Notice of NON-FINAL Rejection
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
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© 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 2-21 of instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12272536 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US Patent US12,272,536 B2 anticipates claim limitations of 2-21 claims of US application 19/169, 049. Hence, claims 2-21 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
A comparison of the claims listed below.
Instant Application 19, 169, 049 claim
Obvious over US12,272,536 B2
1 Cancelled by Applicant
2. (New) A plasma processing system comprising: a user interface configured to receive a reference signal defining target values for a parameter that is controlled at an output within the plasma processing system; a sensor to obtain a measure of the parameter that is controlled at the output; an estimator configured to: calculate a delay between the target values and corresponding measured parameter values at the output; and provide, based upon the delay, an error between the target values and the measured parameter values, the error comprising noise and uncertainty; and a control configured to preemptively adjust an actuator based upon the delay and the error.
1. A plasma processing system comprising: a user interface configured to receive a reference signal defining target values for a parameter that is controlled at an output within the plasma processing system; at least one sensor to obtain a measure of the parameter that is controlled at the output; a delay/amplitude estimator configured to: calculate a delay between the target values of the reference signal and corresponding actual parameter values achieved at the output; and provide, based upon the delay, a time-shifted amplitude error indicative of an error between the target values and the actual parameter values, the error encompassing at least noise and dynamic uncertainty; and a predictive control section configured to preemptively adjust at least one actuator, based upon the delay and the time-shifted amplitude error.
3. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 2, wherein the error is based on a difference between a time-shifted version of the target values and the corresponding measured parameter values at the output.
2. The plasma processing system of claim 1, wherein the time-shifted amplitude error is based on a difference between a time-shifted version of the target values and the corresponding actual parameter values achieved at the output.
4. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 2, wherein the section is further configured to adjust the actuator, in advance of when a measured parameter value is expected at an actuator output of the actuator.
3. The plasma processing system of claim 1, wherein the predictive control section is further configured to adjust the at least one actuator, in advance of when an actual parameter value is desired at an actuator output of the at least one actuator while maintaining the output within a threshold range.
5. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 2, wherein the estimator is configured to process the target values and the measured parameter values in parallelized frames.
4. The plasma processing system of claim 1, wherein the delay/amplitude estimator is configured to process the target values and the actual parameter values in parallelized frames.
6. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 5, wherein the estimator is configured to calculate an instance of the delay for each of the parallelized frames.
5. The plasma processing system of claim 4, wherein the delay/amplitude estimator is configured to calculate an instance of the delay for each of the parallelized frames.
7. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 2, further comprising a creator configured to use the delay, the noise, and the uncertainty to calculate the error.
6. The plasma processing system of claim 1, further comprising a time-shifted error creator configured to use the delay, the noise, and the dynamic uncertainty to calculate the time-shifted amplitude error.
8. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 2, further comprising a hypothesis tester configured to: probe a cost function based on: the target values; the corresponding measured parameter values at the output; delay guesses; and generate: cost function values corresponding to the delay guesses; and time-shifted target values each shifted by a different one of the delay guesses.
7. The plasma processing system of claim 1, further comprising a hypothesis tester configured to: probe a cost function based on: the target values of the reference signal; the corresponding actual parameter values achieved at the output; a set of delay guesses; and generate: a set of cost function values each corresponding to a different one of the set of delay guesses; and a time-shifted set of the target values of the reference signal each shifted by a different one of the set of delay guesses.
9. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 8, further comprising a noise and uncertainty signal extraction configured to select time-shifted target values from the time-shifted target values, as selected time-shifted target values, corresponding to a one of the delay guesses corresponding to a maximum of the cost function values.
8. The plasma processing system of claim 7, further comprising a noise and uncertainty signal extraction configured to select a time-shifted set of target values from the time-shifted set of target values, as a selected time-shifted set of target values, corresponding to a one of the set of delay guesses corresponding to a maximum of the set of cost function values.
10. (New) The plasma processing system of Claim 9, wherein the noise and uncertainty signal extraction is further configured to identify noise and uncertainty in the corresponding measured parameter values from a difference between the selected time-shifted target values and the corresponding measured parameter values.
9. The plasma processing system of claim 8, wherein the noise and uncertainty signal extraction is further configured to identify noise and dynamic uncertainty in the corresponding actual parameter values from a difference between the selected time-shifted set of target values and the corresponding actual parameter values.
11. (New) The plasma processing system of claim 2, wherein the delay comprises an internal delay and an external delay.
10. The plasma processing system of claim 1, wherein the delay comprises an internal delay and external delay.
12. (New) A method comprising: determining a time delay that reduces a difference between or cross-correlates (1) a time-shifted version of a setpoint and (2) a measurement of a parameter of an output of an actuator taking the setpoint as an input; determining an amplitude difference between the measurement and the time- shifted setpoint; removing noise from the amplitude difference to form a denoised amplitude difference; using the denoised amplitude difference to determine an uncertainty of the amplitude difference; using the noise, the uncertainty, and the time delay, to generate an amplitude error; and passing a control signal to the actuator that predictively accounts for the time delay and the amplitude error.
11. A method of modifying control signals to one or more actuators based on measurements of one or more parameters of outputs of the one or more actuators and based on setpoints, the method comprising: finding a total time delay that minimizes a total time delay between (1) time-shifted versions of the setpoints and (2) the measurements; selecting a one of the time-shifted versions of the setpoints corresponding to the total time delay as a set of selected time-shifted setpoints; determining an amplitude difference between the measurements and the set of selected time-shifted setpoints; removing noise from the amplitude difference to form a denoised amplitude difference; using the denoised amplitude difference to find a dynamic uncertainty of the amplitude difference; using the noise, the dynamic uncertainty, and the total time delay, to generate a time-shifted amplitude error; and passing a control signal to the one or more actuators that predictively accounts for the total time delay and the time-shifted amplitude error.
13. (New) The method of Claim 12, wherein finding the time delay uses a cross correlation, or a difference, between the measurement and the time-shifted version of the setpoint using an initial guess for the time delay between the measurement and the time-shifted version of the setpoint.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein finding the total time delay uses a cross correlation between the measurements and the time-shifted versions of the setpoints using a set of initial guesses for the total time delay between the measurements and the time-shifted versions of the setpoints.
14. (New) The method of Claim 12, wherein the determining the time delay comprises reducing a cost function for multiple frames of the measurement and other measurements, where frames comprising repeating portions of the measurements are analyzed in parallel.
13. The method of claim 11, wherein finding the total time delay comprises minimizing a cost function for multiple frames of the measurements, where frames comprising repeating portions of the measurements are analyzed in parallel.
15. (New) The method of Claim 12, wherein the time delay is multidimensional and indexed along three or more orthogonal dimensions and representing multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the total time delay is a tensor representing multiple inputs and multiple outputs.
16. (New) The method of Claim 12, wherein the time-shifted version of the setpoint, the measurement, and the uncertainty are used to determine a standard deviation of the noise.
15. The method of claim 11, wherein the time-shifted versions of the setpoints, the measurements, and the dynamic uncertainty are used to find a standard deviation of the noise.
17. (New) A non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, encoded with processor readable instructions to perform a method comprising: taking a measurement at an output of an actuator; determining a time delay that reduces a difference between, or cross correlates (1) a time-shifted version of a setpoint for an actuator and (2) a measurement of an output of the actuator; determining an amplitude difference between the measurement and the time- shifted setpoint; removing noise from the amplitude difference to form a denoised amplitude difference; using the denoised amplitude difference to determine an uncertainty of the amplitude difference; using the noise, the uncertainty, and the time delay, to generate an amplitude error; and controlling the actuator preemptively to account for the time delay and the amplitude error.
16. A non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium, encoded with processor readable instructions to perform a method for generating control signals that preemptively account for delay and amplitude errors in a control system, the method comprising: taking measurements at an output of one or more actuators; finding a total time delay that minimizes a total time delay between (1) time-shifted versions of setpoints for the one or more actuators and (2) the measurements; selecting a one of the time-shifted versions of the setpoints corresponding to the total time delay as a set of selected time-shifted setpoints; determining an amplitude difference between the measurements and the set of selected time-shifted setpoints; removing noise from the amplitude difference to form a denoised amplitude difference; using the denoised amplitude difference to find a dynamic uncertainty of the amplitude difference; using the noise, the dynamic uncertainty, and the total time delay, to generate a time-shifted amplitude error; and controlling the one or more actuators preemptively to account for the total time delay and the time-shifted amplitude error.
18. (New) The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of Claim 17, wherein the amplitude error accounts for control system noise.
17. The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the time-shifted amplitude error accounts for control system noise.
19. (New) The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of Claim 18, wherein the amplitude error accounts for control system uncertainty.
18. The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the time-shifted amplitude error accounts for control system dynamic uncertainty.
20. (New) The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of Claim 17, further comprising using the uncertainty and the measurement to determine the noise that was removed from the amplitude difference.
19. The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 16, further comprising using the dynamic uncertainty and the measurements to find the noise that was removed from the amplitude difference.
21. (New) The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of Claim 17, wherein the controlling occurs before a time dictated by the setpoint.
20. The non-transitory, tangible computer readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein controlling occurs before a time dictated by the setpoints.
Instant application claims 2-21 are in a broadened claim limitations of claims 1-20 of US patent US12,272,536 B2. Hence, rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Conclusion
Claims 2-21 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU whose telephone number is (571)272-4250. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-3:30PM, 5PM -8:30PM.
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, ALEXANDER H TANINGCO can be reached at 5712728048. 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.
/SRINIVAS SATHIRAJU/
06/05/2026
SRINIVAS . SATHIRAJU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights