DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-25 are still pending in this Application.
Request for 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on page 12, with respect to rejections to claims 1-25 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn. The amendments overcome the rejections.
Applicant’s argument/remarks, on pages 12-29, with respect to rejections to claims 1-25 under 35 USC § 101 for Abstract ideas have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, rejections to the claims have been withdrawn.
After analyzing the claims, the amendments as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to claims 1, 10 and 18 recite “managing said manufacturing process based on said outputted predicted manufacturing issue to reduce latency in said manufacturing process”. These limitations do not have support in the disclosure as originally filed. The Applicant pointed support for these amendments in paragraphs [0030, 0045, 0105-0108 and 0186-0190] of Applicant's specification. However, none of these paragraphs teach or suggest the managing and control of the process based on the predicted issue. The MPEP 714.02 and/or 2163.06 recites “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06”.
As to dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-25, these claims are rejected for the same reasons mutatis mutandis as their respective parent claim since they inherit the same error.
Reasons for Allowance
Provided that the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 USC 112(a) is overcome the Claims would be allowed. The same reasons for allowance, as stated in the office action of 11/03/2025, are incorporated by reference herein.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid or differentiate from such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLVIN LOPEZ ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7686 and fax (571) 270-8686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Fennema, can be reached at (571) 272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/O. L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights