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 .
Continuity
Examiner notes this application is a continuation of parent application 17/076,539.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Examiner notes the foreign patent documents may be found in the parent application (17/076,539).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claims 1,16 and 20, “the thermal output of the powered semiconductor system” lacks antecedent basis;
in claims 1,16 and 20, “the thermal output of the power supply system” lacks antecedent basis;
in claim 4, line 7, “the switch” lacks antecedent basis;
in claim 4, “an output of the redundant power supply unit” recited on line 5 has already been recited on line 4 and should have antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,141. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are merely broadened recitations of the patented claims, which have been broadened by removing some of the limitations of the patent, such as the claimed inputs, outputs, and power line. It is evident by inspection that claims 1-16 of the patent anticipate claims 1-16 of the application. System claims 1 and 16 of the patent have a similar scope to method claim 17 of the application, but are written in the form an apparatus, not a method. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person in ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive a method from an apparatus. Dependent claims 18-19 have similar scope to that of claims 9-10, respectively. Examiner notes dependent claims 18-20 also have a similar scope to that of dependent claims 18-20 of the patent. As for claim 20, it has a scope similar to that of claims 5 and 7 of the patent. While claim 5 of the patent does not detail the capacitor voltage, it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement capacitor as a power source with at least 25 volts in order to have sufficient voltage to power a standard 24 volt load.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under obviousness type double patenting, but would be allowed upon receipt of an appropriate terminal disclaimer, and if the claim objections stated above were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art reference Muzzey (US 2020/0127490) discloses a power supply system, the power supply system comprising: a plurality of power supply modules (Fig. 3 104A-104H), each configured to couple to an AC power source (Fig. 3 106A-106C) and to provide power to the loads (Fig. 3 142,12A-12D); a plurality of switching modules (Fig. 3 164B,162), each switching module coupled to one of the plurality of power supply modules and configured to detect (Fig. 3 162) an electrical state of the respective power supply module to which the switching module is coupled; a redundant power supply unit (Fig. 3 126) coupled to the AC power source and configured to connect to the plurality of switching modules based upon the detected electrical state. But the prior art does not disclose, primarily, a power supply system for a powered semiconductor processing system comprising an enclosure configured as a heat sink for the plurality of power supply modules, the plurality of switching modules, and the redundant power supply unit, wherein the enclosure is physically separated from the powered semiconductor processing system by a predetermined distance to mitigate thermal impact on the plurality of power supply modules, the plurality of switching modules, and the redundant power supply unit from the powered semiconductor processing system and to facilitate heat dissipation, the predetermined distance being selected based at least in part on one or more of: a type of the powered semiconductor processing system, the thermal output of the powered semiconductor processing system, the thermal output of the power supply system, or an ambient temperature of a surrounding environment in which the enclosure is placed.
The aforementioned limitations in combination with all remaining limitations of the respective claims are believed to render the aforementioned indicated claim and any dependent claims thereof patentable over the art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Muzzey (US 2020/0127490) discloses a power supply. Huang (US 12,088,141) is the patent for the parent application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARRY RAYMOND BEHM whose telephone number is (571)272-8929. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, Thienvu Tran can be reached at 571-270-1276. 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.
/HARRY R BEHM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2838