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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,126 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. This is an obviousness type double patenting rejection.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: a method for determining the thickness of a material body using a sensor system. The application includes both the system and method within the same claim to differentiate over the parent. However, the steps of the method make clear the system being used regardless.
The following chart compares the claims element to element:
Application claim 13
Patent claims
A method of using a sensor system for adjusting a production process of a material body
Claim 10 preamble “Method for adjusting a production process of a material body” in view of claim 5 (production machine comprising the sensor system) and claim 1 (the sensor system)
Determining, at a first accuracy, first data relating to a first parameter pertaining to thickness of a first zone of the material body
Claims 1 and 6- identical first zone/ first accuracy/ first data limitation
Determining, at a second accuracy, second data relating to a second parameter pertaining to thickness of a second zone of the material body, the second accuracy being higher than the first accuracy
Claims 1 and 6- identical second zone/ higher accuracy/ second data limitation
Providing the first data and the second data to a processor, the processor being configured for taking into account the first data as well as the second data to determine the thickness of the material body over the first zone at an accuracy higher than the first accuracy
Claims 1 and 6- identical processor/ combined data/ improved accuracy over the first zone limitation
Determining at least one adjustment for at least one parameter of the production process based on a condition that the thickness of the material body over the first zone is outside a tolerance zone
Claim 10- identical outside a tolerance range- determine adjustment
Adjusting the at least one parameter of the production process based on the determined at least one adjustment
Claim 10 – identical adjustment step
The first data and the second data are determined using at least one sensor operable on the first zone and on the second zone
Claims 1 and 6- identical
The at least one sensor comprises at least one IR absorption sensor and at least one interferometry sensor
Claims 1 and 6- identical sensor pair
The at least one IR absorption sensor is operable on the first zone to determine at the first accuracy, the first data
Claims 1 and 6- identical
The at least one interfereometry sensor is operable on the second zone to determine at the second accuracy, the second data
Claims 1 and 6- identical
The second zone is at least partially contained in the first zone
Claims 2 and 7- identical containment limitation. Application claim 13 merely moves a patented dependent limitation into the independent.
The current claim 13 therefore combines patented system claim 1, patented method claim 6, patented adjustment method claim 10, and patented dependent containment claims 2 and 7. Combining those claims from the same patent is obvious. See In re Ber6, 140 F.3d 1428 (Fed Cir 1998). There are no unexpected results from the combination.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-19 would be allowed if the issues under Double Patenting as stated above are addressed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art alone or in combination fail to disclose or suggest measuring a first parameter pertaining to thickness in a first zone with an IR absorption sensor and measuring a second parameter pertaining to thickness in a second zone with an interferometry sensor with a higher accuracy than the first parameter then taking into account the two measurements to determine a thickness in the first zone.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA CAROLE BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-9787. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12-4 pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached on 571-272-2416. 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.
/REBECCA C BRYANT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights