DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/08/2025 has been entered. As directed by the amendments: claims 1, 7, 16, 21 and 28 are amended. Thus, Claims 1 – 28 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection made on 03/03/3035 have been fully considered (please see “Response to Arguments” section) and the following Final Rejection is made herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 1, 6 – 7, 17, 20 – 23 and 28 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Timans (US 7847218 B2) and hereinafter “Timans”.
Regarding claim 1, Timans discloses a system for irradiation treating or processing a target item (a system 10 for thermal processing a wafer 14, see annotated FIG. 10), the system comprising:
an irradiation source (heating device 22, see annotated FIG.10) operative to produce irradiation,
the irradiation source configured to direct irradiation toward a target item (the heating device 22 comprising heating lamps or lasers (24,40) to irradiate target item (wafer 14), (9:10 – 24, 55 – 64 and see annotated FIG. 10); and
an irradiation zone (thermal processing chamber 12, annotated FIG. 10) in which the target item will be located for irradiation (chamber 12 is configured to receives the wafer 14 for thermal processing, see annotated FIG. 10), the irradiation zone being at least partially defined by corner cube reflector material (chamber 12 is partially defined by comer cube reflector material 38, (11:58 – 12:02 and see annotated FIG. 10)), the corner cube reflector material comprising an array of corner cube reflectors and being operative to reflect irradiation back to the target item, at substantially the same location from which the irradiation which has been, at least one of, reflected from, back-scattered from, or passed through the target item (the corner cube material 38 comprises an array of corner cube reflectors (see the plurality of corner cube reflectors 38 in annotated FIG.10) and are configured to send light being reflected from the wafer 14 back onto the wafer 14, (11:62 – 66 and see FIG. 11)).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Timans discloses the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner cube reflector material includes at least one aperture through which irradiation can be directed through the corner cube reflector material toward the target item (the corner cube reflector material 38 includes gaps between the plurality of corner tube reflectors wherein incident irradiation from the lamp/laser (24, 40) irradiates the wafer 14, see annotated FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Timans discloses the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner cube reflector material comprises a portion of enclosure of the irradiation zone (the plurality of corner cube reflectors 38 comprise a portion of the window 32 enclosing the chamber 12, (6:63 – 64 and see annotated FIG. 10)).
Regarding claim 17, Timans discloses the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner- cube material is operative to function above 1600 nm (suitable type of laser with emission wavelengths between 400 nm and 4000 nm, (10: 03 – 06)).
Regarding claim 20, Timans discloses the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein an acceptance angle for the corner cube array is ±45 (the angle of incidence, the angle between the normal to the wafer surface can be adjusted to be 45° (7:53 – 56 and 8:01 – 04 ) and the angle of reflection from the corner tube reflector is the same angle as the incidence, (11:65 – 67), thus, acceptance angle for the corner cube array is 45° from the normal of the corner cube array surface).
Regarding claim 21, Timans discloses a method for irradiation treating or processing a target item (process for heating semiconductor wafers (2:10 – 15 and annotated FIG.10)), the method comprising:
irradiating the target item using an irradiation source in an irradiation zone (irradiate target item (wafer 14) using the heating device 22 comprising heating lamps or lasers (24,40) in a thermal processing chamber 12, (9:10 – 24, 55 – 64 and see annotated FIG. 10)); and
reflecting irradiation, back to substantially the same location on the target item from which the irradiation is one of reflected from, scattered from, or transmitted through the target item, back to the target item using corner cube array reflector material defining at least partially the irradiation zone (sending irradiation being reflected from the wafer 14 back onto the wafer 14 using corner cube maternal 38 comprising the plurality of corer cube reflectors disposed in the processing chamber 12 (irradiation zone) , (11: 62 – 66 and see annotated FIG. 10)).
Regarding claim 22, Timans discloses the method as set forth in claim 20 wherein the irradiation is for the purpose of at least one of heating, drying, curing and dehydrating the target item (the irradiation is for the purpose of heating or thermally processing the wafer 14, (2:10 – 15 and annotated FIG. 10)).
Regarding claim 23, Timans discloses the method of claim 22 wherein the irradiation arrangement is implemented within a cooking oven or a processing oven (the irradiation arrangement of the wafer 14 is implemented within a thermal processing chamber 12, see annotated FIG.10).
Regarding claim 28, Timans a system for irradiation treating or processing a target item (a system 10 for thermal processing a wafer 14, see annotated FIG. 10), the system comprising:
an irradiation source (heating device 22, see annotated FIG.10) operative to produce irradiation in an irradiation pattern, the irradiation source configured to direct irradiation toward a target item (the heating device 22 comprising heating lamps or lasers (24,40) to irradiate target item (wafer 14), (9:10 – 24, 55 – 64 and see annotated FIG. 10); and
an irradiation zone (thermal processing chamber 12, annotated FIG. 10) in which the target will be located for irradiation (chamber 12 is configured to receives the wafer 14 for thermal processing, see annotated FIG. 10), the irradiation zone being at least partially defined by proximate corner cube reflector material (chamber 12 is partially defined by corner cube reflector materials 38, (11:58 – 12:02 and see annotated FIG. 10)), the corner cube reflector material comprising an array of corner cube reflectors and being operative to reflect irradiation back to the target item, irradiation which has been, at least one of, reflected or back-scattered (the corner cube material 38 comprises an array of corner tube reflectors 38 (see annotated FIG.10) and is configured to send light being reflected from the wafer 14 back onto the wafer 14, (11: 62 – 66 and see annotated FIG. 10)),
wherein reflecting the irradiation back to the target item at substantially the same location on the target item from which such irradiation was, at least one of, reflected or back-scattered, preserves the irradiation pattern (the corner cube reflectors 38 would send light being reflected from the wafer 14 back onto the wafer 14 at the same angle of reflection back on to the same location of the wafer (please see FIG 11, showing the irradiation reflected back to the same location of the wafer 14), so that further light energy will be absorbed by the wafer 14 during heating, (11:64 – 12: 02) thus, the reflected irradiation is substantially the same location and preserves the same irradiation pattern) and is based on at least a minimized distance between parallel in out rays and corresponding output rays of a reflector (the incident reflected input ray from the wafer 14 to the corner cube reflectors 38 is reflected back to the wafer 14 at the same angel, (11:64 – 67 and see FIG.11) thus, for an incident ray to be reflected back to the same target at same angle and hit the target the distance between the incident and the reflected rays of the same angel (parallel rays) has to be naturally minimized otherwise would not be reflected to the same target/water 14) and an acceptance angle for the input rays to the reflector being less than 45° from a line orthogonal to a corresponding sheet of the corner cube reflector material (the angle of incidence, the angle between the normal to the wafer surface can be adjusted to be 45° (7:53 – 56 and 8:01 – 04) and the angle of reflection from the corner tube reflector is the same angel as the incidence, (11:65 – 67 ), thus, acceptance angle for the corner cube array is 45° from the normal of the corner cube array surface).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 8 – 10 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Timans.
Regarding claims 8 – 10, Timans discloses the system as set forth in claim 7, wherein an array of corner cube reflectors 38 cover a portion of the window 32 of the chamber 12 (enclosure of the irradiation zone), (see annotated FIG. 10).
Timans does not explicitly discuss a portion of the enclosure of the irradiation zone comprises more than half the enclosure of the irradiation zone (claim8), the corner cube reflector material covers substantially all of the interior surface of the irradiation zone except that the comer cube reflector material does not cover irradiation sources (claim 9), the corner-cube reflector material is located such that it is located in at least some areas where irradiation is determined to need redirection to the target item (claim 10).
However, there is established precedence that when the difference between the prior at and the claims is a recitation of relative size or proportion, the difference is a mere change of portion that is not patentably distinguishing over the prior art, MPEP 2144.04.1V.A. Further, when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable portions, ranges, or positions by routine experimentation, MPEP 2144.5. II. A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the portion of the enclosure of the irradiation zone covered by the corner cube reflecting material to be more than half of the enclosure of the irradiation zone (claim 8), or cover substantially all of the interior surface of the irradiation zone except that the corner cube reflector material does not cover irradiation sources (claim 9), or locating the corner- cube reflector material in at least some areas where irradiation is determined to need redirection to the target item (claim 10), as making a portion of the corner cube reflectors larger/smaller or selecting an optimum location for the corner cube reflectors is considered with in ordinary skill in the that would be routinely determined by ordinary skill in the art in accordance with the parameters of a particular application. POSITA would have simply and routinely determined: the portion of the corner tube reflector material to cover more than half of the enclosure of the irradiation zone (claim 8) or cover substantially all of the interior surface of the irradiation zone except irradiation sources (claim 9) or locate them in some areas where irradiation needs redirection to the target item (claim10) or any size/portion or location for that matter, with a reasonable expectation of success depending on how much of and where the irradiation needs to be reflected by the corner cube reflectors as per a particular design choice of a specific application.
Claims 2 – 3, 19 and 24 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a)as being unpatentable over Timans in view of Chun et al. (KR 20060107040 A) and hereinafter “Chun”.
Regarding claims 2 – 3, Timans discloses the system as set forth in claim 1.
Timans does not teach the system is a cooking oven (claim 2) and the target item is a food or organic item (claim 3).
However, Chun discloses defrosting chamber that defrost frozen food using radiant heat generated by a heating element (04), also teaches a defrosting unit that defrosts the target fish by radiant heat source 72 and redirects reflected radiation onto the target food item/fish using reflector 74, (14 and see annotated FIG.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
485
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of claim 1 disclosed by Timans, to be used in cooking ovens to target food items as shown in Chun as it is established that selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and supports a prima facie obviousness over the prior art, MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Timans in view of Chun teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner- cube reflector material incorporates a smooth and washable surface facing the irradiation target item (reflector 74 is a plate installed inside the defrosting chamber body 65, Chun (14 and see annotated FIG. 4), Thus, it naturally follows that the reflector is smooth and washable).
Regarding claim 24, Timans in view of Chun teaches the method as set forth in claim 22, wherein the target item is a food or organic item (the target time is food/fish, see Chun’s annotated FIG.4)).
Claims 14 – 16 and 18 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timans in view of Nagahama et al. (US 20170176656 A1, foreign priority dec. 09, 2008) and hereinafter “Nagahama”.
Regarding claims 14 - 16 and 18, Timans disclose the system as set forth in claim 1.
Timans does not teach the corner cube material incorporates a colored pigment such that the material appears as a colored surface to a human viewer and such that the corner cube material reflects wavelengths of the irradiation (claim 14), the corner cube material is coated on at least one of a front surface or back surfaces such that the material reflects at least 85% of wavelengths above 750 nm (claim 15), the corner- cube material is coated on at least one of a front or back surface and reflects at least 95% of wavelengths of the irradiation produced in the system (claim16), the reflective coating is at least one of aluminum, silver, gold, copper, and cadmium or alloys thereof (claim 18).
However, Nagahama that relates to relates to an optical apparatus that selectively directionally reflects light irradiation in specific wavelength ranges and its method of making thereof (0002), also discusses the optical apparatus is a corner cube shape (0122, 0157 and 0162), wherein the corner cube material incorporates a colored pigment to improve the identification and design of the reflector, some color pigments include grey, yellow, green and grey (all visible for human viewer), (0117 and 0125), (claim 14), wherein the corner cube reflector has a coated surface of gold, silver, copper, aluminum, nickel, chromium.. for achieving high reflectance, (0131), (claim 18), wherein a reflectance of more than 80% is achieved, (0106 and 0148) (claims 15 and 16) and wherein the corner cube reflector can be designed to selectively reflect wave lengths in the range from 780 to 2,100 nm, (claim 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make the corner cube reflector of Timans to have color pigmentations for a human viewer (claim 14), surface coating to reflect 85 % if wavelengths of above 750nm (claim 15), at least 95% of wavelengths of the irradiation produced in the system (claim 16), coating the surfaces with at least one of aluminum, silver, gold, copper, and cadmium or alloys thereof (claim18) in order to selectively directionally reflect light radiation of specific wavelength range and achieve a specific reflection percentage as taught in Nagahama. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art apprised of the teachings of Nagahama would be motivated to apply same teachings onto the corner cube reflectors of Timans with reasonable expectation of success as all the limitation claimed are result effective variables that POSITA would routinely optimize to reach the specific property of the corner tube reflector of Nagahama. It is established that when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, MPEP 2144.05.I1.A.
Claims 1, 4 – 5, 11 – 13, 21 and 27 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haner A. (WO 2006002751 A1), hereinafter “Haner’”, in view of Myers (US 20090185265 A1) and hereinafter “Myers”.
Regarding claim 1, Haner discloses a system for irradiation treating or processing a target item (apparatus for the heat treatment of plastic preforms 1 to form plastic bottles, (0003 and see annotated FIG. 1) the system comprising:
an irradiation source (irradiation source 3, annotated FIG.1) operative to produce irradiation, the irradiation source configured to direct irradiation toward a target item (the irradiation source 3 is configured to irradiate plastic preform 1 with radiations 10, (0012 and see annotated FIG. 1)); and
an irradiation zone (the area of irradiation between reflector 4 and counter-reflector 5, see annotated FIG. 1) in which the target item will be located for irradiation (the plastic preform 1 is placed in the radiation zone with a receiving means 2, (0011 and see annotated FIG. 1)), the irradiation zone being at least partially defined by reflector material (the irradiation zone is defined by the reflectors 4 and counter-reflector 5 forming a heating cannel , (0024 and see annotated FIG. 1)), and being operative to reflect irradiation back to the target item, at a substantially the same location from which the irradiation which has been, at least one of, reflected from, back-scattered from, or passed through the target item (emit irradiations 10, which passes through the preform 1 or past it into the grooves 5a of the counter- reflector 5 are directly reflected or returned to the preform 1 by multiple reflections from counter- reflector 5, (0024 and see annotated FIG.1)).
PNG
media_image3.png
524
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Haner does not explicitly discuss the reflectors 4 and counter-reflector 5 are corner cube reflector material comprising an array of corner cube reflectors.
However, Myers that relates to the use of corner cube reflectors for heat conservation (0003), also teaches corner cube reflector array 10 constructed of a plurality of cube corner reflectors (0032 and see FIGS 2 – 3)). Further, Myers discuss the corner cube reflectors are advantageous in their reflection efficiency over other shaped retro-reflectors, like cat’s eye retro- reflectors, as a typical cube corner kind of retro-reflector use total internal reflection to change the light direction three times in one cube to send it back in the incoming direction there by providing an efficient reflective material for conserving heat dissipated from a source, (0008 – 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make the reflectors 4 and counter-reflector 5 of Haner to be corner cube reflector array constructed of a plurality of cube corner reflectors in order to achieve the purported advantage of reflection efficiency that results in conservation of heat energy dissipated by the irradiation source as taught in Myers. POSITA apprised of teachings of the efficiently reflecting corner cube reflector array 10 constructed of a plurality of cube corner reflectors of Myers would be motivated to modify the reflectors of Haner with the same and reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve conservation heat energy from the irradiation source.
Regarding claim 4, Haner in view of Myers teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the system is included within a bottle forming system (apparatus for the heat treatment of plastic preforms 1 to form plastic bottles, Haner (0003 and annotated FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Haner in view of Myers teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the target item is a plastic bottle preform (the plastic preform 1 is a plastic bottle preform, see Haner annotated FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Haner in view of Myers teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner cube reflector material circumferentially surrounds around along axis of a preform but allowing for access to get preforms in and out of the irradiation chamber to facilitate high speed production (reflectors 4 and counter reflectors 5 are arranged opposite each other at a distance surrounding the preform 1, together form a heating channel, for the production of beverage bottles placed on a receiving means 2. along a longitudinal axis A and to facilitate continuously transportation through the device, along the conveying direction F through the reflectors 4 and counter reflectors 5, Haner (0024 and see annotated FIG. 1)).
Regarding claim 12, Haner in view of Myers teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the access comprises allowing for either a linear or arcuate travel path through the irradiation chamber (the conveying direction F runs linear perpendicular to a preform longitudinal axis A, Haner (0024 and please see FIG.4)).
Regarding claim 13, Haner in view of Myers teaches the system as set forth in claim 1 wherein corner cube material surrounds a preform, forming an irradiation chamber during at least part of the time during which it is being irradiated (reflectors 4 and counter reflectors 5 are arranged opposite each other at a distance surrounding the preform 1, together forma heating channel for irradiating the plastic preform 1, Haner (0024 and see FIG. 1)).
Regarding claim 21, Haner discloses a method for irradiation treating or processing a target item (a heat treatment process of plastic preforms 1 to form plastic bottles, (0003 and see annotated FIG. 1), the method comprising:
irradiating the target item using an irradiation source in an irradiation zone (irradiating plastic preform 1 using the irradiation source 3 with radiations 10 in an area of irradiation between reflector 4 and counter-reflector 5, (0012 and see annotated FIG.1)); and
reflecting irradiation, back to substantially the same location on the target item from which the irradiation is one of reflected from, scattered from, or transmitted through the target item, back to the target item using proximate corner-cube array reflector material defining at least partially the irradiation zone (emitting irradiations 10 to the preform 1, causing some of the irradiations to passes through the preform 1 or past it into the grooves 5a of the counter-reflector 5 and directly reflecting or returning the transmitted through irradiations back to the preform 1 using multiple reflections from proximate counter-reflector 5 that partially define the irradiation zone, (0024 and see annotated FIG. 1)).
Haner does not explicitly discuss the reflectors 4 and counter-reflector 5 are corner cube array reflector material.
However, Myers that relates to the use of corner cube reflectors for heat conservation (0003), also teaches corner cube reflector array 10 constructed of a plurality of cube corner reflectors (0032 and see FIGS. 2 – 3)). Further, Myers discuss the corner cube reflectors are advantageous in their reflection efficiency over other shaped retro-reflectors, like cat’s eye retro- reflectors, as atypical cube corner kind of retro-reflector use total internal reflection to change the light direction three times in one cube to send it back in the incoming direction there by providing an efficient reflective material for conserving heat dissipated from a source, (0008 – 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to make the reflectors 4 and counter-reflector 5 of Haner to be corner cube reflector array constructed of a plurality of cube corner reflectors in order to achieve the purported advantage of reflection efficiency that results in conservation of heat energy dissipated by the irradiation source as taught in Myers. POSITA apprised of teachings of the efficiently reflecting corner cube reflector array 10 constructed of a plurality of cube corner reflectors of Myers would be motivated to modify the reflectors of Haner with the same and reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve conservation heat energy from the irradiation source.
Regarding claim 27, Haner in view of Myers the method as set forth in claim 21 wherein target material is one of metal, glass or plastic in a manufacturing or filling process (the plastic preform 1 is a plastic bottle preform in plastic bottle manufacturing, Haner (0024-0025 and see annotated FIG.1).
Claims 25 – 26 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timans in view of Haner.
Regarding claim 25, Timans disclose the method as set forth in claim 22 wherein the irradiation is for the purpose of heating or thermally processing a target item (wafer 14), (2:10 – 15 and annotated FIG.10)).
Timans does not explicitly teach the method is implemented within a bottle forming system.
However, Haner that relates apparatus for the heat treatment preforms, (0003 and see annotated FIG.1), also teaches the heat treatment process of a plastic preforms 1 is implemented in plastic bottle forming system, Haner (0003, 0014 and annotated FIG.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the system of claim 1 discloses by Timans, to be implemented within a bottle forming system as taught in Haner, as it is established that selection of implementation a known system based on its suitability for its intended use is a matter of ordinary skill in the art and supports a prima facie obviousness over the prior art, MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 26, Timans disclose the method as set forth in claim 22 wherein the target item is a plastic bottle preform (the plastic preform 1 is a plastic bottle preform, see Haner annotated FIG.1).
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 1 – 6, 9, 14 – 19 of the current application No. 18/375,088 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 7, 9, 14 – 19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11774648 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: as shown with the corresponding claims of the same row (please see notes in same of rows) in the inserted table herein, the claim limitations of the current application No. 18/375,088 are anticipated by the corresponding claims of the U.S. Patent No. US 11774648 B2 and patenting the current claims would unjustifiably or improperly extend the time of the “right to exclude” of the patented claims.
Claims of application No.18/375,088
Claims of U.S. Patent No.US 11774648B2
Claim 1. A system for irradiation treating or processing a target item, the system comprising: an irradiation source operative to produce irradiation, the irradiation source configured to direct irradiation toward a target item; and an irradiation zone in which the target item will be located for irradiation, the irradiation zone being at least partially defined by corner-cube reflector material, the corner-cube reflector material comprising an array of corner-cube reflectors and being operative to reflect irradiation back to the target item, at substantially the same location from which the irradiation which has been, at least one of, reflected from, back- scattered from, or passed through the target item.
Claim 1. A system for irradiation treating or processing a target item, the system comprising: an irradiation source operative to produce irradiation, the irradiation source comprising semiconductor laser devices configured to direct irradiation toward desired locations of a target item according to an irradiation pattern such that the target item can absorb irradiation in at least some desired locations of the target item; and an irradiation zone in which the target will be located for irradiation, the irradiation zone being substantially enclosed by proximate corner-cube reflector material positioned at least in areas of the irradiation zone where stray radiation is likely, the corner-cube reflector material comprising sheets sufficiently thin to reduce heating of the material having a smooth flat surface facing the irradiation zone to face the target item and having arrays of contiguous corner-cube reflectors configured and sized sufficiently small to be embedded in the sheets such that irradiation that has been, at least one of, reflected from or back-scattered from the target item, strikes a reflector of the array and is reflected by the reflector, is reflected back to the target item at substantially the same location on the target item from which such irradiation was, at least one of, reflected or back-scattered to (*NOTE, the bold italicized limitations anticipate claim 1 of the current app No. 18/375, 088) increase efficiency of the system by increasing absorption of irradiation at the desired locations of the target item according to the irradiation pattern and preventing other heating in the system, wherein reflecting the irradiation back to the target item at substantially the same location on the target item from which such irradiation was, at least one of, reflected or back-scattered, preserves the irradiation pattern and is based on at least a minimized distance between parallel input rays and corresponding output rays of the reflector and an acceptance angle for the input rays to the reflector being less than 45° from a line orthogonal to a corresponding sheet of the corner-cube reflector material.
Claim 2. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the system is a cooking oven.
Claim 2. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the system is a cooking oven.
Claim 3. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the target item is a food or organic item.
Claim 3. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the target item is a food or organic item.
Claim 4. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the system is included within a bottle forming system.
Claim 4. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the system is included within a bottle forming system.
Claim 5. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the target item is a plastic bottle preform.
Claim 5. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the target item is a plastic bottle preform.
Claim 6. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube reflector material includes at least one aperture through which irradiation can be directed through the corner-cube reflector material toward the target item.
Claim 6. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube reflector material includes at least one discontinuity through which irradiation can be directed through the corner-cube reflector material toward the target item.
Claim 7. The system as set forth in claim 6 wherein the discontinuity is an aperture. (*Note, claims 6 and 7 anticipate claim 6 of the current app.NO, 18/375, 088)
Claim 9. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube reflector material covers substantially all of the interior surface of the irradiation zone except that the corner-cube reflector material does not cover irradiation sources.
Claim 9. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube reflector material covers substantially all of the interior surface of the irradiation zone except that the corner-cube reflector material does not cover irradiation sources.
Claim 14. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube material incorporates a colored pigment such that the material appears as a colored surface to a human viewer and such that the corner-cube material reflects wavelengths of the irradiation.
Claim 14. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube material incorporates a colored pigment such that the material appears as a colored surface to a human viewer and such that the corner-cube material reflects wavelengths of the irradiation.
Claim 15. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube material is coated on at least one of a front surface or back surface such that the material reflects at least 85% of wavelengths above 750 nm.
Claim 15. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube material is coated on at least one of a front surface or back surface such that the material reflects at least 85% of wavelengths above 750 nm.
Claim 16. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner- cube material is coated on at least one of a front or back surface and reflects at least 95% of wavelengths of the irradiation produced in the system.
Claim 16. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube material is coated on at least one of a front or back surface and reflects at least 95% of wavelengths.
Claim 17. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube material is operative to function above 1600 nm.
Claim 17. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube material is operative to function above 1600 nm.
Claim 18. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the reflective coating is at least one of aluminum, silver, gold, copper, and cadmium or alloys thereof.
Claim 18. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the reflective coating is at least one of aluminum, silver, gold, copper, and cadmium or alloys thereof.
Claim 19. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the corner-cube reflector material incorporates a smooth and washable surface facing the irradiation target item.
Claim 19. The system as set forth in claim 1 wherein the flat surface of the sheets is a smooth and washable surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/08/205, see Remarks pages 7 – 10, regarding the Non-Final Rejections on 03/06/2025 have been fully considered and the following response is given herein.
Regarding the Claim Objections and the indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome these objections and rejections. As such, the objections and the rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the anticipatory and obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
The applicant argues, regarding indecent claim 1, “It is submitted that the Examiner has not established that Timans shows corner-cube reflector material comprising an array of corner-cube reflectors and at least partially defining the irradiation zone. The Examiner merely identifies that Timans shows the use of a corner-cube reflector in a chamber. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, independent claim 1 is submitted to be distinguishable.” Remarks, page 8, 2nd paragraph.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the current rejection and illustrated in the annotated FIG. 10, Timans explicitly discloses an array of array of corner-cube reflectors 38 and at least partially defining the irradiation zone 12 and the applicant did not explain why Timans does not teach so. Applicant’s assertion is simply conclusory and is not clear how/why the applicant reached such a conclusion. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The applicant also submitted that independent claims 21 and 28 are distinguishable from Timans for the same reason. The examiner submits that same response applies.
Applicant also argues, regarding dependent claims 8 – 10, “The Examiner merely concludes that these features would be determined strictly and routinely in accord with a particular application and/or would have been well within the competency of one of ordinary skill in the art. In this regard, it is submitted the Examiner is merely engaging in impermissible hindsight analysis.” Remarks, page 9, 1st paragraph.
The examiner submits that, as discussed in the current rejection, claims 8 – 10 are directed to proportions and sizes of the corner cube reflectors in the claimed invention and the claimed proportions are rejected as being obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as discovering optimum/workable proportion, ranges and/or sizes, are considered mere design choices of routine experimentation that are not patentably distinguishing, as supported by the cited paragraphs of the MPEP. Thus, the claims are rejected taking into account only knowledge which is gleaned from and within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include any knowledge taken from the applicant's disclosure, and such reconstruction of obviousness is proper.
Applicant Further argues, regarding the obviousness of independent claims 1 and 21 by Haner in view of Myers, “As concluded by the Examiner, Haner does not show corner cube reflectors. Myers only shows corner cube arrays used for retro-reflection back to an individual. The Examiner has not fairly established how such a combination shows reflection back to the target item at substantially the same location from which the irradiation has been reflected, back scattered or passed through, as claimed” Remarks, page 9, 4th paragraph.
The Examiner submits, as discussed in the rejection, Haner already discloses reflectors 4 and counter-reflectors 5a configured to reflect back to the target item at substantially the same location from which the irradiation has been passed through, please see annotated FIG.1 of Haner. Myers is combined to Haner to teach that the discloses reflectors 4 and counter-reflectors 5a are corner-cube reflectors and Myers teaches corner-cube reflectors are advantageous in their reflection efficiency over other shaped reflectors. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use modify the reflectors of Haner with the corner-cube reflectors of Myers for the expressed advantage of reflection efficiency as discussed in the rejection.
The examiner also notes, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the Non- Statutory Double Patenting Rejection by Patent No. US 11774648 B2.
The amendments to the claims did not overcome the double patenting rejections of the claims and is maintained as shown in the rejection herein.
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 DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761