NonNotice 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 March 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 18 March 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 13 and 18 are amended, and no claims are currently added or cancelled. This is a Non- Final Office Action.
Claim Objection
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, there is a period (“.”) in the 3rd to last line of the claim, after the word “temperatures”. Having a period here is improper, is not correct English, and should be deleted. According to MPEP §608.01(m), “each claim must be the object of a single sentence that starts with ‘I (or we) claim,’ ‘The invention claimed is’ (or the equivalent), begins with a capital letter, and ends with a period.” 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 13-23 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.
Claims 13 and 18 recite “a hard metal” in their last line. The term “hard metal” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard metal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, these are understood to include metals.
Claim 23 recites “The method of claim 17 etc.” but claim 17 is not a method, but it is an apparatus as claim 17 begins “The metrology device according to claim 16 etc”. This inconsistency makes this claim indefinite. However, for the purposes of examination, it will be understood that this is an error and that claim 23 is actually supposed to be dependent on method claim 18, which is a method. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
[Examiner’s note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose that limitation].
Claims 13 -15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syllaios (U.S. Patent # 6,297,511, in previously attached form PTO-892) in view of Carr (U.S. Patent 6,091,050).
Regarding claim 13, Syllaios discloses a metrology array, said metrology array configured to simultaneously perform a plurality of temperature-dependent processes, said metrology array comprising,
a plurality of metrology MEMS devices (Syllaios, column 2 line 23, fig. 4, infrared emitter array), with each said metrology MEMS device comprised of,
a respective substrate plate (Syllaios, fig. 1, “membrane” 20, fig. 2), said respective substrate plate configured for being heated (Syllaios, column 1 lines 59-63) and each substrate plate suspended by a plurality of support arms (Syllaios, fig. 1, two arms 62), wherein said support arms comprise resistive heating elements configured to function as primary resistive heating elements for the substrate plate (Syllaios, column 3 lines 5-11) and are arranged for being subjected to a respective process, each respective substrate plate and/or its support arms are formed of a ceramic or silicon material (Syllaios, fig. 2, column 3 lines 18-25, the plate 20 has 22, may be silicon material),
each of the support arms for each respective substrate plate is connected ohmically to its plate and configured to be electrically heated by passing electric current through the support arms to their respective plates (Syllaios, column 4 lines 35-40),
each of the support arms is connected thermally to its plate ((Syllaios, column 4 lines 35-40; column 5 lines 59-60; connected, even if by thin support arms) and(they, 20, are heated by the support arms 62, and regarding the “predetermined temperature”, see below)
wherein the support arms of the plurality of metrology MEMS devices are connected to their respective plates (array of these in fig. 4) , and
wherein the support arms and the substrate plates are made of refractory ceramic materials or of hard metal (Syllaios, column 4 lines 35-45, made of titanium -aluminum or copper or other metals).
Syllaios does not disclose wherein each plate is configured to be “heatable to a respective predetermined temperature by the heat generated in its support arms, and wherein the support arms “are adapted to heat their respective plates independently to different temperatures”.
.
However, Syllaios does teach that the plates in the array could all be given a varying amounts of energy to emit varying amounts of IR radiation, and the amount of IR radiation is directly related to the temperature i.e. the more IR radiation, the higher the temperature (Syllaios, column 1 line 50 and column 6 lines 49-56; “varying amounts of power may be transmitted to each individual emitter 10. For this reason, at a given instant the various emitters 10 may each emit varying amounts of IR radiation.). And once varying degrees of energy may be given to the individual plates, it would have been obvious to have a predetermined temperature for each plate, in order to know how each MEMs reacts and what signals it may give off, and also that each one of the plates may be “independently controlled”, as taught in Car (Carr, , column 4 lines 56-59 & claim 6; “The various applications for thermally-isolated microplatforms are enhanced by controlling the rate of heating or cooling of a microplatform or microplatform array. A suspended microplatform derives thermal isolation from three phenomena which can either cool or heat the microplatform depending upon the specific structures. These phenomena are: radiation, convection, and conduction.” and the array has “a plurality of independently controllable heater elements”. )
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Syllaios with the teaching of Carr, to have the array elements independently controlled and set to predetermined varying temperatures, in order to best control the heating of the platform and the signals, and in the fabricating of an array of heaters, have them be independently controllable, in order to better and for efficiently control heating and to have the device be more versatile in its application of heat, having the elements being individually controllable (Carr, column 1 lines 45-52, “The various applications for thermally-isolated microplatforms are enhanced by controlling the rate of heating or cooling of a microplatform or microplatform array. A suspended microplatform derives thermal isolation from three phenomena which can either cool or heat the microplatform depending upon the specific structures. These phenomena are: radiation, convection, and conduction.”).
Regarding claim 14, Syllaios in view of Carr teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further discloses a metrology array wherein the plurality of MEMS devices are formed as a single component (Syllaios, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Syllaios in view of Carr teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further discloses a metrology array wherein the arms and plates of each of the MEMS devices are respectively formed of a single contiguous material (Syllaios, fig. 1, contiguous).
Regarding claim 18, Syllaios discloses a method of using an array of metrology devices to determine a temperature sensitive parameter of a process simultaneously at different temperatures , said method comprising:
constructing said array of MEMS metrology devices (Syllaios, fig. 4) wherein,
each MEMS metrology device of said array of MEMS metrology devices having a substrate plate (Syllaios, Fig. 1, 20),
each substrate plate having a plurality support arms (Syllaios, fig. 1, 62) to suspend each of the substrate plates,
each support arm being connected ohmically to its respective substrate plate, with each support arm configured to be heated by passing electric current through the support arm to its plate (Syllaios, column 4 lines 35-40),
wherein said support arms comprise resistive heating elements configured to function as primary resistive heating elements for the substrate plate (Syllaios, column 3 lines 5-11),
each of the plurality of support arms being thermally connected to its plate ((Syllaios, column 4 lines 35-40; column 5 lines 59-60; connected, even if by thin support arms)(it is heated via its support arms, for the preselected temperatures, see below),
passing current through the arms of the MEMS devices to raise the temperatures of the plates (column 6 lines 45-65, “varying amounts of power may be transmitted to each individual emitter 10.”) to said different preselected temperatures performing said process while the substrate plates are at their respective preselected temperatures,
and wherein the support arms and the substrate plates are made of refractory ceramic material or of a hard metal (Syllaios, column 4 lines 35-45, made of titanium -aluminum or copper or other metals).
Syllaios does not disclose wherein the substrate plate of each MEMS metrology device are configured to be heated independently to preselected temperatures”.
However, Syllaios does teach that the plates in the array could all be given a varying amounts of energy to emit varying amounts of IR radiation, and the amount of IR radiation is directly related to the temperature i.e. the more IR radiation, the higher the temperature (Syllaios, column 1 line 50 and column 6 lines 49-56; “varying amounts of power may be transmitted to each individual emitter 10. For this reason, at a given instant the various emitters 10 may each emit varying amounts of IR radiation.). And once varying degrees of energy may be given to the individual plates, it would have been obvious to have a predetermined temperature for each plate, in order to know how each MEMs reacts and what signals it may give off, and also that each one of the plates may be “independently controlled”, as taught in Car (Carr, , column 4 lines 56-59 & claim 6; “The various applications for thermally-isolated microplatforms are enhanced by controlling the rate of heating or cooling of a microplatform or microplatform array. A suspended microplatform derives thermal isolation from three phenomena which can either cool or heat the microplatform depending upon the specific structures. These phenomena are: radiation, convection, and conduction.” and the array has “a plurality of independently controllable heater elements”. )
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Syllaios with the teaching of Carr, to have the array elements independently controlled and set to predetermined varying temperatures, in order to best control the heating of the platform and the signals, and in the fabricating of an array of heaters, have them be independently controllable, in order to better and for efficiently control heating and to have the device be more versatile in its application of heat, for specifically controlling the elements, for creating patterns, for instance (Syllaios, column 6 lines 58-65, “this feature allows a special pattern of IR radiation to be emitted”) and having the elements being individually controllable (Carr, column 1 lines 45-52, “The various applications for thermally-isolated microplatforms are enhanced by controlling the rate of heating or cooling of a microplatform or microplatform array. A suspended microplatform derives thermal isolation from three phenomena which can either cool or heat the microplatform depending upon the specific structures. These phenomena are: radiation, convection, and conduction.”).
Claims 16, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syllaios (U.S. Patent # 6,297,511) in view of Carr (U.S. Patent 6,091,050). and further in view of Peeters (U.S. Patent 6,504,643).
Regarding claim 16, Syllaios in view of Carr teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, but does not further teach a metrology array wherein said MEMS devices each have a diameter between 0.01 mm and 2 mm. However, in the art, microplatforms are typically made in that size, such as in Peeters, who teaches that such a size as claimed (Peeters, fig. 4a, column 4, lines 22-23, teaching such a plate element “having a diameter of about 300 to 1000 µm”, which is between .3 mm and 1 mm, a range within the claimed range) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to look to the teachings of Peeters, and modify Syllaios in view of Carr, to create a MEM device of the proper size, as claimed, Peeters teaches a range within the claimed range, in order to operate these devices in a sensitive way, using a very small scale, as is typical and expected with these types of devices.
Regarding claim 17, Syllaios in view of Carr and Peeters teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as above, and further teaches a metrology array wherein said MEMS devices each have a diameter between 0.05 and 1 mm (would have been combined in the combination above).
Regarding claim 19, Syllaios in view of Carr teaches all the limitations of claim 18, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein each MEMS metrology device of said array of MEMS metrology devices has a diameter between 0.01 mm and 2 mm. However, in the art, microplatforms are typically made in that size, such as in Peeters, who teaches that such a size as claimed (Peeters, fig. 4a, column 4, lines 22-23, teaching such a plate element “having a diameter of about 300 to 1000 µm”, which is between .3 mm and 1 mm, a range within the claimed range) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to look to the teachings of Peeters to modify Syllaios in view of Carr, to create a MEM device of the proper size, as claimed, as Xie teaches a range within the claimed range, in order to operate these devices in a sensitive way, using a very small scale, as is typical and expected with these types of devices.
Regarding claim 20, Syllaios in view of Carr and Peeters teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the MEMS metrology devices of said array of MEMS metrology devices are formed as a single component at the constructing said array of MEMS metrology devices step (single integrated component, fig. 2a, See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 21, Syllaios in view of Carr and Peeters teaches all the limitations of claim 20, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the MEMS metrology devices of said array of MEMS metrology devices are formed as a single contiguous material at the constructing said array of MEMS metrology devices step (Syllaios, figs. 1, 4, each device is contiguous).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syllaios (U.S. Patent # 6,297,511) in view of Carr (U.S. Patent 6,091,050) and further in view of Stinton (U.S. Patent 5,075,160) and as evidenced by Mansour (Mansour, Effect of temperature on microstructure and electrical properties of TaSi2. ScienceDirect. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042207X10003155 (Year: 2011);
previously attached).
Regarding claim 22, Syllaios in view of Carr teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, but does not further teach a metrology array wherein respective predetermined temperature is over 1000 deg C or over 2000 deg C or up to 4000 deg C (in the combination above, over 1000 deg C).
However, Stinton teaches, in bringing up temperatures for certain processes, including chemical deposition, the temperature may be brought up to a very high degree, for instance 1200 degrees Celsius (Stinton, column 4 lines 18-25, line 24 has “1200 degrees C”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Syllaios in view of Carr with the teachings of Stinton, bring the temperature up to at least 1000 deg C, in order to use the heating elements to maintain high temperature for creating the environment for chemical deposition onto substrates and other processes and as evidenced by Mansour (Mansour, p. 2 of 13, 1st paragraph, “refractory material”, and may be used at “high temperatures”) ) is heat resistant such as the refractory material of Stinton (Stinton, abstract, “refractory” material allows for high heat).
Regarding claim 23, Syllaios in view of Carr teaches all the limitations of claim [18] above, but does not further teach a method wherein respective predetermined temperature is over 1000 deg C or over 2000 deg C or up to 4000 deg C (in the combination above, over 1000 deg C).
However, Stinton teaches, in bringing up temperatures for certain processes, including chemical deposition, the temperature may be brought up to a very high degree, for instance 1200 degrees Celsius (Stinton, column 4 lines 18-25, line 24 has “1200 degrees C”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Syllaios in view of Carr with the teachings of Stinton, bring the temperature up to at least 1000 deg C, in order to use the heating elements to maintain high temperature for creating the environment for chemical deposition onto substrates and other processes and as evidenced by Mansour (Mansour, p. 2 of 13, 1st paragraph, “refractory material”, and may be used at “high temperatures”) ) is heat resistant such as the refractory material of Stinton (Stinton, abstract, “refractory” material allows for high heat).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new primary reference was used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see previously attached forms PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights