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 USC § 112
Claims 10-22 and 25 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.
In claim 10, it is unclear which part of the testing system is used for directly measuring
an effective mass of majority carriers of the device under test? It appears that the scope of the
claim is incomplete.
In claim 11, it is unclear which part of a parallel line dipole photo-Hall system is used
for directly measuring an effective mass of majority carriers of the device under test? It appears that the scope of the claim is incomplete.
In claim 17, it is unclear which part of a parallel line dipole photo-Hall system is used
for directly measuring an effective mass of majority carriers of the device under test? It appears that the scope of the claim is incomplete.
In claim 19, it is unclear how "a two-dimensional magnetic field vector on a device under test", “an electric field" and "a temperature gradient across the device under test" are interrelated and associated with each other. It appears that the scope of the claim is incomplete.
In claim 25, it is unclear how measurements of conductivity, Hall effect, Seebeck effect and Nernst effect are interrelated and associated with measurements sensitive to thermal gradient conditions.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed share the same indefiniteness as they depend from rejected base claims.
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.
Claims 1,4-9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gunawan
et al (Pat# 11,585,871).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon
the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C.
102(a)(2).
As to claim 1, Gunawan et al disclose a testing system as shown in figure 2, comprising:
a magnetic field generator (233,236), a light source (226); and a sample stage (223) which
supports a device under test (219) during exposure to a magnetic field generated by the magnetic
field generator (233,236) and photons from the light source (226). Gunawan et al do not
explicitly mention about an electric field generated by the electric field generator and the
temperature control assembly generating a temperature gradient across the device under test to
enable measurements sensitive to thermal gradient conditions. Gunawan et al do not explicitly mention about a magnetic field generator and the temperature control assembly including a sample stage which supports from below a device under test. However, it would have been
obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to recognize that the electronics module (120) as electric field generator since it
produces electric field when it is in operational mode.
Gunawan et al also suggest that the device under test (219) can be enclosed in a
measurement chamber, such as a vacuum chamber and this chamber may include a temperature-
control component, such as a cryostat system (see column 7, lines 26-29).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to consider that the combination of a vacuum chamber
with a cryostat system and the sample stage (223) as "a temperature control assembly" for the
purpose of generating a temperature gradient across the device under test to enable measurements sensitive to thermal gradient conditions. Furthermore, the selected location of the "temperature control assembly" below the device under test would be considered as an obvious choice since the location of the temperature control assembly below the device under test would not change the operations of the apparatus of Gunawan et al.
As to claim 4, Gunawan et al disclose a testing system as mentioned in claim 1. It appears that the sample stage includes a thermal conductivity and geometry selected to define a temperature profile of the sample stage,
As to claim 5, Gunawan et al Gunawan et al disclose a testing system as mentioned in
claim 1, wherein the magnetic field generator (233,236) includes a plurality of parallel dipole
line magnets (233,236) rotatable to control total magnetic field at the device under test (209).
As to claim 6, Gunawan et al Gunawan et al disclose a testing system as mentioned in
claim 1, wherein the plurality of parallel dipole line magnets (233,236) include one dipole line
magnet (236) above the device under test and one dipole line magnet (233) below the device
under test.
As to claim 7, Gunawan et al Gunawan et al disclose a testing system as mentioned in
claims 1 and 5, but do not disclose the plurality of parallel dipole line magnets include two dipole line magnets above the device under test and one dipole line magnet below the device under test. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional dipole line magnet above the device under test for the purpose of proving additional magnetic field on the top of the device under test.
As to claim 8, Gunawan et al Gunawan et al disclose a testing system as mentioned in claims 1,5 and 7. As soon as additional dipole line magnet above the device under test, both magnets have to be separate for the purpose of permitting photons from the light source to fall incident on the device under test between the magnets
As to claim 9, Gunawan et al disclose a testing system as mentioned in claim 1, wherein
the electric field generator (120) includes circuitry coupled to the device under test (219).
As to claim 23, the apparatus of Gunawan et al as mentioned in claim 1 would perform
the method steps as recited in claim 23.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR
1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly
from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance
with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure
under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing
that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed
and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of
assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP §
717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose the sample stage includes edge portions which interface with individually controlled temperature elements that provide differential temperatures that result in the temperature gradient across the device under test as recited in claim 2 and in combined with other claimed elements as recited in claim 1. Claims 3 depend from objected claim 2, it is also objected to.
The prior art does not disclose the sample stage includes edge portions which interface with individually controlled temperature elements that provide differential temperatures that result in the temperature gradient across the device under test as recited in claim 24 and in combined with other claimed method steps as recited in claim 23
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “vacuum chamber” of Gunawan coupled to a cryostat system would produce a uniform temperature and not “generating a temperature gradient”.
It is noted that the “temperature gradient condition” and the “thermal gradient conditions” are not specifically defined in claims 1,11,19 and 23, therefore any different temperatures produced by the Cryostat in the chamber would be qualified as “temperature gradient condition”. Therefore, the prior art still meets the limitations of claims 1,4-9 and 23.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gunawan (Pat#10,197,640) discloses Carrier-resolved Multiple Dipole Line Magnet Photo-hall System.
Gokmen et al (Pat# 9,041,389) disclose Hall Measurement System With Rotary Magnet
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1964. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Phan Huy can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/VINH P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858