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 12/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner notes that a duplicate copy of the IDS seems to have been filed. Both copies of the IDS has been considered and annotated by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “circuitry output” which Examiner suggests amending to “circuitry outputs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “circuitry display” which Examiner suggests amending to “circuitry displays”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites “circuitry calculate” which Examiner suggests amending to “circuitry calculates”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “circuitry display” which Examiner suggests amending to “circuitry displays”. Lines 2-3 recite “one of the parameters” which Examiner suggests amending to “one of the plurality of parameters”. 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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the image data" in Line 7 and Line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear which image data is being referred to, since a plurality of image data is disclosed earlier in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to “the plurality of image data” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the plurality of parameters calculated for each dimension data of the plurality of measurement points” in Lines 2-3 and "the image data" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a plurality of parameters calculated for each dimension data of the plurality of measurement points and it is unclear which image data is being referred to, since a plurality of image data is disclosed earlier in claim 1. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a plurality of parameters calculated for each dimension data of the plurality of measurement points” and “the plurality of image data”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the image data" in Line 2, “the plurality of parameters included in the process condition when a captured object is processed” in Lines 2-3, “the correlation coefficient for each of the plurality of measurement points” in Lines 4-5, “the same measurement point” in Line 5, and “the parameters having different values” in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as it is unclear which image data is being referred to, since a plurality of image data is disclosed earlier in claim 1, and there is no earlier mention of a plurality of parameters included in the process condition when a captured object is processed, a correlation coefficient for each of the plurality of measurement points, a same measurement point, and parameters having different values. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to "the plurality of image data", “a plurality of parameters included in the process condition when a captured object is processed”, “a correlation coefficient for each of the plurality of measurement points”, “a same measurement point”, and “parameters having different values” (deleting “the”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the image data" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear which image data is being referred to, since a plurality of image data is disclosed earlier in claim 1. Examiner suggests amending to “the plurality of image data” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the image data" in Line 8 and Lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear which image data is being referred to, since a plurality of image data is disclosed earlier in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to “the plurality of image data” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the image data" in Line 4, Line 8, and Lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear which image data is being referred to, since a plurality of image data is disclosed earlier in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to “the plurality of image data” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6, and 7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
With regards to claims 1, 6, and 7, Okuyama et al. (US 2022/0139788) discloses segmenting image data captured by an electron microscope into measurement target area and area other than measurement target areas, measuring dimension data of a plurality of measurement points in the measurement target area using contour data of the measurement target area, displaying the dimension data of the measurement points, and determining an optimal processing condition, however, there is no mention of outputting an image visually illustrating a correlation between the dimension data of a plurality of measurement points and a plurality of parameters, using a process condition including the plurality of parameters in association with the image data. Bai et al. (US 2012/0274757) discloses an interface showing changes in measurements of pattern dimension based on different parameters, however, there is no mention of binarizing a plurality of image data into a measurement target area and an area other than the measurement target area, measuring dimension data of a plurality of measurement points in the measurement target area, and outputting a single image that visually illustrates a correlation between the dimension data of the plurality of measurement points and a plurality of parameters. Oosaki et al. (US 2007/0114405) discloses determining dimension measurements and outputting an image visually illustrating a correlation between the dimension data and a plurality of different microscopes, which is not the same as outputting an image visually illustrating a correlation between the dimension data of a plurality of measurement points and a plurality of parameters, using a process condition including the plurality of parameters in association with the image data. Mahajan et al. (Optimization of Aerosol Jet Printing for High-Resolution, High-Aspect Ratio Silver Lines) discloses the concept of outputting an image visually illustrating a correlation between dimension data and a plurality of parameters, however, there is no mention of the rest of the limitations of the claim. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 2-5, they are dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights