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 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–-----103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102–103) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-7
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (Wang, J. et al., “Quick determination of included angles distribution for miscut substrate”, Measurement 89 (2016) 300–304; a copy is included with the information disclosure statement filed 16 July 2025).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a method for calculating an angle δ (θmax) formed by an in-plane rotational axis φ of a sample stage and a crystal lattice plane normal axis of a single-crystal solid sample disposed on the sample stage, comprising the steps of: in a case that a Bragg angle corresponding to the crystal lattice plane is referred to as θ (Θ), making an X-ray incident on the sample at a first incident angle ω1 (θ1) of θ-δ or more and θ+δ or less, measuring 1 or 2 peak positions of φ by measuring a diffracted X-ray intensity while rotating the sample in-plane with the φ as a central axis; making an X-ray incident on the sample at a second incident angle ω2 (θ2) of θ-δ or more and θ+δ or less different from the first incident angle ω1, measuring 1 or 2 peak positions of φ by measuring a diffracted X-ray intensity while rotating the sample in-plane with the φ as a central axis; and calculating the δ from the ω1, the ω2, and the peak positions of the φ obtained by the measurement (sections 2-3, 5).
Claims 5-6
Regarding claims 5-6, Wang discloses the claimed angles and manipulations as described in the rejection of claims 1 and 4 above and in sections 2-5 of Wang.
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses determining a measurement and calculation method according to a property of the sample (i.e., the determination of included angles distribution between the crystal plane and the sample plane for a miscut substrate; Abstract).
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), that are applied 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 2-4 and 8-9
Claims 2-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3
Regarding claims 2-3, see the rejection of claim 1 above and sections 2-5 of Wang, including 4 combinations of variables (see sections 4-5 of Wang). The equations and variable names used by Wang differ from those in claims 2-3, and thus the claimed inventions are not expressly disclosed. However, as the fundamental arrangement in Wang and the claimed inventions is the same (see Wang: “The miscut angle can be calculated mathematically as a function of the azimuth angle (i.e. φ) and two known included angle (i.e. θ1 and θ2) and its precise azimuth can be also easily determined. Additionally, owing to the uncertainty of orientations of θ1 and θ2, variation trends of arbitrary included angles under four different conditions are described in detail, respectively and computational formulas of miscut angles are also distinguished carefully”), the differences arise from trigonometric manipulation and the difference in variable names, and would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses calculating azimuthal angle as described in sections 2-5.
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses an X-ray diffraction system configured to perform the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), including an X-ray apparatus comprising an X-ray source for generating X-rays (inherent to an X-ray diffraction system), a detector for detecting X-rays (inherent to an X-ray diffraction system, also recited on page 301, right, column, first paragraph), and a means for rotating the sample (see cited portions of Wang in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Wang does not expressly disclose: a goniometer for controlling the rotation; and a control apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the method.
Examiner takes Official Notice of the following: goniometers were well-known and routinely used in the art for providing controllable rotation of a sample on a stage; a control apparatus comprising circuitry configured to perform a method was well-known and routinely used in the art for providing convenient implementation of the method.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Wang, in view of what was well-known, to include a goniometer, and a control apparatus as claimed so as to provide a convenient means for controllable rotation and a convenient means for implementing the method.
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for performing the method.
Examiner takes Official Notice that using a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for performing a method was well-known and routinely practiced in the art for providing convenient implementation of the method.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which Applicant’s claimed invention pertains to have modified the invention of Wang, in view of what was well-known, to include a non-transitory computer readable recording medium as claimed so as to provide a convenient means for implementing the method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Toraya (US 2003/0235270 A1) discloses estimating the preferred orientation of a polycrystalline material by measuring an intensity of a diffraction X-ray incident upon the surface of a sample at an incident angle and reflected from said measurement lattice plane of the sample (¶ 9).
Inaba (US 2009/0225946 A1) discloses making X-ray diffraction measurements based on the Bragg angle of a sample lattice plane (¶ 45).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAKE RIDDICK whose telephone number is (571)270-1865. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm ET, with flexible scheduling.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-2995. 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.
Blake C. Riddick, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/BLAKE C RIDDICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights