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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 6/14/2024 are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure 6/14/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 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 1 recites “…the saturation threshold used as a target…”.
Paragraph [0067] of the specification of the present application states, “…In addition, the saturation threshold is set in the vicinity of the exposure target value. In other words, the exposure target value is set in the vicinity of the saturation threshold…”.
Therefore, it appears that claim 1 should recite “…the saturation threshold is set in vicinity of an exposure target value…”.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 6
Claim 7 recites, “…with the saturation threshold used as a target…”.
Paragraph [0067] of the specification of the present application states, “…In addition, the saturation threshold is set in the vicinity of the exposure target value. In other words, the exposure target value is set in the vicinity of the saturation threshold…”.
Therefore, it appears that claim 7 should recite, “…with the saturation threshold used as set in the vicinity of an exposure target value…”.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or argued to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The cited prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest an exposure control unit maintaining a confidence value using a saturation threshold set in the vicinity of an exposure target value, as this subject matter is set forth in the context of claims 1-7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights