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
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9 and 18, drawn to a method of optimizing performance of a semiconductor device comprising measuring a peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential, classified in G01N 27/4145.
II. Claims 19-20, drawn to a method of optimizing performance of a semiconductor device comprising measuring a number of non-pinned active pixels, classified in G01N 27/4148.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect because Invention I measures a peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential, compares it to a threshold voltage, and adjusts the voltage applied to the reference pixels in response to the peak-to-peak voltage falling above the threshold voltage, whereas Invention II measures a number of non-pinned active pixels, compares it to an acceptable limit, and adjusts the voltage applied to the reference pixels in response to the number of non-pinned active pixels falling below the acceptable limit. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (searching for different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Group I would require a search in at least CPC G01N 27/4145, along with a unique text search. Group II would not be searched as above and would require a search in at least CPC G01N 27/4148, along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with John Schell on December 17, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-9 and 18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “adjusting the setting of voltage applied” should read “adjusting a voltage applied”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “adjusting the setting of voltage applied” should read “the adjusting the voltage applied”.
In line 3, “change in voltage” should read “change in the voltage”.
In line 5, “applied voltage” should read “the applied voltage”.
In lines 7-8, “an applied voltage in response to the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured falling at or below the threshold voltage” should read “the applied voltage at which the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured falls at or below the threshold voltage”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the incremental change in voltage” should read “the incremental change in the voltage”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the incremental change in voltage” should read “the incremental change in the voltage”.
In line 2, “pf” should read “of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the incremental change in voltage” should read “the incremental change in the voltage”.
In line 3, “decrease voltage” should read “decrease of voltage”.
In lines 9-11, “an applied voltage in response to the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured falling at or below the threshold voltage” should read “the applied voltage at which the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured falls at or below the threshold voltage”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, “adjusting the setting of voltage applied” should read “adjusting a voltage applied”. 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 3-9 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the incremental change in voltage applied to the array of reference pixels is an incremental increase in voltage starting from a voltage” (emphasis added by Examiner) in lines 1-2 of the claim. Claim 3 depends from claim 2 which recites “an incremental change in voltage applied to the array of reference pixels starting from the first voltage” (emphasis added by Examiner) in lines 3-4 of claim 2. It is unclear whether “a voltage” in line 2 of claim 3 refers to the previously recited “the first voltage” in line 4 of claim 2. Claim 4 is rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the incremental change in voltage applied to the array of reference pixels is an incremental decrease in voltage starting from a voltage” (emphasis added by Examiner) in lines 1-2 of the claim. Claim 5 depends from claim 2 which recites “an incremental change in voltage applied to the array of reference pixels starting from the first voltage” (emphasis added by Examiner) in lines 3-4 of claim 2. It is unclear whether “a voltage” in line 2 of claim 5 refers to the previously recited “the first voltage” in line 4 of claim 2. Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “applying an incremental increase of voltage and an incremental decrease voltage to the array of reference pixels from a starting voltage” (emphasis added by Examiner) in lines 3-4 of the claim. Claim 8 depends from claim 2 which recites “an incremental change in voltage applied to the array of reference pixels starting from the first voltage” (emphasis added by Examiner) in lines 3-4 of claim 2. It is unclear whether “a starting voltage” in line 4 of claim 8 refers to the previously recited “the first voltage” in line 4 of claim 2.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the first peak-to-peak voltage” and “the second peak-to-peak voltage” in lines 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitations “the first” and “the second” in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the maximum voltage of the voltage supply is 1.3V”. Claim 9 depends from claim 6 which recites “the maximum voltage of the voltage supply is 2.6V”. It is unclear how the maximum voltage of the voltage supply can be both 2.6V and 1.3V. A maximum voltage implies only one maximum.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of the method for optimizing performance of a semiconductor device of independent claims 1 and 18, with particular attention to the limitations: “measuring a peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential associated with the array of sensor pixels; comparing the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured to a threshold voltage; and adjusting the setting of voltage applied to the array of reference pixels in response to the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured falling above the threshold voltage” in combination with the other limitations of independent claims 1 and 18.
The closest prior art of record is considered to be Wong et al. (US 2016/0103093 A1) and Beauchemin (US 2013/0143221 A1).
Wong teaches a method for correcting nucleotide incorporation signals for fluid potential effects or disturbances arising in nucleic acid sequencing-by-synthesis (abstract). Wong teaches a first array of electronic sensors 130 (the plurality of electronic sensors 210 of the first subset 240) that measure a voltage response to the reaction product, and a second array of electronic sensors 132 (the plurality of electronic sensors 220 of the second subset 250) which are not in fluid communication with the plurality of reaction confinement areas 120 (reaction confinement areas 240a) (Figs. 1-2, para. [0066]). Wong teaches that the second array of electronic sensors 132/220 border the first array of electronic sensors 130/210 (Figs. 1-2). Wong teaches that an output of the amplifier 182 may be provided as an input to the second array of electronic sensors 132/220 and may be used to center the measured response relative to the reference voltage 172 (Figs. 1-2, para. [0066]). Wong teaches that the response of the first array of electronic sensors 130/210 may be adjusted by scaling and subtracting the response of the second array of electronic sensors 132/220 (Figs. 1-2, para. [0058], [0066]). Wong fails to teach “measuring a peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential associated with the array of sensor pixels; comparing the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured to a threshold voltage; and adjusting the setting of voltage applied to the array of reference pixels in response to the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured falling above the threshold voltage” in combination with the other limitations of independent claims 1 and 18.
Beauchemin teaches a sensor array 205 including reference sensors 350 to facilitate detection and/or identification of defects associated with an array of chemical sensors 301.1-301.N prior to use of the chemical sensors (Fig. 3, para. [0051]). Beauchemin teaches that the reference sensor 350 includes a reference transistor 352 that has a voltage applied thereto to place the reference sensor 350 in a known state, which in turn establishes a voltage VOUT at the output terminal of the reference transistor 352 (Figs. 3-4, para. [0052]-[0055], [0058]-[0059]). Beauchemin teaches that a defect can then be determined by comparing the value of the output signal VOUT to an expected range of values corresponding to the known state of the reference transistor 352 (Figs. 3-4, para. [0056], [0060]-[0062]). Beauchemin teaches that the reference sensors 520 are arranged along the periphery of the sensor array 510 and border the array of chemical sensors shown as circles (Fig. 5, para. [0064], [0066]). Beauchemin fails to teach “measuring a peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential associated with the array of sensor pixels; comparing the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured to a threshold voltage; and adjusting the setting of voltage applied to the array of reference pixels in response to the peak-to-peak voltage of fluid potential measured falling above the threshold voltage” in combination with the other limitations of independent claims 1 and 18.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/V.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794