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 .
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation:
Although claim 3 recites “a 21st region adjacent to the first region and a 22nd region positioned on an outer side of the 21st region” without claiming 1-20 regions of the second region, the examiner notes that the nomenclature of the region does not give patentable weight. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 encompasses the presence or absences of 1-20 regions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 4/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/17/2026.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/889,857 (reference application). Notice of Allowance was mailed on 4/14/26 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims substantially encompasses the claims of application 18/889,857 and/or obvious variant of one another with slight optimization of ranges.
Regarding the limitation of the amount of irradiation of the light, the Examiner notes that the disclosure of US ‘857 teaches that the amount of light emission.
Applicants are reminded that while it is generally prohibited from using the disclosure of a potentially conflicting patent or application in a Double Patenting analysis, there are two exceptions permitted by the MPEP. Specifically, “those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent”. In the instant case, the relied upon paragraph sections provide support for the patent claims, since amount of light emission directly effects the amount of irradiation of the light or that the broadly claimed light emission would encompass the specific type of light such as irradiation of the light (PGPUB [0071, 0137]). MPEP 804(II)(B)(2)(a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 3 recites “in a case where…”. It is not clear to the examiner if the claimed invention meant to include a conditional phrase. In other words, whether the recitation following the phrase is a requirement. It is suggested to the applicant to delete the word “in a case”.
Claim 1 recites two definitions for Rw: “a radius of the outer periphery of the workpiece” and “radius of an outer periphery of the third region” renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the examiner is taking the position of outer periphery of the workpiece.
Claim 2 recites a comparison of the minimum value of an irradiation intensity of the light on each of the second region and the third region with the average amount of irradiation of the light on “the region”. Clarification is needed on the specific region as it is unclear to the examiner what region they are comparing to. Further, it is unclear how it can be evaluated or calculated as intensity and amount of irradiation of the light would be of a different unit. Clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Luckner et al. (US 2020/0251362).
Regarding claim 1, Luckner teaches a heating device for heating a workpiece (para. 20, “Referring back to FIG. 1, the substrate 106 is mounted inside the processing chamber 100 on a substrate support 108 and is heated by the lamphead 101”) having a disk shape with a hole in a center and having a pair of main surfaces opposite to each other (intended use which the device of Luckner is capable of) by irradiating the workpiece with light (para. 20, “The lamphead 101 generates radiation, which is directed to a front side 107 of the substrate 106.”), the heating device comprising:
an irradiating part facing at least one main surface of a pair of main surfaces of a workpiece and configured to irradiate the workpiece with light (para. 20, as cited above, “The lamphead 101 generates radiation, which is directed to a front side 107 of the substrate 106.”),
PNG
media_image1.png
561
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the irradiating part includes a plurality of light emitting elements on a surface thereof facing the at least one main surface of the workpiece (para. 19, “The lamphead 101 may include an array of lamps as depicted in FIG. 1. The lamps may be distributed as illustrated in FIG. 2 below in an embodiment.”),
in a case where a plane including the main surface of the workpiece is defined as an irradiation-target surface, the irradiation-target surface includes a first region in which the hole of the workpiece is formed (fig. 2, at least some of the groups include a position corresponding to a center of the workpiece, e.g. group 1), a second region surrounding the first region from an outer side (fig. 2, there is a plurality of groups, such that there would be groups outside of the previously identified first region and inside the third region described below, e.g. from group 2 to group m), and a third region extending from an outer periphery of the second region to an outer periphery of the workpiece (fig. 2, group outside of the previously identified second region and including a position corresponding to an outer periphery of the workpiece, e.g. group m+1).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Luckner discloses the second region as claimed comprising multiple regions, which corresponds to the claimed 21st region and 22nd region (Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luckner et al. (US 2020/0251362) in view of Kitawaki (WO 2025047937).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Luckner teaches a heating device for heating a workpiece (para. 20, “Referring back to FIG. 1, the substrate 106 is mounted inside the processing chamber 100 on a substrate support 108 and is heated by the lamphead 101”) having a disk shape with a hole in a center and having a pair of main surfaces opposite to each other (intended use which the device of Luckner is capable of) by irradiating the workpiece with light (para. 20, “The lamphead 101 generates radiation, which is directed to a front side 107 of the substrate 106.”), the heating device comprising:
an irradiating part facing at least one main surface of a pair of main surfaces of a workpiece and configured to irradiate the workpiece with light (para. 20, as cited above, “The lamphead 101 generates radiation, which is directed to a front side 107 of the substrate 106.”),
PNG
media_image1.png
561
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the irradiating part includes a plurality of light emitting elements on a surface thereof facing the at least one main surface of the workpiece (para. 19, “The lamphead 101 may include an array of lamps as depicted in FIG. 1. The lamps may be distributed as illustrated in FIG. 2 below in an embodiment.”),
in a case where a plane including the main surface of the workpiece is defined as an irradiation-target surface, the irradiation-target surface includes a first region in which the hole of the workpiece is formed (fig. 2, at least some of the groups include a position corresponding to a center of the workpiece, e.g. group 1), a second region surrounding the first region from an outer side (fig. 2, there is a plurality of groups, such that there would be groups outside of the previously identified first region and inside the third region described below, e.g. from group 2 to group m), and a third region extending from an outer periphery of the second region to an outer periphery of the workpiece (fig. 2, group outside of the previously identified second region and including a position corresponding to an outer periphery of the workpiece, e.g. group m+1).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Luckner discloses an amount of irradiation of the light in all regions are adjusted so that they are the same or different (para. 28-30: same number of lamps; “Power to the lamps per group is positively or negatively adjusted (i.e., an offset value is introduced) to increase or decrease the temperature in the chamber … In zones located near the edge of the substrate 174, controlling these zones independently of other zones in their respective groups has been shown to provide the ability to improve process uniformity at the edge of the substrate 174.” Therefore, the power supplied, i.e. the amount of irradiation of the light is adjusted and controlled to be the same or different) and wherein an outer periphery of the first region, an outer periphery of the second region, an outer periphery of the workpiece (Luckner fig. 2, the groups are shown to be concentric circles), and the outer periphery of the workpiece (Luckner fig. 1, the substrate 106 is understood to be concentric to the heating lamps) are concentric circles when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the main surfaces of the workpiece (As shown in figs. 1-2 and described in para. 24, the substrate 106 is understood to rotate while being heated, and the different zones, groups, and areas of the substrate are understood to be concentric circles).
Given that Luckner discloses that the amount of irradiation of the light encompasses to be adjusted to be the same in all regions, Luckner discloses a radius of the outer periphery of the workpiece is defined a Rw, a radius of the outer periphery of the second region is defined as 0.30Rh+0.70Rw, and an average amount of irradiation of the light on the first region is defined as I1, an average amount of irradiation of the light on the second region is defined as I2, and an average amount of irradiation of the light on the third region is defined as I3, I1/I2 is 1.00 or less, and I3/I2 is 0.910-1.50. This is because a ratio of 1 would equate to have the same amount of irradiation of light in all regions of the workpiece. This also would satisfy the claimed I21/I22 to be 1.
Alternatively, it is the examiner’s position that choosing a ratio of light emission per unit are between zones has predictable and expected results. For example, the claimed ratio could be optimized by approaching 1.0 for a less dynamic temperature control and more even heat application and increasing or decreasing for a more dynamic temperature control and uneven heat application, the result of this optimization would have predictable and expected results. Since a ratio is a results effective variable which could be achieved through routine experimentation, the ratio is selected expectedly based on the desired application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the ratio of amount of irradiation of the light in the first, second, and third regions to be within the claimed range (1), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B.
However, Luckner fails to explicitly disclose the workpiece having a concentric hole.
Kitawaki teaches a workpiece having a concentric hole (fig. 1, aluminum alloy disc material 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
350
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to operate the device of Luckner by heating a suitable Aluminum alloy disk material, as taught by Kitawaki. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of suitably heating a disk blank, as suggested by Kitawaki in description of embodiments, “In step S101, intermediate material (aluminum alloy substrate for magnetic disks) or finished products (magnetic disks) are used as at least a part of the aluminum alloy material as recycled material, and the aluminum alloy disk and base layer are separated from the recycled material by heating or wet processing (step S101).” And further described in the paragraphs following the cited portion.
Regarding claim 2, Luckner fails to explicitly disclose a minimum value of an irradiation intensity of the light on each of the second and third region is 0.80-1.50 times the average amount of irradiation of the light on the region. However, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to choose a value to be the same. One of ordinary skill in the art would be well aware that the relationship between intensity and amount can be either same or different. Thus, choice of being the same, which is 1x, given two alternatives would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art absence of evidence to the criticality of the claimed relationship.
Regarding claim 4, although Luckner discloses a distance is present between the irradiation part and the workpiece (All Fig) and a radius is present at the outer periphery of the workpiece, Luckner fails to explicitly disclose the position/dimension as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a distance between the irradiating part and the workpiece is 0.05-2.0 times the radius of the outer periphery of the workpiece. The motivation would have been obvious to explore the ranges between to obtained the claimed relationship in the course of routine engineering optimization/experimentation to successfully accurately irradiate the workpiece with light. Moreover, absent a showing of criticality, i.e., unobvious or unexpected results, the relationships set forth in claim 4 are considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights