CTNF 18/159,208 CTNF 100595 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on April 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “examination of the claims as a whole would not present a serious search or examination burden.” This is not found persuasive because there is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct inventions due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “One or more actuation mechanisms” in Claim 1 which is further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “reflector actuators” [0053]. 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Brillhart (US 20150340257 A1): PNG media_image1.png 670 945 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 368 567 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 1: Brillhart teaches an adjustable reflector assembly comprising: a plurality of reflector elements (“plurality of light pipe structures” [0028] Figure 1 Element 160 each of which contains a “reflector” [0032] adjustable via its coupling to the movable “stator assembly” Figure 1 Element 118 ) , each of the plurality of reflector elements having a first surface (See Figure 7 As annotated “1st Surface”) , a second surface (See Figure 7 As annotated “2nd Surface”) , and a plurality of sidewalls (See Figure 7 As annotated “Plurality of Sidewalls”) , wherein the first surface is a reflective surface (First Surface, the outside of Figure 7 Element 600 includes a “[reflective (as supported by paragraph 0027)] coating” [0065] ) and is configured to face a lamp (“radiant heat source” [0021] Figure 1 Element 106) ; and one or more actuation mechanisms (“actuator assemblies” [0023] Figure 1 Element 122 ) coupled to the plurality of reflector elements (The actuator assemblies are coupled to the reflection mechanisms via the stator assembly) . Regarding Claim 3: Brillhart further teaches that a portion of an inner sidewall (See Figure 7 as annotated “Inner Side wall”) of each of the plurality of sidewalls (See Figure 7 “Plurality of Sidewalls”) and the first surface (See Figure 7 “1 st Surface”) of each of the plurality of reflector elements comprises a reflective coating “reflective coating” [0027)] . Regarding Claim 7: Brillhart further teaches that the lamp is a polygon, linear, or small horizontal or vertical lamp (This limitation is an intended use as the lamp is not positively recited. The structure of Brillhart is capable of facing a polygon, linear or small horizontal or vertical lamp) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hideaki (JP 06318558 A): PNG media_image3.png 818 938 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 1: Hideaki teaches an adjustable reflector assembly comprising: a plurality of reflector elements (“plurality of reflectors” [0012] Figure 1 Element 9) , each of the plurality of reflector elements having a first surface (See Figure 1 as annotated “1st Surface”) , a second surface (See Figure 1 As annotated “2nd Surface”) , and a plurality of sidewalls (See Figure 1 As annotated “Plurality of Sidewalls”) , wherein the first surface is a reflective surface (The first surface is the “reflect[ive] [0012]” ) and is configured to face a lamp (“lamp’ [0015]) ; and one or more actuation mechanisms (“reflector driving mechanism Figure 1 Element 9a) coupled to the plurality of reflector elements (Shown in Figure 1) . Regarding Claim 2: Hideaki further teaches that the adjustable reflector assembly ( “plurality of reflectors” [0012] Figure 1 Element 9) is an edge reflector assembly configured to reflect heat to an outer edge of a substrate (“the reflective means consists of a plurality of reflectors with different light convergence positions, making it possible to independently control the amount of light in the…. peripheral parts of the [substrate]” [0012] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brillhart (US 20150340257 A1) in view of Waldis (US 20140055767 A1): PNG media_image4.png 567 832 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 4: Brillhart does not teach that the one or more actuation mechanisms is configured to align a center point of each of the plurality of reflector elements along a centerline path. However, Waldis does teach an adjustable reflector assembly (modular “mirror array” [0139]) wherein the actuation mechanism (actuators of the mirror array” [0139]) is configured to align a center point (See Figure 25 as annotated “Center Point of Reflector Elements”) of each the plurality of reflector elements (“mirror elements” Figure 25 Element 23) along a centerline path (See Figure 25 as annotated “Centerline Path”) Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the reflector assembly of Brillhart with the actuation mechanism configured to align a center point of each the plurality of reflector elements as taught by Waldis in order to allow the “total reflection surface [to be] be extended by a [movement] of such [reflective] arrays [0005]” and provide the operator with additional control over the processing area of the substrate. Regarding Claim 5: Brillhart as modified by Waldis further teaches that the centerline path (See Figure 25 as annotated “Centerline Path”) is convex, concave, or asymmetrically configured (Asymmetrical configuration shown in Figure 25) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brillhart (US 20150340257 A1) in view of Komatsu (US 20120145697 A1): PNG media_image5.png 513 772 media_image5.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 6: Brillhart does not teach that each of the plurality of reflector elements further comprises at least one aperture extending through each element to form a cooling channel through the adjustable reflector assembly. However, Komatsu does teach a reflector (“reflector” [0060] Figure 11 Element 43) with at least one aperture (“cooling medium channel” Figure 11 Element 68) Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the reflector assembly such that the reflectors of Brillhart (as shown in Figure 7) each have a cooling channel as taught by Komatsu, specifically in the region shown in Brillhart Figure 7 Element 125 (formed within wall 125, not through the center hole), in order to provide reflectors for “a heat treatment apparatus capable of effectively cooling reflectors and heating a target substrate to be processed with high efficiency by using lamps” [0007]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569. 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. /SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/159,208 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/159,208 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/159,208 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/159,208 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/159,208 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/159,208 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/159,208 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights