorithm.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein the maximum likelihood estimator is configured to fit a set of Gaussian peaks relating to the extracted discrete levels with a superposition of the filtered set of plausible level combinations.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation of:
“further comprising: for each given extracted discrete level, determining whether a magnitude difference with respect to an adjacent predicted level is within a threshold deviation range of an independent probability density function (PDF) corresponding to the adjacent predicted level.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein if the magnitude difference with respect to the adjacent predicted level is greater than the threshold deviation range of the independent PDF corresponding to the given predicted level, assigning a no-solution identifier to the adjacent predicted level.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation of:
“wherein the threshold deviation range comprises three σ.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 14:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation of:
“further comprising: predicting, based on the best fit data reconstruction, an estimated time to failure (ETTF) of the semiconductor device.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 15:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method” which is a process and within one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation of:
“further comprising: mapping, based on the set of probable transitions, the set of probable defects in the gate dielectric layer of the semiconductor device or a defect density of the gate dielectric layer of the semiconductor device.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the addition element of:
“gate dielectric layer”
Explanation:
This element is no more than a necessary component of the previously recited conventional element of “the semiconductor device”.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 16-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11674995 B2 "System And Method For Semiconductor Device Random Telegraph Sequence Noise Testing" (Khenkin) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 5 & Fig. 10.
NPL "Machine Learning Method for Accurate Analysis of Complicated Low Temperature Random Telegraph Noise," (Li) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3 & Fig. 4.
NPL "Leakage Current Analysis Method for Metal Insulator
Semiconductor Capacitors Through Low-Frequency
Noise Measurement" (Kim) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4 & Fig. 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights