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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 7-9, 12-17, and 19 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 10, and 18 being independent.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 5/30/2025 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 5 and 20.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 5/30/2025 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 10, 11, 13-15, and 17.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 5/30/2025 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-9, 12, 16, and 18-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically: claims 1 and 18 have been amended to now require that the plurality of linear reflectors are contacting the upper window and lower window, and claim 10 has been amended to now require a plurality of linear lamps disposed over the window assembly and extending parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "linear shape" renders the claim indefinite because although the claim recites wherein the plurality of lenses extend lengthwise, it is unclear what lengths the lens needs to extend so as to satisfy the ‘linear shape’ required by claim 12. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 12 as reciting “wherein each lens [[comprises a linear shape, and wherein the plurality of lenses extend]]is a linear lens extending lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to the plane of the window assembly” so as to correspond to para. 0057 of the specification (“As shown in Figure 3B, the lenses 325 are linear lenses which are arranged side-to-side and extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly 320. "Linear lens", as used herein, refers to a lens having a linear shape which extends lengthwise in a first direction by a distance greater than a width of the lens measured in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.”).
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “wherein each lens comprises a Fresnel lens” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how each lens can ‘comprise’ a Fresnel lens, suggesting that each lens includes another, distinct Fresnel lens. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 13 as reciting “wherein each lens [[comprises]]is a Fresnel lens” so as correspond to para. 0058 of the specification (“In one example, each lens 325 may be a Fresnel lens which has a succession of concentric annular rings assembled on a flat surface.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet (US 6434327 B1) in view of Burrows (US 20210189593 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Gronet discloses:
A window assembly [window assembly 17]
for a thermal processing chamber [col. 3, lines 1-3: “FIG. 3 is a cross sectional view of a rapid thermal heating apparatus in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention…”] comprising:
an upper window; a lower window; [quartz plates 47 and 48]
a plurality of linear reflectors [i.e., linear light pipes 41 brazed to plates 42/43, that vertically extend; col. 5, lines 13-15: “The window assembly includes short light pipes 41 which are brazed to upper and lower flange plates 42 and 43”]
disposed between and contacting the upper window and the lower window [The sandwich structure, wherein the light pipe pattern is disposed between and contacting quartz plates 47 and 48, provides structural support, allowing the lower quartz window to be made very thin; col. 5, lines 19-35: “The water cooled flange with the light pipe pattern which registers with the lamp housing is sandwiched between two quartz plates, 47 and 48… Thus, when this sandwich structure is placed on a vacuum chamber the metal flanges, typically stainless steel which have excellent mechanical strength, provide adequate structural support. The lower quartz window, the one actually sealing the vacuum chamber, experiences little or no pressure differential because of the vacuum on each side, and thus can be made very thin.”],
wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other [see figs. 3, 4, and 6, showing the light pipes parallel to each other]
a pressure control region defined between the upper window, the lower window, and side surfaces of each linear reflector [col. 5, lines 24-28: “A vacuum is produced in the pipes by pumping through a tube 53 connected to one of the pipes which in turn is connected to the rest of the pipes by the very small recesses or grooves 52 in the face of the flange.”].
However, although Gronet may not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly, Gronet further teaches that the light pipes are not limited in geometry, shape, length, spatial layout, or finish, and that these result effective variables may be optimized so as to provide uniform illumination or any desired spatial intensity profile [col. 4, lines 45-47: “The pipe geometry, cross sectional shape, length, spatial layout and finish may be empirically optimized to provide uniform illumination or any desired spatial intensity profile.”].
Burrows, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., reflector geometry, shape, length, spatial layout], teaches a plurality of linear reflectors [see figs. 2 and 6, showing a lower surface 248 forming a plurality of linear channels #244], wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of a window assembly [i.e., see fig. 2 showing linear channels 244 parallel to each other and parallel to upper reflector assembly 236, wherein the linear channels are shaped in order to enable control of the temperature at specific locations; para. 0031: “A lower surface 248 of the upper reflector plate 224 includes a plurality of linear channels 244 extending substantially parallel to each other across the lower surface 248… The plurality of linear channel 244 have different cross-sectional shapes to focus peak irradiation at specific location on the wafer to enable control of temperature at those locations.”].
Therefore, in view of Gronet teaching that it is known that the geometry, shape, length, and spatial layout of a reflector may be optimized, and in view of the linear channels of Burrows, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the window assembly of Gronet, wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly, since this would enable control of temperature at specific locations, to provide uniform illumination or any desired spatial intensity profile.
Regarding claim 2, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 1.
Gronet further discloses wherein the pressure control region comprises a plurality of interconnected sub-regions [i.e., the inside of each pipe], wherein the plurality of subregions are spaced laterally from each other in a direction parallel to the plane of the window assembly [see fig. 3] and are coupled together by corresponding flow passages [i.e., recesses or grooves 52] disposed in a body of each linear reflector [col. 5, lines 24-28: “A vacuum is produced in the pipes by pumping through a tube 53 connected to one of the pipes which in turn is connected to the rest of the pipes by the very small recesses or grooves 52 in the face of the flange.”].
Regarding claim 3, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 1.
Gronet further discloses wherein a cooling channel [fig. 6: space 46; col. 3, lines 15-17: “Cooling water is injected into the space 46 between light pipes and serves to cool the light pipes and flanges.”] is formed in a body of each linear reflector [see fig. 6, formed by light pipe 41, plate 42, and plate 43], wherein the cooling channels form a continuous cooling path extending through the plurality of linear reflectors [i.e., the coolant has a continuous path from an inlet to an outlet; col. 3, lines 43-44: “Coolant, such as water, is introduced into the chamber via the inlet 27 and is removed at the outlet 28.”].
Regarding claim 4, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 3.
Gronet further discloses wherein the upper window and the lower window are planar [see fig. 3].
Regarding claim 5, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 1.
Gronet as modified by Burrows further discloses wherein each linear reflector extends across a length of the window assembly. In this case, since both Gronet and Burrows teach that a reflector is not limited in shape, as shown above, selecting a given length would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to provide uniform illumination.
Regarding claim 6, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 1.
Gronet as modified by Burrows further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of linear reflectors extends across a portion of a length of the window assembly. In this case, since both Gronet and Burrows teach that a reflector is not limited in shape, as shown above, selecting a given length would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to provide any desired spatial intensity profile.
Regarding claim 7, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 1.
Gronet as modified by Burrows further discloses wherein the side surfaces of each linear reflector are parallel to each other and perpendicular to the plane of the window assembly. In this case, since both Gronet and Burrows teach that a reflector is not limited in shape, as shown above, selecting a given geometry or cross sectional shape would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to provide any desired spatial intensity profile.
Regarding claim 8, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 1.
Gronet as modified by Burrows further discloses wherein the side surfaces of each linear reflector are tapered. In this case, since both Gronet and Burrows teach that a reflector is not limited in shape, as shown above, selecting a given geometry or cross sectional shape would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to provide any desired spatial intensity profile.
Regarding claim 9, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the window assembly of claim 1.
Gronet as modified by Burrows further discloses wherein the side surfaces of each linear reflector are double-tapered. In this case, since both Gronet and Burrows teach that a reflector is not limited in shape, as shown above, selecting a given geometry or cross sectional shape would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to provide any desired spatial intensity profile.
Regarding claim 18,
Gronet discloses:
A thermal processing chamber [col. 3, lines 1-3: “FIG. 3 is a cross sectional view of a rapid thermal heating apparatus in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention…”; col. 3, lines 27-29: “Referring to FIGS. 3 and 4, the apparatus of this invention is shown associated with an evacuated process chamber 13A.”], comprising:
one or more side walls surrounding a processing region [col. 3, lines 29-30: “The walls of the chamber are schematically shown at 14.”];
a substrate support within the processing region, the substrate support having a substrate supporting surface [col. 7, lines 7-8: “Referring to FIG. 3, the wafer 72 is supported at its edge by spaced support fingers 62 mounted on a support tube 63.”];
a window assembly disposed above the one or more side walls [window assembly 17], the window assembly comprising:
an upper window; a lower window; [quartz plates 47 and 48]
a plurality of linear reflectors [i.e., linear light pipes 41 that vertically extend; col. 5, lines 13-15: “The window assembly includes short light pipes 41 which are brazed to upper and lower flange plates 42 and 43”]
disposed between and contacting the upper window and the lower window [The sandwich structure, wherein the light pipe pattern is disposed between and contacting quartz plates 47 and 48, provides structural support, allowing the lower quartz window to be made very thin; col. 5, lines 19-35: “The water cooled flange with the light pipe pattern which registers with the lamp housing is sandwiched between two quartz plates, 47 and 48… Thus, when this sandwich structure is placed on a vacuum chamber the metal flanges, typically stainless steel which have excellent mechanical strength, provide adequate structural support. The lower quartz window, the one actually sealing the vacuum chamber, experiences little or no pressure differential because of the vacuum on each side, and thus can be made very thin.”],
wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other [see figs. 3, 4, and 6, showing the light pipes parallel to each other]
a pressure control region defined between the upper window, the lower window, and side surfaces of each linear reflector [col. 5, lines 24-28: “A vacuum is produced in the pipes by pumping through a tube 53 connected to one of the pipes which in turn is connected to the rest of the pipes by the very small recesses or grooves 52 in the face of the flange.”]; and
a lamphead disposed above the window assembly [col. 3, lines 33-35: “A radiant energy light pipe assembly 18 is shown overlying the window 17.”].
However, although Gronet may not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly, Gronet further teaches that the light pipes are not limited in geometry, shape, length, spatial layout, or finish, and that these result effective variables may be optimized so as to provide uniform illumination or any desired spatial intensity profile [col. 4, lines 45-47: “The pipe geometry, cross sectional shape, length, spatial layout and finish may be empirically optimized to provide uniform illumination or any desired spatial intensity profile.”].
Burrows, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., reflector geometry, shape, length, spatial layout], teaches a plurality of linear reflectors [see figs. 2 and 6, showing a lower surface 248 forming a plurality of linear channels #244], wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of a window assembly [i.e., see fig. 2 showing linear channels 244 parallel to each other and parallel to upper reflector assembly 236, wherein the linear channels are shaped in order to enable control of the temperature at specific locations; para. 0031: “A lower surface 248 of the upper reflector plate 224 includes a plurality of linear channels 244 extending substantially parallel to each other across the lower surface 248… The plurality of linear channel 244 have different cross-sectional shapes to focus peak irradiation at specific location on the wafer to enable control of temperature at those locations.”].
Therefore, in view of Gronet teaching that it is known that the geometry, shape, length, and spatial layout of a reflector may be optimized, and in view of the linear channels of Burrows, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the window assembly of Gronet, wherein the plurality of linear reflectors extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly, since this would enable control of temperature at specific locations, to provide uniform illumination or any desired spatial intensity profile.
Regarding claim 19, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the thermal processing chamber of claim 18.
Gronet as modified by Burrows, specifically Gronet further discloses wherein the lamphead comprises a plurality of linear lamps [col. 3, lines 34-35: “The radiant energy assembly includes a plurality of tungsten-halogen lamps 19”], and wherein the plurality of linear reflectors and plurality of linear lamps have an alternating arrangement in a direction parallel to the plane of the window assembly [see fig. 3].
Regarding claim 20, Gronet in view of Burrows discloses the thermal processing chamber of claim 18.
Gronet as modified by Burrows further discloses wherein the plurality of linear reflectors are sized to conform to the shape of the substrate support. In this case, since both Gronet and Burrows teach that a reflector is not limited in shape, as shown above, selecting a given size would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to provide any desired spatial intensity profile.
Claims 10, 11, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet (US 6434327 B1) in view of Burrows (US 20210189593 A1) and Ranish (US 20160111306 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Gronet discloses:
An assembly [fig. 3: radiant energy light pipe assembly 18] for a thermal processing chamber [col. 3, lines 1-3: “FIG. 3 is a cross sectional view of a rapid thermal heating apparatus in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention…”] comprising:
a plurality of linear lamps [col. 3, lines 34-35: “The radiant energy assembly includes a plurality of tungsten-halogen lamps 19”]
disposed over a window assembly [col. 3, lines 33-35: “A radiant energy light pipe assembly 18 is shown overlying the window 17.”]
and extending parallel to each other [see fig. 3, showing the lamps parallel to each other]
the window assembly comprising:
a window body [quartz plates 47 and 48]
However, Gronet does not disclose the plurality of linear lamps extending parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly or a plurality of lenses disposed on a surface of the window body, wherein an optical axis of each lens is perpendicular to a plane of the window body.
Burrows, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., equivalent lamps for a thermal processing chamber], teaches an assembly comprising a plurality of linear lamps extending parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of a window assembly [see figs. 2, 3, 6, showing linear heating lamps 222 extending parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of upper reflector assembly 236] that predictably results in heating a surface of a substrate [para. 0018: “The reflectors are advantageously shaped to focus energy from the plurality of linear heating lamps to specific locations on a surface of a substrate being processed for improved thermal uniformity and profile control.”].
Ranish, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., ???], teaches
a plurality of lenses [fig. 7A: optical lens #716; wherein each lens corresponds to one of a plurality of lamps; para. 0031: “In FIG. 2, a plurality of lamp tubes 37 is shown associated with a reduced-pressure or vacuum RTP chamber 12”]
disposed on a surface of the window body [para. 0066: “The optical lens 716 is disposed within the inner surface 704 of the insert tube 702.”],
wherein an optical axis of each lens [i.e., central axis #718] is perpendicular to a plane of the window body [see fig. 7A; para. 0066: “To further enhance the collimation of radiant energy onto a limited area of the substrate, the insert tube 702 may include an optical lens 716 to collimate the light emitted from the lamp 36 along a central axis 718 passing through the lamp 36.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to:
substitute the lamps of Gronet with a plurality of linear lamps extending parallel to each other and parallel to a plane of the window assembly, since Burrows teaches that this would have predictably heated a surface of a substrate; and
include a plurality of lenses disposed on a surface of the window body of Gronet, wherein an optical axis of each lens is perpendicular to a plane of the window body, since Ranish teaches that optical lens 716 further enhances the collimation of radiant energy onto a limited area of a substrate.
Regarding claim 11, Gronet in view of Burrows and Ranish discloses the window assembly of claim 10.
Gronet as modified by Burrows and Ranish, specifically Ranish, further discloses wherein each lens comprises a convex shape [para. 0066: “the optical lens 716 is a piano-convex lens (i.e., a simple spherical lens with a convex lens surface 720 facing toward the lamp 36)”].
Regarding claim 13, Gronet in view of Burrows and Ranish discloses the window assembly of claim 11.
Gronet as modified by Burrows and Ranish, specifically Ranish further discloses wherein each lens comprises a Fresnel lens [The window assembly may be configured as a Fresnel-type reflector; para. 0059: “In some aspects of the above implementations, the rest of the outer surface of the insert tube 602 may be configured to function as a Fresnel-type reflector, which can be a flat surface having structures in the form of straight or arcuate ridges and grooves to allow such a reflector to mimic the operation of a curved reflector.”].
Regarding claim 14, Gronet in view of Burrows and Ranish discloses the window assembly of claim 11.
Gronet as modified by Burrows and Ranish, specifically Ranish further discloses wherein the plurality of lenses are disposed on only one surface of the window body [see fig. 7A].
Regarding claim 15, Gronet in view of Burrows and Ranish discloses the window assembly of claim 11.
Gronet as modified by Burrows and Ranish, specifically Ranish further discloses wherein the plurality of lenses are disposed on two opposite surfaces of the window body [Ranish discloses that the lenses may be a biconvex lens, and thus would be equivalent to two opposing plano convex lenses sharing a central axis disposed on opposite surfaces of the window body; para. 0066: “Although the plano-convex lens is shown, the optical lens 716 may be a lens system comprising one or more of a biconvex lens, a convex-concave lens, a meniscus lens, a piano-concave lens, a biconcave lens, or any combination of the above and configured to provide effective collimation along the central axis 718.”].
Regarding claim 17, Gronet in view of Burrows and Ranish discloses the window assembly of claim 11.
Gronet as modified by Burrows and Ranish, specifically Ranish further discloses wherein the window body and the plurality of lenses are manufactured separately and bonded together [para. 0066: “The optical lens 716 may be integral with, fixed to or attached to the inner surface 704 of the insert tube 702”].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet (US 6434327 B1) in view of Burrows (US 20210189593 A1) and Ranish (US 20160111306 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Li (JP 2002151425 A).
Regarding claim 12, Gronet in view of Burrows and Ranish discloses the window assembly of claim 11.
However, Gronet as modified by Burrows and Ranish does not disclose wherein each lens comprises a linear shape, and wherein the plurality of lenses extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to the plane of the window assembly.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lens with a linear shape [see fig. 6, showing linear lens elements 123, wherein each lens extends lengthwise in a first direction by a distance greater than a width of the lens measured in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction], wherein a plurality of the lenses extend lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to the plane of a window assembly [see figs. 2 and 5; p. 5: “It has a cylindrical quartz plate 121 of mm and a plurality of quartz lens assemblies 122 composed of a plurality of lens elements 123. Here, FIG. 2 is a top view of the quartz window 120. FIG. 3 is an AA cross-sectional view of the quartz window 120 shown in FIG. FIG. 4 is a sectional view taken along line BB of the quartz window 120 shown in FIG. FIG. 5 is an enlarged view of a dotted region C of the quartz window 120 shown in FIG.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the window assembly of Gronet, Burrows and Ranish, by having the lenses of Ranish be of a linear shape, extending lengthwise parallel to each other and parallel to the plane of the window assembly [A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have been motivated to have the lenses be of a linear shape, since that the linear lenses increase the directivity of the emitted light, uniformly heating a workpiece; p. 5: “The lens assembly 122 enhances the strength of the quartz window 120 and a lamp 130 described later. It has the function of increasing the directivity of the emitted light from. As shown in FIG. 2, each lens assembly 122 has a plurality of lens elements 123 having a light condensing function, and is aligned in parallel in the X direction… In the present embodiment, the lens assembly 122 (the lens element 133 thereof and a lamp 130 described later) are arranged so as to uniformly heat the substantially circular object to be processed W.”].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronet (US 6434327 B1) in view of Burrows (US 20210189593 A1) and Ranish (US 20160111306 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Trejo (US 20170345649 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Gronet in view of Burrows and Ranish discloses the window assembly of claim 11.
However, Gronet as modified by Burrows and Ranish does not disclose wherein the plurality of lenses are machined into the surface of the window body.
Trejo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a lens [fig. 2: #128] is machined into a surface of a window body [para. 0021: “The body includes a plurality of features 204 formed in a bottom surface 203 of the body 202. In one embodiment, the features 204 may be formed in a lens 128 having a thickness of about 1 inch. The features 204 may extend at least partially into the body 202. The features 204 may be formed from concentric circles formed into the body 202 of the lens 128. In one embodiment, the features 204 may be etched, ground, or engraved into the lens 128. In another embodiment, the features 204 may be machined into the lens 128. In another embodiment, the features 204 may be formed exterior to the body 202, such that the features 204 extend out from the body 202.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the window assembly of Gronet, Burrows and Ranish, by having the plurality of lenses machined into the surface of the window body, as taught by Trejo [A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have been motivated to machine the lenses since this allows features of the lens to be predetermined, allowing for directing the light to a specific area; para. 0022: “The features 204 may be etched such that the features 204 have a specific depth 208, spacing 210, and angle 212 to direct the incoming light from the bulb to a specific area on the substrate 101.”].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights