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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/06/2026. These drawings are acceptable. The previous objections have been corrected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the 112 2nd rejection addressing written description requirements, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The arguments, in light of the amendments, overcome the previous rejections. The 112 2nd rejection addressing written description requirements has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the drawing and specification objections, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The arguments, in light of the amendments, overcome the previous rejections and objections. The objections addressing the drawing and specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 112 2nd rejection of the claim language requiring “high voltage,” applicant has not provided enough evidence to persuade the examiner that this is a term of degree that would be understood by one of “ordinary skill in the art.” For example, applicant discusses Coulomb-type and Johnsen-Rahbek-type electrostatic chucks as evidence that one would know what “high-voltage” means in the context of those types of electrostatic chucks. Examiner notes that, after some investigation, the Coulomb-type chuck requires a typical operating voltage in the vicinity of 1000 volts and the Johnsen-Rahbek-type chuck requires a typical operating voltage in the vicinity of 300-500 volts. These ranges are rather broad and only address those specific chucks as examples. Examiner notes that the applicant did not explicitly disclose those ranges and did not limit the device to being one of those two specific types of chucks. Considering the typical electrostatic chuck can operate in a range of 300-3000 volts with some specialty ones that can operate between 200-7000 volts, one must better define what “high voltage” encompasses. Therefore, the metes and bounds of “high voltage” is still unknown. That 112 2nd rejection is therefore maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 1-4, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the 112 2nd rejection addressing how signals are coupled to a microcontroller, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 2nd rejection addressing microcontroller signal connections of has been withdrawn.
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 12-13 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.
The term “high voltage” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high voltage” 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. What is considered “high voltage?” Is it 1 volt? Is it 100 volts? Is it 10,000 volts? Depending on the system being used, all of these can be considered high voltage. 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behnke (U.S. PGPub # 2006/0161148) in view of Araumi et al (U.S. PGPub # 2022/0173650).
Regarding Independent claim 12, Behnke teaches:
A high-voltage DC power supply configured to monitor the impedance or capacitance of a load connected thereto, the power supply comprising:
an electric generator configured to produce a direct-current (DC) high voltage (Fig. 2 Element 12.) between a first terminal and a ground reference, wherein the first terminal is capable of being connected to the load (Fig. 2 Elements 12 connected through the circuit to the load.);
a sinewave oscillator configured to generate a sinusoidal signal (Fig. 2 Element 14 wherein an RF signal is a sinusoidal wave form in the radio frequency.), wherein the sinewave oscillator is coupled to the first terminal (Fig. 2 Element 14 wherein an RF signal is a sinusoidal wave form in the radio frequency.) via a coupling capacitor, and further wherein the sinewave oscillator is configured to superimpose an alternating-current (AC) signal onto the DC high voltage applied to the load (Fig. 2 Element 14.);
a current sensor configured to produce a first signal, wherein the first signal is representative of an AC current component flowing through the load (Fig. 2 Element 16.);
a voltage sensor configured to produce a second signal, wherein the second signal is representative of an AC voltage component at the first terminal (Fig. 2 Element 14.);
a source conductor configured to provide a third signal, wherein the third signal is representative of the sinusoidal signal generated by the sinewave oscillator (Fig. 2 Elements 16, 18, & the wire connecting them.); and
a micro-controller, wherein the micro-controller is coupled to the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal, (Fig. 2 Element 18.) and further wherein the micro-controller is configured to compute at least one of (i) an impedance of the load or (ii) a capacitance of the load from digital data derived from the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal (Fig. 2 Element 18. See paragraphs 0008 & 0037-0039.).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Behnke does not explicitly teach:
between a first terminal and a ground reference,
a sinewave oscillator coupled to the first terminal via a coupling capacitor.
Araumi teaches:
between a first terminal and a ground reference (Fig. 1 & 2 Elements 20, Vin, & ground node. See paragraph 0029.),
a sinewave oscillator coupled to the first terminal via a coupling capacitor (See Fig. 2 Element 60. See paragraphs 0047-0048, 0104, & 0106.).
PNG
media_image2.png
518
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
760
494
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Araumi to the teachings of Behnke such that one would have an electric generator configured to produce a direct-current (DC) high voltage between a first terminal and a ground reference and have a sinewave oscillator coupled to the first terminal via a coupling capacitor because the “capacitor 20 stabilizes the voltage between a power supply line to receive the input voltage Vin and a ground line to receive a ground voltage GND, and removes noise and the like.” See paragraph 0029 of Araumi. Having a ground is well-known and common in any electrical circuit or electrical device. The capacitor would simply smooth the signal.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Behnke (U.S. PGPub # 2006/0161148) in view of Araumi et al (U.S. PGPub # 2022/0173650) & Wood et al (WO 2013/038176).
Regarding claim 13, Behnke & Araumi teach all elements of claim 12, upon which this claim depends.
Behnke & Araumi do not explicitly teach a demodulator, wherein the demodulator is coupled to the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal, and further wherein the demodulator is configured to provide analog signals, wherein the analog signals are representative of amplitude and phase relationships of the first signal and the second signal relative to the third signal, and further wherein the analog signals representative of amplitude and phase relationships of the first signal and the second signal relative to the third signal are provided to the micro-controller.
Wood teaches a demodulator, wherein the demodulator is coupled to the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal, and further wherein the demodulator is configured to provide analog signals, wherein the analog signals are representative of amplitude and phase relationships of the first signal and the second signal relative to the third signal, and further wherein the analog signals representative of amplitude and phase relationships of the first signal and the second signal relative to the third signal are provided to the micro-controller (See Fig. 12. See Page 23 lines 5-8, page 39 line 17 through page 40 line 7, page 69 lines 8-29, & page 77 line24 through page 78 line 16.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Wood to the teachings of Behnke & Araumi such that one would have a demodulator, wherein the demodulator is coupled to the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal, and further wherein the demodulator is configured to provide analog signals, wherein the analog signals are representative of amplitude and phase relationships of the first signal and the second signal relative to the third signal, and further wherein the analog signals representative of amplitude and phase relationships of the first signal and the second signal relative to the third signal are provided to the micro-controller because this would allow one to “to separate a signal acquired from the measurement arrangement into a first signal comprising the reference output signal and the load output signal and a second signal comprising the load output signal and substantially lacking the reference output signal, and the processing apparatus operative to subtract the second signal from the first signal to thereby obtain the reference output signal.” See claim 37 of Wood.
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. The prior art listed but not cited represents the best applicable art given the understanding of the claims as presented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights