CTNF 18/902,729 CTNF 78671 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claims 5 and 16 are objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: “comprising” instead of --comprises--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-03 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for infrared sensor technology , does not reasonably provide enablement for the broad scope of “sensor.” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Before explaining the Examiner’s analysis of enablement, the examiner has selected the definition of “sensor” as being any sensor that detects anything. For the Examiner’s analysis of whether there is lack of enablement for the entire scope of "sensor", the following factors, were considered. (1) The breadth (i.e., scope) of the claims: The relevant concern is whether the scope of enablement in the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In the disclosure, examples providing enablement included infrared sensor technology. However, the scope of protection sought by the claims is "sensor" which includes any sensor that detects anything. The disclosure did not enable one to make and/or use all sensors in the broad scope of the claimed invention, such as sensors for dark matter or radiation with energy greater than 1 ZeV, which would require undue experimentation to make and/or use since these devices do not exist. (2) The nature of the invention: The subject matter to which the claimed invention recites is “sensor” in general, which can include any sensor for anything, such as dark matter or energy greater than 1 ZeV. However, the subject matter to which the subject matter pertains in the specification is infrared sensor technology. (3) The state of the prior art: One skilled in the art would have known, at the time of the application was filed, about the infrared sensor subject matter to which the invention pertains. However, the state of the prior art does not have any direction or guidance with regard to all sensors in the broad scope of "sensor", such as sensors for dark matter or energy greater than 1 ZeV, and/or gravitational radiation, which would require undue experimentation to make, since those devices do not exist. (4) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of one of ordinary skill, would have known, at the time of the application was filed, how to practice the infrared sensor subject matter to which the invention pertains. However, one of ordinary skill would not know how to make and/or use all sensors in the broad scope of "sensor", such as sensors for dark matter or radiation with energy greater than 1 ZeV, since those devices do not exist and since the interaction of these other phenomena would produce outputs that could not be used to practice the claimed invention. (5) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor provided direction on how to make and/or use the invention with regard to infrared sensor technology. However, there is no direction or guidance with regard to all sensors in the broad scope of "sensor", such as sensors for dark matter or radiation with energy greater than 1 ZeV, which would require undue experimentation to make and/or use since those devices do not exist. (6) The existence of working examples: The disclosure does provide a working example using infrared sensor technology. Therefore, that is enough to preclude a rejection which states that nothing is enabled. However, a rejection stating that enablement is limited to a particular scope is appropriate, since there are no working examples provided for sensors that can detect dark matter or radiation with energy greater than 1 ZeV. (7) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Since the scope of the claimed invention includes all sensors, there are sensors that do not exist, such as sensors for dark matter or radiation with energy greater than 1 ZeV. Since these types of sensors do not exist, it would require undue experimentation to make such an invention commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. Based on the factors above, the Examiner concludes that the disclosure’s scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. While the specification is enabling for infrared sensor technology, the specification does not enable one to make and/or use the claimed invention with other types of sensors, such as sensors for dark matter or radiation with energy greater than 1 ZeV, which would require undue experimentation to make and/or use since such sensors do not exist. Therefore, the claims are rejected for scope of enablement issues. This rejection may be obviated by inserting "infrared" before each instance of "sensor" in the claim(s). Any dependent claims are rejected for the above reason by virtue of their claim dependency . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-14 and 16-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12146795 (hereinafter USPN ‘795) in view of Shrinivasan et al. (US 6563092; hereinafter Shrinivasan) . Regarding claim 1, USPN ‘795 claims a temperature control system (claim 1, preamble) comprising: an array sensor to generate a two-dimensional image, the two-dimensional image including one or more zones, the one or more zones corresponding to a respective component among a plurality of components and comprising a plurality of pixels indicative of a temperature of the respective component (claim 1, par. 1 in the body of the claim); a controller controlling a temperature control device to adjust a temperature of the respective component (par. 2); and an array sensor controller activated by a power source and in communication with the array sensor and the controller (par. 3). However, USPN ‘795 fails to claim the system in an electromagnetic interference (EMI) environment of a semiconductor processing tool. Shrinivasan teaches the system in an electromagnetic interference (EMI) environment of a semiconductor processing tool (title; col. 8:7). It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claims of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘795 with the teaching of Shrinivasan, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for making measurements in a difficult environment (Shrinivasan: col. 3:45-4:3). Regarding claim 2, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the controller is configured to generate a benchmark temperature corresponding to the respective component associated with the one or more zones and cause the temperature control device to adjust the temperature of the respective component based on the benchmark temperature (claim 2). Regarding claim 3, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the temperature control device comprises one or more cooling fans with variable fan speeds (claim 3). Regarding claim 4, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the one or more zones includes an associated zone temperature determined based on the plurality of pixels (claim 4). Regarding claim 5, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the two-dimensional image comprising a two-dimensional array of temperature values corresponding to the plurality of pixels (claim 5). Regarding claim 6, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the controller comprises a remote solid-state relay (SSR) controller (claim 6). Regarding claim 7, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the one or more zones is associated with a size, area, or location of the respective component (claim 7). Regarding claim 8, USPN ‘795 claims wherein a zone among the one or more zones is associated with the controller, the controller being a respective controller among a plurality of controllers (claim 8). Regarding claim 9, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the respective controller controls a respective temperature control device to adjust a temperature of the respective component, and wherein the temperature control system controls component temperature based on temperature data generated by a single two-dimensional image that includes the one or more zones therein (claim 9). Regarding claim 10, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the temperature data generated by the single two-dimensional image is transmitted as feedback data to a data processor included in at least one controller in the plurality of controllers (claim 10). Regarding claim 11, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the feedback data is compared, by the data processor, against benchmark temperature data (claim 11). Regarding claim 12, USPN ‘795 claims a method for operating an array sensor temperature control system (claim 12, preamble), the method comprising: generating, by an array sensor, a two-dimensional image, the two-dimensional image including one or more zones, the one or more zones corresponding to a respective component among a plurality of components and comprising a plurality of pixels indicative of a temperature of the respective component (par. 1); processing data derived from the one or more zones to generate input data for a controller (par. 2); and operating the controller controlling a temperature control device to adjust a temperature of the respective component based on the input data (par. 3). However, USPN ‘795 fails to claim the system in an electromagnetic interference (EMI) environment of a semiconductor processing tool. Shrinivasan teaches the system in an electromagnetic interference (EMI) environment of a semiconductor processing tool (title; col. 8:7). It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claims of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘795 with the teaching of Shrinivasan, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for making measurements in a difficult environment (Shrinivasan: col. 3:45-4:3). Regarding claim 13, USPN ‘795 claims generating a benchmark temperature corresponding to the respective component associated with the one or more zones; and causing the temperature control device to adjust the temperature of the respective component based on the benchmark temperature (claim 13). Regarding claim 14, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the temperature control device comprises one or more cooling fans with variable fan speeds (claim 14). Regarding claim 15, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the one or more zones includes an associated zone temperature determined based on the plurality of pixels (claim 16). Regarding claim 16, USPN ‘795 (claim 1) in view of Shrinivasan suggests a corresponding device. USPN ‘795 further claims wherein the two-dimensional image comprising a two-dimensional array of temperature values corresponding to the plurality of pixels (claim 5). However, USPN ‘795 fails to claim a method with this claim set. Shrinivasan teaches a method (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claims of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘795 with the teaching of Shrinivasan, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for making measurements in a difficult environment (Shrinivasan: col. 3:45-4:3). Regarding claim 17, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the one or more zones is associated with a size, area, or location of the respective component (claim 17). Regarding claim 18, USPN ‘795 claims wherein a zone among the one or more zones is associated with the controller, the controller being a respective controller among a plurality of controllers (claim 18). Regarding claim 19, USPN ‘795 claims wherein the respective controller controls a respective temperature control device to adjust a temperature of the respective component, and wherein a temperature control system including the respective controller controls component temperature based on temperature data generated by a single two-dimensional image that includes the one or more zones therein (claim 19). Regarding claim 20, USPN ‘795 (claim 1) in view of Shrinivasan suggests a corresponding device. USPN ‘795 further claims wherein the temperature data generated by the single two-dimensional image is transmitted as feedback to a data processor included in at least one controller in the plurality of controllers (claim 9). However, USPN ‘795 fails to claim a method with this claim set. Shrinivasan teaches a method (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, to conclude that the invention defined in the claims of the instant application would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of USPN ‘795 with the teaching of Shrinivasan, since one would have been motivated to make such a modification for making measurements in a difficult environment (Shrinivasan: col. 3:45-4:3). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chih-Cheng Kao whose telephone number is (571)272-2492. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, David Makiya can be reached at (571) 272-2273. 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. /Chih-Cheng Kao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/902,729 Page 2 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/902,729 Page 3 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/902,729 Page 4 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/902,729 Page 5 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/902,729 Page 8 Art Unit: 2884 Application/Control Number: 18/902,729 Page 10 Art Unit: 2884
Prosecution Insights