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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 recites “wherein the first region include pattern;” should be “wherein the first region includes a pattern.” Appropriate correction is required. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. 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 . Claim(s) 1 - 6, 8-1 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180363139 to Rajavelu in view of US 20150192702 to Yamamoto . Claim s 1 - 4, 6, 8 -9, 1 1 -13 : Rajavelu discloses (claim 1) a wafer processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (100 [reaction chamber], Fig.1) providing an internal space (inside 100, Fig. 2) ; and a first rib ( one upper 116 [rib]) on an outer side of a first sidewall (102 [upper wall]) of the chamber (100) , wherein an outer side of the first rib (upper 116) includes a first portion (upper surface of upper 116) and a second portion (another portion of upper 116) ; (claim 3) wherein the first portion (upper surface of upper 116) is an upper surface of the first rib (upper surface of upper 116), and the second portion (another portion of upper 116) is at least a portion of a side of the first rib (another portion of upper 116); (claim s 8 , 9 ) further comprising: a second rib (another upper 116, Fig. 1-2) spaced apart from the first rib (one upper 116) on the outer side of the first sidewall (102) of the chamber (100) , wherein an outer side of the second rib (another upper 116) includes a third portion (upper surface of upper 116) and a fourth portion (another portion of another upper 116) ; (claim 11) a second rib (lower 118, Fig. 1-2) on an outer side of a second sidewall (104 [lower wall]) of the chamber (100); (claim 12) wherein the outer side of the second rib (lower 118) includes a third portion (lower surface of lower 118) and a fourth portion (another portion of lower 118) . However Rajavelu does not disclose (claim 1) and a light transmittance of the first portion is different from a light transmittance of the second portion ; (claim 2) wherein a surface roughness of the first portion is different from a surface roughness of the second portion ; (claim 4) wherein light transmittance of the first portion is smaller than that of the second portion; (claim 6) wherein light transmittance of the first portion is smaller than that of the second portion; (claim 8) a light transmittance of the third portion is different from a light transmittance of the fourth portion; (claim 9) and a light transmittance of the third portion is equal to a light transmittance of the fourth portion; (claim 12) and a light transmittance of the third portion is different from a light transmittance of the fourth portion; (claim 13) wherein a surface roughness of the third portion is different from a surface roughness of the fourth portion. Yamamoto teaches multiple substrates that have different types of surface roughness, which shows the relationship between wavelength and light transmittance for those different surface roughness (para. [0073]), where the light transmittance is different for different surface roughness, and transmittance of the substrate having a fine surface roughness is higher than that of the substrate without fine surface roughness (para. [0077- 0078]) for the purpose of manufacturing elements to have varied surface roughness for desired transmittance (para. [0107]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto with motivation to manufacture elements to have varied surface roughness for desired transmittance. Claim 5: The apparatus of Rajavelu in view of Yamamoto discloses wherein the first portion (upper surface of upper 116, Fig. 1-2, Rajavelu ) is an upper surface of the first rib (upper surface of upper 116) and an upper region of the outer side of the first rib (upper surface of outer side of upper 116) , the upper region of the outer side of the first rib (upper surface of outer side of upper 116) is connected to the upper surface of the first rib (upper surface of upper 116) , the second portion (lower surface of outer side of upper 116) is a lower region of the outer side of the first rib (lower surface of outer side of upper 116) , and the lower region of the outer side of the first rib (lower surface of outer side of upper 11 6 ) is connected to the first sidewall of the chamber (102 of 100) . Claim 10: The apparatus of Rajavelu in view of Yamamoto discloses further comprising: a lamp (204 [radiant heating lamps], Fig. 2, Rajavelu ) on the outer side of the first sidewall of the chamber (102 of 100) , wherein the first rib (upper 116) overlaps the lamp (204, Fig. 3B) , and the second rib (another upper 116) does not overlap the lamp (see para. [0036] where the lamps can be positioned to overlap or not overlap any of the ribs) . Claim 1 4 : The apparatus of Rajavelu in view of Yamamoto discloses further comprising: a lamp (208 [radiant heating lamps], Fig. 2, Rajavelu ) on the outer side of the second sidewall (outer side of 104) , wherein the lamp (208) does not overlap the second rib (see para. [0036] where the lamps can be positioned to overlap or not overlap any of the ribs) . Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajavelu in view of Yamamoto as applied to claim s 1 -6, 8-1 4 above, and further in view of US 20150044877 to Ohtake . Claim 7: The apparatus of Rajavelu in view of Yamamoto does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the second portion is concave. However Ohtake discloses a plate with ribs (18b, Fig. 4) wherein at least a portion of the second portion is concave (181 [recessed portion] for the purpose of having higher transmittance at portions where the recesses are (para. [0062]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concave portion as taught by Ohtake with motivation to have higher transmittance at portions where the recesses are. Claim(s) 1 5-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180363139 to Rajavelu in view of US 20060165904 to Ohara . Claim s 15 -18 : Rajavelu discloses a wafer processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (100 [reaction chamber], Fig.1) providing an internal space (inside 100, Fig. 2) ; a first rib (one upper 116 [rib]) on an outer side of a first sidewall (102 [upper wall]) of the chamber (100) ; a first light source (204 [radiant heating lamps], Fig. 2) on the outer side of the first sidewall of the chamber (102 of 100). However Rajavelu does not disclose (claim 15) a plate between the first light source and the first rib, wherein the plate includes a first region and a second region, the first region of the plate blocks light provided to the first rib, and the second region transmits the light provided to the first rib ; (claim 16) wherein the first region is on the upper surface of the first rib; (claim 17) wherein the first region include s a pattern ; (claim 18) wherein the plate includes quartz. Ohara discloses (claim 15) a plate (9 [filter], Fig. 2) between the first light source (8 [UV emitter]) and the chamber (6a [lower chamber]) , wherein the plate (9) includes a first region (top center) and a second region (top edge), the first region (top center) of the plate (9) blocks light provided to the chamber (6a, Fig. 5A), and the second region (top edge) transmits the light provided to the chamber (6a , para.[0097] ) ; (claim 16) wherein the first region (top center) is on the upper surface of the chamber (6a) ; (claim 17) wherein the first region includes a pattern (para. [0099]) ; (claim 18) wherein the plate (9) includes quartz (para. [0100]); Ohara discloses this for the purpose of changing and controlling the amount of illumination onto the substrate (para. [0098], [0135]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings above of Ohara with motivation to change and control the amount of illumination onto the substrate. Claim(s) 1 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180363139 to Rajavelu in view of US 20150192702 to Yamamoto . Claims 19-20: Rajavelu discloses (claim 19) a wafer processing apparatus comprising: a chamber (100 [reaction chamber], Fig.1) providing an internal space (inside 100, Fig. 2) ; a plurality of first ribs (plurality of upper 116’s) on an outer side of a first sidewall (102 [upper wall]) of the chamber (100) ; a plurality of first lamps (204 [radiant heating lamps], Fig. 2) on the outer side of the first sidewall of the chamber (102 of 100) ; a plurality of second ribs (plurality of lower 118’s) on an outer side of a second sidewall (104 [lower wall]) of the chamber (100) ; and a plurality of second lamps (208 [radiant heating lamps], Fig. 2) on the outer side of the second sidewall of the chamber (104 of 100) , wherein at least one outer side of the plurality of first ribs includes a first portion (upper surface of upper 116) and a second portion (another portion of upper 116). However Rajavelu does not disclose (claim 19) and a light transmittance of the first portion is different from a light transmittance of the second portion ; (claim 20) wherein a surface roughness of the first portion is different from a surface roughness of the second portion. Yamamoto teaches multiple substrates that have different types of surface roughness, which shows the relationship between wavelength and light transmittance for those different surface roughness (para. [0073]), where the light transmittance is different for different surface roughness, and transmittance of the substrate having a fine surface roughness is higher than that of the substrate without fine surface roughness (para. [0077-0078]) for the purpose of manufacturing elements to have varied surface roughness for desired transmittance (para. [0107]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto with motivation to manufacture elements to have varied surface roughness for desired transmittance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7972 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 10am-6pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712725166 . 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. /Charlee J. C. Bennett/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718