DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to amendments filed on 7/14/26.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “a plurality of methodology” in each of claims 1, 15 and 19 appears to be a clerical error and was instead intended to be “a plurality of methodologies”.
The term “measuring a same parameter values” in each of claims 1, 15 and 19 appears to be a clerical error and was instead intended to be “measuring parameter values”.
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 1-11, 13-16 and 18-19 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 1, 15 and 19 each include the term “determining reason for a failure to match said parameter values at each of said checkpoints and adjusting and/or said fabrication steps and a fabrication tool causing said failure”. It is unclear which of the limitations (i.e. determining, adjusting, fabrication steps, fabrication tool) preceding and following “and/or” are part of the claimed invention. For examination purposes the limitation is interpreted as “determining reason for a failure to match said parameter values at each of said checkpoints and adjusting said fabrication steps and a fabrication tool causing said failure”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11, 13-16 and 18-19 would be allowable upon resolution of the above claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s Interview Status remarks, Examiner sent an email to the designated email address in response to the 6/26/26 Automated Interview Request submission and attempted multiple times to contact Applicant’s representative via telephone using the designated telephone number to schedule an interview, but no response was received.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 September 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights