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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. (JP 06-318558) in view of Chen (CN 11-3390031).
Regarding claim 1, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses an adjustable reflector assembly, comprising: a plurality of elements comprising at least one stationary element (8) and at least one rotating element (9), wherein a first surface of each of the plurality of elements is a reflective surface; and at least one actuation mechanism (9a) configured to actuate the at least one rotating element relative to the at least one stationary element (see at least paragraphs 0008 and 0017).
Hideaki et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hideaki et al. is silent regarding wherein a reflective coating surrounds an outer surface of the at least one actuation mechanism. Chen (figures 1-2) teaches wherein a reflective coating surrounds an outer surface of the at least one actuation mechanism (23-24; see at least page 2, the last two paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reflective coating as taught by Chen in order to dynamically connect the back end of the turning shaft with the energy supply motor and achieve a light-proof protection type stage lamp.
Regarding claim 2, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the adjustable reflector assembly is an edge reflector assembly configured to reflect heat to an outer edge of a substrate (see at least paragraphs 0015-0020).
Regarding claim 3, Hideaki et al. as modified by Chen (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the outer surface of the at least one actuation mechanism is exposed and further comprises the reflective coating, wherein the first surface of each of the plurality of elements comprises the reflective coating.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 4, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the at least one actuation mechanism is embedded in the plurality of elements.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 6, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the at least one rotating element is configured for linear or rotational displacement about a lamp, the lamp comprising a polygon lamp (7).
Regarding claim 7, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the at least one rotating element comprises two rotating elements rotatably coupled to the at least one stationary element along parallel axes on opposing edges of the at least one stationary element (9).
Regarding claim 8, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses a substrate processing chamber, comprising:
a chamber body (1, 2, 4) comprising a lid, a floor, and a processing volume disposed between the lid and the floor;
an upper window disposed between the lid and the processing volume;
a lower window disposed between the floor and the processing volume (figure 1);
a substrate support assembly (3) disposed in the processing volume;
a lamp head (6) positioned either below the lower window or above the upper window;
at least one lamp disposed within the lamp head; and
a reflector assembly disposed on one side of the at least one lamp, the reflector assembly comprising a plurality of elements, wherein at least one of the plurality of elements is a stationary element and at least one of the plurality of elements is a rotating element (8-9; see at least paragraphs 0008 and 0017).
Hideaki et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above. However, Hideaki et al. is silent regarding wherein the rotating element is configured to be actuated relative to the stationary element by an actuation mechanism (23-24 and 11) and a reflective coating surrounds an outer surface of the actuation mechanism (23-24; see at least page 2, the last two paragraphs). Chen (figures 1-2) teaches wherein a reflective coating surrounds an outer surface of the at least one actuation mechanism (23-24; see at least page 2, the last two paragraphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the reflective coating as taught by Chen in order to dynamically connect the back end of the turning shaft with the energy supply motor and achieve a light-proof protection type stage lamp.
Regarding claim 9, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the plurality of elements further comprise a plurality of rotating elements coupled to the stationary element, wherein each of the plurality of elements comprises a reflective coating on a surface thereof (8-9; see at least paragraphs 0008 and 0017).
Regarding claim 11, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the actuation mechanism is a rotational motor (9a).
Regarding claim 12, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein an outer surface of the actuation mechanism is exposed and further comprises the reflective coating.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 13, Hideaki et al. (figure 1) discloses wherein the actuation mechanism is embedded in the plurality of elements.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hideaki et al. in view of Chen; further in view of Komatsu et al. (KR 2012-0054636).
Regarding claim 5, Hideaki et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Hideaki et al. is silent regarding wherein the plurality of elements further comprises at least one aperture extending through each of the plurality of elements to form a cooling channel through the adjustable reflector assembly. Komatsu et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the plurality of elements further comprises at least one aperture extending through each of the plurality of elements to form a cooling channel (68) through the adjustable reflector assembly (41-43; see at least paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cooling channel as taught by Komatsu et al. in order to efficiently cool the devices.
Regarding claim 14, Hideaki et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above. However, Hideaki et al. is silent regarding wherein the plurality of elements further comprises at least one aperture extending through each of the plurality of elements. Komatsu et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the plurality of elements further comprises at least one aperture extending through each of the plurality of elements (41-43; see at least paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cooling channel as taught by Komatsu et al. in order to efficiently cool the devices.
Regarding claim 15, Hideaki et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above. However, Hideaki et al. is silent regarding wherein the plurality of elements further comprises at least one aperture extending through each of the plurality of elements. Komatsu et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the at least one aperture of each of the plurality of elements forms a cooling channel (68) through the reflector assembly (41-43; see at least paragraphs 0015, 0019, 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cooling channel as taught by Komatsu et al. in order to efficiently cool the devices.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights