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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-4, 8-9, 11-13, 15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions I-III and V-VI, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/21/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention IV in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden present, and that everything listed for classification is within G01N. This is not found persuasive because firstly the bar for a serious burden is not a requirement of more than one entire subclass. G01N has approximately 4.8 million documents in it currently, it is not reasonable and would obviously be a serious burden to look through all 4.8 million documents for each US application that fell under it. Secondly, applicant has echoed what the examiner’s noted reasons for the restriction. Specifically that each invention has distinctly different limitations, requiring different search queries, and generally falling under distinct subgroups. For example one invention applicant noted is directed to an ADC, while another is to detail of sensor head and light detector configuration. These inventions as clearly laid out by the examiner and application again result in the requirement for different classification searches, as well as different search queries. For these reasons the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,862,499 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the instant claims are anticipated by those of the noted US patent. The examiner notes that claim 14 is just a method variant of claim 5 of the instant claims and therefore claim 7 of the US patent relates in that the technical features of apparatus claim 7 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 14, therefore the method is inherent in view of the above apparatus rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 14, the claim identifier states “withdrawn”, however as noted in the restriction and in applicant’s arguments claim 14 is one of the elected claims of invention V and therefore should be labeled –Original--. The examiner will assume at this time it is a typographical error and examiner claim 14 on the merits.
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The examiner fails to find how the preamble of “a device manufacturing system” distinguishes structurally claim 16 from “a sensor controller comprising” of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syvenkyy (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0381943 A1) in view of Saitou (KR 101167062 B1, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claims 1, 10 and 16, Syvenkyy does disclose and show in figure 2 a device manufacturing system comprising:
a sensor controller comprising (Fig. 2; [0015]):
a sensor circuit comprising (Fig. 2; [0015]):
a light source driver (46) to generate a driving signal (i.e. signal sent to LED 48) ([0026], ll. 14-18);
one or more signal delivery devices to:
deliver individual output driving signals of the plurality of output driving signals to respective sensors of a plurality of sensors (as disclosed the detectors can also be plural) ([0026], ll. 18-26; [0032]); and
receive a first signal from a first sensor of the plurality of sensors, wherein the first signal is representative of a first position of a substrate within a device manufacturing machine ([0026], ll. 18-26; where the examiner is interpreting object 26 as a substrate as the broadest reasonable interpretation of substrate is for example “a substance or layer which is under something or on which something happens, for example the surface on which a living thing grows and feeds” from https://www. oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/substrate, the examiner notes for compact prosecution that for arguments sake a substrate is also modified in below as obvious in view of Saitou); and
Syvenkyy does disclose using a plurality of driving signals ([0025], ll. 7-19; where inherently if multiple sources are used as explicitly disclosed each requires its own drive signal as is done between emitter circuit 46 and LED 48)
Syvenkyy does not explicitly disclose using a demultiplexer to produce, using the driving signal, a plurality of output driving signals.
However, the examiner takes Office Notice that the use of a demultiplexer is well known in the art to route one signal to many outputs efficiently and in a low cost manner. Therefore since Syvenkyy already discloses using a drive circuit and many sources, the most obvious choice to relay the drive signal to many sources in a predictable manner is using a demultiplexer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvenkyy with using a demultiplexer to produce, using the driving signal, a plurality of output driving signals in order to provide the advantage of expected results in using a demodulator which is well known in the optical arts and all electronic arts one can predictably relay one signal to many sources in a low cost efficient manner in contrast with having multiple driving circuits.
Syvenkyy does disclose the use of a logic circuit to detect (i.e. processor 40 and amplification circuit 52 detect and provide feedback) ([0026], ll. 18-26).
Syvenkyy does not explicitly disclose a logic circuit to detect, using the first signal, the first position of the substrate within the device manufacturing system.
However, Saitou does disclose in (page 1, ll. 11-15 and ll. 17-29, page 7, ll. 6-16) the use of a common photoelectric sensor similar to that of Syvenkyy’s in order to detect position (e.g. storage position in a wafer cassette or storage shelf, for example overlapped abnormal state as disclosed). With the use of a computer/logic circuit (e.g. sensor control section 8 or mother station 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Syvenkyy with a logic circuit to detect, using the first signal, the first position of the substrate within the device manufacturing system in order to provide the advantage increased versatility, in using a circuit to detection a position of a substrate within a device manufacturing system, obviously as explicitly noted within Saitou one can allow for more efficient automation during manufacturing by determining position location and for example abnormal states as also disclosed.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 10 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 10, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claims 5 and 14, Syvenkyy discloses and shows in figure 2, a sensor controller, wherein the first sensor comprises:
a sensor head (i.e. the end of fiber Tx) to output a light signal driven by a first output driving signal of the plurality of output driving signals ([0026], ll. 14-22); and
a light detector (50) to generate the first signal responsive to detection of at least one of: the light signal outputted by the sensor head, or an occlusion (i.e. interrupted) of the light signal outputted by the sensor head ([0026], ll. 18-22).
As to claim 6, Syvenkyy discloses a sensor controller, wherein the sensor head comprises an open end of an output optical fiber (explicitly shown as fiber Tx) and the light detector comprises an open end of an input optical fiber (explicitly shown as fiber Rx) ([0026], ll. 14-22).
As to claim 7, Syvenkyy discloses a sensor controller, wherein the light detector comprises a photoelectric element (as disclosed the detector is a photodetector) to generate the first signal ([0003], ll. 1-3; [0026], ll. 18-22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877