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 .
Claims 21-40 have been presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/3/25 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 21-25, 28-32 and 35-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,387. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21-25, 28-32 and 35-39 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-15 in that the patent claims contain all the limitations of the instant application claims.
Application No. 18/959173
US Pat. No. 12,153,387
Claim 21: A manufacturing system, comprising:
Claim 1: A manufacturing system, comprising:
one or more process stations configured to execute a manufacturing process;
one or more process stations configured to execute a manufacturing process;
a station control system configured to control the one or more process stations; and
a station control system configured to control the one or more process stations; and
a controller in communication with the one or more process stations and the station control system, the controller configured to perform operations comprising:
a controller in communication with the one or more process stations and the station control system, the controller configured to perform operations comprising:
initiating the manufacturing process across the one or more process stations by providing operating instructions to the station control system;
initiating the manufacturing process across the one or more process stations by providing operating instructions to the station control system;
receiving actual output from the one or more process stations in the manufacturing process based on the operating instructions;
receiving actual output from the one or more process stations in the manufacturing process based on the operating instructions;
predicting, using a deep learning processor, expected values for the one or more process stations based on the operating instructions;
predicting, using a deep learning processor, expected values for the one or more process stations based on the operating instructions;
determining, based on a comparison between the actual output from the one or more process stations and the expected values for the one or more process stations that the actual output deviates from the expected values; and
determining, based on a comparison between the actual output from the one or more process stations and the expected values for the one or more process stations that the actual output deviates from the expected values; and
based on the determining, generating, by the deep learning processor, a proposed state change to the manufacturing process to reduce a deviation between the actual output and the expected values to achieve a key performance indicator of the manufacturing process, wherein the proposed state change brings the expected values within a statical process control.
based on the determining, generating, by the deep learning processor, a proposed state change to the manufacturing process to reduce a deviation between the actual output and the expected values to achieve a key performance indicator of the manufacturing process, wherein the proposed state change is within equipment limits of the one or more process stations and within a user specification that is narrower than the equipment limits.
The instant applicant defines in the specification that the statistical process control (SPC) “provides alerts if and when specific process deviates from normal operation” [0031]. Normal operation is interpreted as being analogous to “within equipment limits”.
Independent claims 28 and 35 mimic patent claims 6 and 11 respectively in a substantially similar manner illustrated above.
Dependent claims 22-25, 29-32 and 36-39 are substantially identical to patent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-23, 27, 28-30, 34 and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Putman et al [Putman] PGPUB 2020/0401119.
Referring to claim 21, Putman teaches the manufacturing system comprising:
one or more process stations configured to execute a manufacturing process [0020-0021];
a station control system configured to control the one or more process stations [0023]; and
a controller in communication with the one or more process stations and the station control system, the controller configured to perform operations [Fig. 2 and 0037] comprising:
initiating the manufacturing process across the one or more process stations by providing operating instructions to the station control system [0047, 0061];
receiving actual output from the one or more process stations in the manufacturing process based on the operating instructions [0042, 0051-0052];
predicting, using a deep learning processor, expected values for the one or more process stations based on the operating instructions [0056];
determining, based on a comparison between the actual output from the one or more process stations and the expected values for the one or more process stations that the actual output deviates from the expected values [0056]; and
based on the determining, generating, by the deep learning processor, a proposed state change to the manufacturing process to reduce a deviation between the actual output and the expected values to achieve a key performance indicator of the manufacturing process, wherein the proposed state change brings the expected values within statistical process control [0031, 0063, 0067, 0080, 0083-0084]. The controller detects deviation from the expected/in-spec values (SPC) and generates a proposed change to reduce that deviation, driving the process toward an optimal value for a selected parameter (KPI).
Referring to claim 22, Putman teaches receiving actual output from the process stations at various phases [0042, 0057].
Referring to claim 23, Putman teaches adjusting process setpoints in accordance with the proposed state change [0067, 0073-0077].
Referring to claim 27, Putman teaches determining the expected values are in statistical process by comparing the expected values to an average process value [0026, 0029-0031].
Referring to claims 28-30, 34 and 35-37, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove with respect to claims 21-23 and 27. Putman teaches the system and therefore teaches the method and program performing the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 24-26, 31-33 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Putman as applied to claims 21-23, 27, 28-30, 34 and 35-37 above, and further in view of Fan et al1 [Fan] PGPUB 2019/0187635.
Referring to claims 24-26, while Putman teaches optimizing specified design and process values through comparing actual and expected outputs and adjusting accordingly [0063], it is not explicitly taught that the process is performed through simulation. Fan teaches a similar environment where an AI is trained and continues during deployment [0055, 0058]. Fan further teaches that operation includes simulating the changes and adjusts as necessary based on the observed simulation results [0073, 0078, 0081]. It would have been obvious to include the teachings of Fan into Putman because while Putman teaches predicting “expected values”, it is not explicitly taught what mechanism is used for the prediction. Fan provides the required mechanism to predict process change outcomes and does so via simulation. Therefore, including the simulation into Putman would allow for the required prediction to occur.
Referring to claims 31-33 and 38-40, these are rejected on the same basis as set forth hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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.
/MARK A CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 8/20/26
1 Cited by applicant
Prosecution Insights