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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 24 line 8, the voltage measuring unit is identified by number 120 and should be identified as number 130.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a calculation unit” in claim 1, support for the claimed device is found in page 9 line 28 - page 10 line 3 of the specification, where the respective units are a computer or microprocessor, or can be in the form of a computer program product, a function, a routine, part of a program code or an executable object.
“a voltage measuring unit” in claim 1, support for the claimed device is found in page 9 line 28 - page 10 line 3 and page 24 lines 3-25 of the specification .
“a current measuring unit” in claim 1, support for the claimed device is found in page 9 line 28 - page 10 line 3 and page 24 lines 3-25 of the specification.
“a first matched filter unit” in claim 1, support for the claimed device is found in page 9 line 28 - page 10 line 3 and page 24 lines 3-25 of the specification.
“a second matched filter unit” in claim 1, support for the claimed device is found in page 9 line 28 - page 10 line 3 and page 24 lines 3-25 of the specification.
“a control device” of claim 1, is understood a sum of computer elements, see page 9 line 28 - page 10 line 3.
“a control unit” in claim 9, support for the claimed unit is found in page 9 lines 25-26 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
For claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 20, the terms “associated phase” and “the estimated associated phase” are used for both the phase of the voltage and the phase of the current. It is unclear which associated phase is being described when not linked to the specific measurement. The Examiner recommends using the terminology of the claim 14, “the phase associated with the voltage amplitude” and “the phase associated with the current amplitude”. Claims 3, 5-7, and 11-19 depend from claim 1.
For claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the signal generator" in the claim. For the purposes of examining, the signal generator is understood to be the same signal generator of claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 20 are directed to a control device and a method of controlling and measuring an actuator. Each of the claims fails within one of the statutory classes including a process and a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The abstract idea of claims 1 and 20 are identified in bold:
Claim 1 recites a control device, comprising:
a voltage measuring unit configured to provide a measurement voltage indicative of a time-dependent voltage of an actuator controlled via an excitation signal based on a specific model, the excitation signal comprising a sinusoidal measurement signal component configured to measure an impedance of the actuator;
a current measuring unit configured to provide a measurement current indicative of a time-dependent current of the actuator controlled via the excitation signal;
a first matched filter unit configured to estimate a voltage amplitude and an associated phase of the measurement signal component arising at the actuator based on the measurement voltage provided and the specific model of the excitation signal;
a second matched filter unit configured to estimate a current amplitude and an associated phase of the measurement signal component arising at the actuator based on the measurement current provided and the specific model of the excitation signal; and
a calculation unit configured to calculate the impedance of the actuator based on the estimated voltage amplitude, the estimated associated phase, the estimated current amplitude and the estimated associated phase.
Claim 20 recites the corresponding method.
Providing a measurement based on a transfer function is a mathematical concept, see page 24 of the specification. Performing an estimation is a mental process or a mathematical concept, such as least squares fitting as disclosed on page 24 of the specification. Performing a calculation to determine impedance using estimated polar components is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A, prong 2: The actuator recited in claims 1 and 20 is not positively recited and the measurement voltage and measurement current are recited as only being indicative of the a time-dependent voltage and the time-dependent current of an actuator. Broadest reasonable interpterion for a computer program (see claim interpretation above) is that all measurement data is understood to not be received from the actuator, but instead data related to a representative actuator.
The respective units, based on the claim interpretation above, are understood to be a computer or microprocessor, or can be in the form of a computer program product, a function, a routine, part of a program code or an executable object. The broadest reasonable interpretation allows for each of the units to be embodied as software that generate data, such as data indicative of the function of the actuator, and manipulate the data by performing estimation and calculation. The claimed additional elements do not make the claim a practical application because they are performing to recite at a high level of generality and generic computer functions or software routinely used in generic computer components or software in the claim. The computer additional elements can be implemented as generic computer components which are merely used as tools to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). There is no particular machine (discounting the generic computer components) for applying the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and there is no real-world transformation in the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)).
The voltage measuring unit and current measuring unit can also be understood to be additional computer elements that gather or generate the data values associated with a voltage and current. The data gathering is an extra insignificant activity because it contributes only data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and example 45 in October 2019 PEG update).
When considered as a whole, the control device and associated method can be understood performing a software representation of actuator measurement or control without any practical application of the measurement or control.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, as a whole, do not add significantly more to the exception for similar reasons as provided in Step 2A, prong 2 above.
Claims 2-5 further limit the mathematical concept related to the estimation and provide no practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 13 recite a signal generator that provides a signal to the control device, but the signal generator does not provide practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because data output is an extra insignificant activity that contributes data for analysis (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 12 recites the model used for generating the sinusoid used in the estimation which provides no practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 14 limits the mathematical concept related to the calculation and provides no practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 involves the practical application of providing the signal to the actuator to control the actuator, claims 8-11 depend therefrom, and claims 15-19 involved the practical application of the control device in a system with the actuator and the optical element.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindahl et al. [A Time-Domain Least Squares Approach to Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy] in view of Werber et al. [US 2011/0273694].
For claims 1 and 20, Lindahl teaches a measurement device, comprising:
a voltage measuring unit (DAQ module, see Fig. 1 and page 337) configured to provide a measurement voltage indicative of a time-dependent voltage of an electrochemical device controlled via an excitation signal based on a specific model (measure V(t)), the excitation signal comprising a sinusoidal measurement signal component configured to measure an impedance of the electrochemical device (AC excitation signal with dc component s(t), see page 3306);
a current measuring unit (DAQ module with Tektronix probe, see Fig. 1 and page 337) configured to provide a measurement current indicative of a time-dependent current of the electrochemical device controlled via the excitation signal (measure I(t));
a first matched filter unit configured to estimate a voltage amplitude and an associated phase of the measurement signal component arising at the electrochemical device based on the measurement voltage provided and the specific model of the excitation signal (perform OLS on measurement data, see Section II equations 8-12, and analysis by MATLAB, see page 3306);
a second matched filter unit configured to estimate a current amplitude and an associated phase of the measurement signal component arising at the electrochemical device based on the measurement current provided and the specific model of the excitation signal (perform OLS on measurement data, see Section II equations 8-12, and analysis by MATLAB, see page 3306);
and a calculation unit configured to calculate the impedance of the electrochemical device based on the estimated voltage amplitude, the estimated associated phase, the estimated current amplitude and the estimated associated phase (see equation 12 and page 3306).
Lindahl fails to teach using the measurement device in a control device for controlling and measuring an actuator configured to actuate an optical element of an optical system.
Werber teaches using an impedance measurement device (a capacitive measuring bridge, see [0155]) in a control device for controlling and measuring an actuator configured to actuate an optical element of an optical system (sensor system used for distance/angle measurement of mirror body 79, see [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide to control the mirror of the optical system as taught by Werber using the impedance measurement arrangement as taught by Lindahl in order to provide broadband impedance measurement while reducing the signal to noise ratio to increase the accuracy of the measurement.
For claim 2, Lindahl teaches the first matched filter unit is configured to use a linear least squares estimate to estimate the voltage amplitude and the associated phase of the measurement signal component arising at the electrochemical device using the measurement voltage provided and the specific model of the excitation signal (OLS method used, see section II), and Werber teaches using an impedance measurement device to measure the actuator (a capacitive measuring bridge, see [0155]).
For claim 4, Lindahl teaches the second matched filter unit is configured to use a linear least squares estimate to estimate the current amplitude and the associated phase of the measurement signal component arising at the electrochemical device using the measurement current provided and the specific model of the excitation signal (OLS method used, see section II) and Werber teaches using an impedance measurement device to measure the actuator (a capacitive measuring bridge, see [0155]).
For claim 6, Lindahl teaches a signal generator (function generator, see Fig. 1) configured to provide the excitation signal.
For claim 7, Lindahl teaches the signal generator is configured to provide the excitation signal so that the excitation signal comprises a control signal component (the dc current set point, see section IV and equations 8 and 9) and the sinusoidal measurement signal component for measuring the impedance (sinusoidal ac current excitation, see section IV and equations 8 and 9) and Werber teaches a control signal component configured to set a specific position of the controlled actuator and the sinusoidal measurement signal component for measuring the impedance of the actuator (a direct voltage, which is used for the above-described actuator system of the mirror body 79, can be superimposed by an alternating voltage fraction, see [0155]).
For claims 8 and 12, Lindahl teaches the specific model of the excitation signal is determined by the following equation:
y(t)=O+a*sin(2πft+φ)
where y(t) denotes the excitation signal, O denotes the control signal component, a denotes the amplitude, f denotes the frequency, t denotes the time and φ denotes the phase (see equation 8 and 9 and dc and ac sinusoid sweep, see page 3307).
For claim 9, Lindahl teaches comprising a control unit (programable load, see Fig. 1 and page 3306) coupled to the signal generator and the electrochemical device, wherein the control unit is configured to output to the electrochemical device a time-dependent control voltage configured to control the electrochemical device based on the excitation signal provided by the signal generator (current source based on the ac current excitation, see page 3306), and Werber teaches using an impedance measurement device to measure the actuator (a capacitive measuring bridge, see [0155]).
For claim 13, Lindahl teaches the signal generator is configured to provide the excitation signal as a broadband excitation signal comprising a plurality of sinusoidal measurement signal components configured to simultaneously measure the actuator at a plurality of different frequencies, and Werber teaches using an impedance measurement device to measure the actuator (a capacitive measuring bridge, see [0155]).
For claim 14, Lindahl teaches the calculation unit is configured to calculate the complex impedance of the electrochemical device based on a phase shift between the phase associated with the voltage amplitude and the phase associated with the current amplitude and a quotient between the voltage amplitude and the current amplitude (see equation 12) and Werber teaches using an impedance measurement device to measure the actuator (a capacitive measuring bridge, see [0155]).
For claims 15-19, in the combination for claim 1, Werber teaches an optical system (see Fig. 1), comprising: an optical element (see Fig. 7); an actuator (89 and 90); and a control device (95), wherein the actuator is configured to actuate the optical element (see [0099]-[0102]), or an apparatus, (see Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of optical elements (21, mirror array, see Fig. 2); a plurality of actuators (89 and 90); and a plurality of control devices, wherein each actuator has a corresponding control device, each actuator is configured to actuate a corresponding optical element (actuator control device 95 for each of the actuators, see [0099]-[0102]), and the optical system is lithography illumination optical unit, or a lithography projection optical unit (see Fig. 1).
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindahl and Werber as applied to claims 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Radil et al. [Impedance Measurement With Sine-Fitting Algorithms Implemented in a DSP Portable Device].
For claims 3 and 5, Lindahl fails to explicitly teach the first matched filter unit or the second matched filter unit is configured to carry out the linear least squares estimate based on a Moore-Penrose inverse, the Moore-Penrose inverse comprising coefficients suitable for the compensation of a transfer function of the voltage measuring unit or the current measuring unit.
Radil teaches the first matched filter unit or the second matched filter unit is configured to carry out the linear least squares estimate based on a Moore-Penrose inverse, the Moore-Penrose inverse comprising coefficients suitable for the compensation of a transfer function of the voltage measuring unit or the current measuring unit (performing a sine fitting using a Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse matrix, see section II).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sine fitting method as taught by Radil in the sine fitting as taught by Lindahl in order to reduce the time for fitting the signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Richt et al. [US 2025/0015772] teaches the subject matter of claims 10 and 11, but has an effective filing date of the same day as the instant application. The previously cited prior art fails to teach the entirety of “the control unit comprises a frequency-dependent first transfer function and the control unit is configured thereby to amplify the excitation signal comprising a first frequency range and a second frequency range to form the control voltage for the actuator so that the first frequency range experiences a higher gain vis-à-vis the second frequency range by a specific factor; the voltage measuring unit is configured to provide the measurement voltage based on a second transfer function that is based on an inverse of the first transfer function; the current measuring unit is configured to provide the measurement current based on a third transfer function that is based on an inverse of the first transfer function,” as recited in claim 10. Claim 11 depends therefrom.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven H Whitesell whose telephone number is (571)270-3942. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (MST).
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/Steven H Whitesell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759