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 .
Status of the Claims/Amendments
This Office Action Correspondence is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 17 Oct 2025. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8 are amended.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 6 limitation “submerged in the non-magnetic cover” shall be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Merriam-Webster English dictionary as “covered” or “hidden” in the non-magnetic cover.
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.
Claim 3, 8 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is/are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims filed 17 Oct 2025.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable based upon a public use or sale or other public availability over IDS art NPL document Annex 1 to Notice of Opposition Filed to the EPO on 26 June 2019 against EP3256619 (European equivalent of the instant invention) with attached evidence documents D9.1 to D 9.20 and D 11.1 to D 11.5 showing public availability/prior sale in the year 2014. [Hereinafter the NPL document will be referred to as “Annex 1” and the evidence documents will be referred to as D9.1 to D9.20 and D 11.1. to D 11.5 respectively] in view of Clark (US 3,320,563) and Rokkaku et al. (US 4,664,572 hereinafter “Rokkaku”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Annex 1 (page 14-18) provides detailed explanation of the transaction history of item gearbox 129 T18 sold by the company “4pvd” before the priority date of the instant application (13 February 2015). Annex 1 page 14-15 summarizes the evidence of the prior sale and makes note of offer dates (for example: D9.1 June 8, 2014;) and purchase dates (for example: D9.14 showing payment on Dec 8, 2014). Additionally, Annex 1 pages 14-29 details the public prior use/sale which will be further mapped onto the claim limitations as explained hereunder.
More specifically, Annex 1 (See annotated figures below) Annex 1 teaches a fixture system (gearbox 129 T18 Annex 1 page 19, see also attached documents D9.3 and D9.4 for the technical drawings of the gearbox 129 T18) comprising a holding part for holding a workpiece comprising ferromagnetic substances, said workpiece comprising a body with two ends and exhibiting along a rotary axis a symmetric shape with a radial dimension (Annex 1: page 20 line 1 explains that the work pieces are “bolts” as evidenced in email in D9.1) and with surfaces to be treated, said holding part comprising at least one magnet, see annotated Detail B figure below) which generate a magnetic field with a magnetic force in the rotary axis direction (as understood from the figure of the overall fixture system below) which is high enough for holding the workpiece if the workpiece is placed on a holding surface of the holding part in such a manner that one of its ends is in contact with the holding surface of the holding part (Annex 1: page 21 line 1-10), the holding part further comprising: a fixture base, a magnet yoke comprising an opening an outer diameter and an inner diameter (Annex 1: page 21 line 16-17), magnet yoke being placed between a surface of the fixture base and the holding surface of the holding part in a manner that said opening is positioned in the opposite side to the fixture base (Annex 1: page 21 line 16-20), at least one magnet placed inside the magnet yoke (Annex 1: page 21 line 10-14); a non-magnetic cover (i.e. cover sleeve) having a cylindrical-shaped recessed cavity and a cylindrical wall configured to cover an entirety of a cylindrical outer wall of the at least one magnet (See below annotated fig. A2 and annotated figure of annotated enlarged view Detail B of D9.4).
See below annotated figure copied from Annex 1 page 19 showing annotated perspective view of the fixture system (gearbox 129 T18) from the upper left corner for page 1 of D9.3.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See below annotated figure copied from Annex 1 page 20 of annotated enlarged view Detail B of D9.3 showing the gearbox 129 T18 with CB18 cover sleeves.
PNG
media_image2.png
692
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See below annotated figure of annotated enlarged view Detail B of D9.4 showing the gearbox 129 T18 with CB28 cover sleeves. The below figure is not copied from Annex 1 but annotated based on information from Annex 1 and provides annotations for depicting the instant U.S. application claim limitations. As explained in the email D11.1 (see also attached English Machine translation of D11.1), the bolt (i.e. workpiece does not sit directly on the yoke). As explained in Annex 1, gearbox 129 T18 can use different cover sleeves (Annex 1 page 26 line 4-13).
PNG
media_image3.png
664
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Further regarding amended claim limitation “wherein the fixture base is configured to extend within the non-magnetic cover,” Examiner explains that D9.4 has several different views of the fixture system including a large overview and a cross-sectional view A-A wherein the fixture base is interpreted as a support structure assembly of the holding part and is understood to extend within the non-magnetic cover. See annotated cross-sectional view A-A of D9.4 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Annex 1 as applied above does not explicitly teach the at least one magnet placed inside the magnet yoke in a manner that the at least one magnet is kept circumferentially at equal distance from the magnet yoke by a non-magnetic spacer; the non-magnetic cover having a circular wall configured to cover a distal end of the at least one magnet, wherein a surface of the circular wall defines the holding surface.
However, Clark teaches an apparatus configured to hold an article/workpiece using a magnet (col 1 line 9-10) comprising at least one magnet (comprising 8, Fig. 1 -3) placed inside the magnet yoke (comprising cup shaped soft iron 12, Fig. 1) in a manner that the at least one magnet is kept circumferentially at equal distance from the magnet yoke by a non- magnetic spacer (comprising sleeve 10 of non-magnetic material 10, Fig. 1-4) (col 1 line 61-70). Clark teaches that such an arrangement enables forming a substantially complete magnetic circuit subsntially free from air gaps and enables holding the articles/workpiece very firmly (col 2 line 20-25).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a non-magnetic spacer such that the at least one magnet placed inside the magnet yoke in a manner that the at least one magnet is kept circumferentially at equal distance from the magnet yoke by a non-magnetic spacer in view of teachings of Clark in the apparatus of Annex 1 as a known configuration which would enable firmly holding the workpiece (Clark: col 2 line 20-25).
Annex 1 in view of Clark as applied above do not explicitly teach that the non-magnetic cover having a circular wall configured to cover a distal end of the at least one magnet, wherein a surface of the circular wall defines the holding surface.
However, Rokkaku further teaches an apparatus configured to hold an article/workpiece using a magnet comprising a non-magnetic cover (comprising cap 47, Fig. 5, 7, 9, col 11 line 31-34) having a cylindrical-shaped recessed cavity and a circular wall configured to cover a distal end of the at least one magnet (comprising 46, Fig. 7 and 9), wherein a surface of the circular wall defines the holding surface. See annotated Fig. 9 and 7 of Rokkaku below. Fig. 7 of Rokkaku shows the circular end configuration of the apparatus.
PNG
media_image5.png
452
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
340
523
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the non-magnetic cover to completely enclose the at least one magnet such that the non-magnetic cover has a circular wall surface configured to cover a distal end of the at least one magnet wherein a surface of the circular wall defines the holding surface in view of teachings of Rokkaku in the apparatus of Annex in view of Clark because configuring the non-magnetic cover having a circular wall surface to surround the distal end of the at least one magnet would enable protecting the magnet in a plasma environment and also prevent particles from reaching the at least one magnet.
Regarding limitation, “wherein the at least one magnet of the holding part are designed and arranged in such a manner that the magnetic field lines of the generated magnetic field are at least largely confined to the space occupied with parts of the fixture system or body of the workpiece, so that a generation of side plasmas caused by the magnetic field lines during the execution of a plasma treatment is avoided” this is an intended use/function limitation. Since the structure per Annex 1 in view of Clark and Rokkaku teaches all of the structural limitations including a magnet, yoke, non-magnetic spacer, and a non-magnetic cover the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Further, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II.
Regarding claim 2, Annex 1 in view of Clark and Rokkaku teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above and Annex 1 further teaches wherein the outer radius regarding the outer diameter of the magnet yoke is in the range of 100% to 50% of the radial dimension of the workpiece body (Annex 1: page 24 line 4-10). See also annotated figures below of Detail B in D9.3 and D9.4. The below figure is not copied from Annex 1 but annotated based on information from Annex 1 and provides annotations for the U.S. application claim limitations.
PNG
media_image7.png
620
1101
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
648
1127
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Annex 1 in view of Clark and Rokkaku teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above. Annex 1 further teaches the non-magnetic cover (i.e. cover sleeve) comprises non-magnetic steel (Annex 1: middle of page 24, page 26 line 1-14, page 27 line 13-26) which is used as the holding surface (see annotated figure of Detail B below).
See below annotated figure of annotated enlarged view Detail B of D9.4 showing the gearbox 129 T18 with CB28 cover sleeves. The below figure is not copied from Annex 1 but annotated based on information from Annex 1 and provides annotations for depicting the instant U.S. application claim limitations. As explained in the email D11.1 (see also attached English Machine translation of D11.1), the bolt (i.e. workpiece does not sit directly on the yoke). As explained in Annex 1, gearbox 129 T18 can use different cover sleeves (Annex 1 page 26 line 4-13).
PNG
media_image9.png
678
861
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Additionally, or alternatively, when modifying annex 1 in claim 1 in view of teachings of Rokkaku to comprise a non-magnetic cover surrounding the distal end of the at least one magnet, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a modification would mean that the non-magnetic cover would be the holding surface since the non-magnetic cover would be encompassing the end of the at least one magnet.
Claim 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable based upon a public use or sale or other public availability over IDS art NPL document Annex 1 to Notice of Opposition Filed to the EPO on 26 June 2019 against EP3256619 (European equivalent of the instant invention) with attached evidence documents D9.1 to D 9.20 and D 11.1 to D 11.5 showing public availability/prior sale in the year 2014. [Hereinafter the NPL document will be referred to as “Annex 1” and the evidence documents will be referred to as D9.1 to D9.20 and D 11.1. to D 11.5 respectively] in view of Clark (US 3,320,563) and Rokkaku et al. (US 4,664,572 hereinafter “Rokkaku”) as applied to claims 1, 2, 3 above and further in view of Bluck et al. (US 2013/0276978 A1 hereinafter “Bluck”) and further substantiated by Laughton (Electrical Engineer’s Reference Book-8.7.3 Rare Earth Cobalt) (IDS art).
Regarding claim 4, Annex 1 in view of Clark and Rokkaku as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that the magnet in Annex 1 is a permanent magnet made of hard magnetic material.
However, Bluck teaches a magnetic fixture system (comprising susceptor 405, Fig. 4, paragraph [0035]) comprising magnets (434, Fig. 4, paragraph [0035]) made of Samarium Cobalt, which is suitable for high temperature operations (paragraph [0035]).
It is noted that the instant application teach that Samarium cobalt is a hard magnetic material (page 11 line 7-8).
Further, Laughton teach that Samarium Cobalt has a Curie Temperature of over 700◦C (foot note).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hard magnetic material having a Curie-Temperature of above 450C such as samarium cobalt in view of teachings of Bluck (and further substantiated by Laughton) in the apparatus of Annex 1 in view of Clark and Rokkaku as a known suitable hard magnetic material for a magnetic fixture system suitable for use in high temperature processing (Bluck: paragraph [0035]).
Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Annex 1 in view of Clark, Rokkaku and Bluck (and further substantiated by Laughton) teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above and Laughton further teaches wherein the hard magnetic material has a Curie-Temperature of above 450C (see foot note in Laughton).
Claim 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable based upon a public use or sale or other public availability over IDS art: NPL document Annex 1 to Notice of Opposition Filed to the EPO on 26 June 2019 against EP3256619 (European equivalent of the instant invention) with attached evidence documents D9.1 to D 9.20 and D 11.1 to D 11.5 showing public availability/prior sale in the year 2014. [Hereinafter the NPL document will be referred to as “Annex 1” and the evidence documents will be referred to as D9.1 to D9.20 and D 11.1. to D 11.5 respectively] in view of Rokkaku et al. (US 4, 664, 572 hereinafter “Rokkaku”).
Regarding independent claim 6, Annex 1 (page 14-18) provides detailed explanation of the transaction history of item gearbox 129 T18 sold by the company “4pvd” before the priority date of the instant application (13 February 2015). Annex 1 page 14-15 summarizes the evidence of the prior sale and makes note of offer dates (for example: D9.1 June 8, 2014;) and purchase dates (for example: D9.14 showing payment on Dec 8, 2014). Additionally, Annex 1 pages 14-29 details the public prior use/sale which will be further mapped onto the claim limitations as explained hereunder.
More specifically, Annex 1 (See annotated figures below) Annex 1 teaches a fixture system (gearbox 129 T18 Annex 1 page 19, see also attached documents D9.3 and D9.4 for the technical drawings of the gearbox 129 T18) comprising a holding part for holding a workpiece comprising ferromagnetic substances, said workpiece comprising a body with two ends and exhibiting along a rotary axis a symmetric shape with a radial dimension (Annex 1: page 20 line 1 explains that the work pieces are “bolts” as evidenced in email in D9.1) and with surfaces to be treated, said holding part comprising at least one magnet, see annotated Detail B figure below) which generate a magnetic field with a magnetic force in the rotary axis direction (as understood from the figure of the overall fixture system below) which is high enough for holding the workpiece if the workpiece is placed on a holding surface of the holding part in such a manner that one of its ends is in contact with the holding surface of the holding part (Annex 1: page 21 line 1-10), the holding part further comprising: a fixture base and at least one magnet (Annex 1: page 21 line 10-14); a nonmagnetic cover (comprising cover sleeve, see annotated Fig. A2 below) having a recessed cavity that is configured to surround an entirety of a cylindrical outer wall of the at least one magnet.
See below annotated figure copied from Annex 1 page 19 showing annotated perspective view of the fixture system (gearbox 129 T18) from the upper left corner for page 1 of D9.3.
PNG
media_image1.png
619
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See below annotated figure copied from Annex 1 page 20 of annotated enlarged view Detail B of D9.3 showing the gearbox 129 T18 with CB18 cover sleeves.
PNG
media_image2.png
692
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further regarding amended claim limitation “wherein the fixture base is configured to extend within the non-magnetic cover,” Examiner explains that D9.4 has several different views of the fixture system including a large overview and a cross-sectional view A-A wherein the fixture base is interpreted as a support structure assembly of the holding part and is understood to extend within the non-magnetic cover. See annotated cross-sectional view A-A of D9.4 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
512
782
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annex 1 as applied above does not explicitly teach a magnet link plate placed between a surface of the fixture base and the holding surface of the holding part, and the at least one magnet is at least one pair of magnets placed between the magnet link plate and the holding surface of the holding part in a manner that each magnet of said at least one pair of magnets is positioned next to each other with opposite polarities and forming an outer diameter; the non-magnetic cover is configured to surround a distal end of the at least one pair of magnets and the at least one pair of magnets of the holding part is submerged (i.e. covered or hidden) in the non-magnetic cover (see discussion regarding claim interpretation above).
Rokkaku further teaches an apparatus configured to hold an article/workpiece using a magnet comprising a magnet link plate (comprising an armature comprising a magnetic material 43, Fig. 9) placed between a surface of the fixture base and the holding surface of the holding part, and at least one pair of magnets (comprising 46, Fig. 7 and 9; comprising 41, Fig. 8) placed between the magnet link plate (comprising 43, Fig. 9), a non-magnetic cover (comprising 47, Fig. 5 and 7, col 11 line 31-34) having a recessed cavity configured to surround both a distal end and an entirety of an outer wall of the at least one pair of magnets (comprising 46, Fig. 7 and 9) such that the at least one pair of magnets of the holding part is submerged (i.e. covered or hidden in the non-magnetic cover, and the holding surface (comprising end surface of 47, Fig. 6) of the holding part in a manner that each magnet of said at least one pair of magnets is positioned next to each other with opposite polarities and forming an outer diameter (col 12 line 18-55)(see annotated Fig. 9 and 7 of Rokkaku below). Rokkaku teaches that such a configuration enables forming a magnetic line that passes through the magnet link plate (comprising armature 43, Fig. 9) to create a high flux density at the end of the holding surface (i.e. flat end) (col 12 line 33-55).
PNG
media_image10.png
440
570
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
452
642
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnet link plate placed between a surface of the fixture base and the holding surface of the holding part, and at least one pair of magnets placed between the magnet link plate and the holding surface of the holding part in a manner that each magnet of said at least one pair of magnets is positioned next to each other with opposite polarities and forming an outer diameter (for example, by duplicating the number of magnets or providing a plurality of smaller magnets used in Annex 1, replacing the yoke of Annex 1 with magnetic link plate and arranging the magnets as taught in Rokakku) and further to configure the non-magnetic cover such that the non-magnetic cover surrounds a distal end of the at least one pair of magnet and the at least one pair of magnets of the holding part is submerged (i.e. covered or hidden) in the non-magnetic cover in view of teachings of Rokkaku in the apparatus of Annex 1 because the configuration of a magnet link placed between a surface of the fixture base and the holding surface of the holding part, and at least one pair of magnets placed between the magnet link plate and the holding surface of the holding part in a manner that each magnet of said at least one pair of magnets is positioned next to each other with opposite polarities and forming an outer diameter enables forming an out creating a high flux density at the end of the holding surface for holding the workpiece (Rokkaku: col 12 line 33-55), and further configuring the non-magnetic cover to surround the distal end of the at least one pair of magnets would enable protecting the magnet in a plasma environment and also prevent particles from reaching the at least one pair of magnets.
Regarding limitation, “wherein the at least one pair of magnets of the holding part are designed and arranged in such a manner that the magnetic field lines of the generated magnetic field are at least largely confined to the space occupied with parts of the fixture system or body of the workpiece, so that a generation of side plasmas caused by the magnetic field lines during the execution of a plasma treatment is avoided” this is an intended use/function limitation. Since the structure per Annex 1 in view of Rokkaku teaches all of the structural limitations including at least one pair of magnets, magnetic link plate, and non-magnetic cover, the apparatus of the same is considered capable of meeting the intended use/functional limitations. Further, the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP 2114. II.
Regarding claim 7, Annex 1 in view of Rokkaku teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as applied above and D4 further teaches wherein the outer radius regarding the outer diameter formed by the pair of magnets is in the range of 100% to 50% of the radial dimension of the workpiece body (as understood from Figure Annex D4 above in claim 6 rejection).
Further, Annex 1 already shows that an outer radius of the magnet is in the range of 100% to 50% of the radial dimension of the workpiece body. See annotated figure below from evidence document D9.3 hereinafter “Figure D9.3 Claim 7.” Thus, when modifying the apparatus of Annex 1 to have a pair of magnets and a magnet link plate in claim 6 rejection, claim 7 limitations would also be met.
PNG
media_image12.png
488
719
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Annex 1 in view of Rokkaku teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as applied above and Annex 1 further teaches a non-magnetic cover (i.e. cover sleeve) comprising non-magnetic steel (Annex 1: middle of page 24, page 26 line 1-14, page 27 line 13-26) which is used as the holding surface (see annotated figure of Detail B below).
See below annotated figure of annotated enlarged view Detail B of D9.4 showing the gearbox 129 T18 with CB28 cover sleeves. The below figure is not copied from Annex 1 but annotated based on information from Annex 1 and provides annotations for depicting the instant U.S. application claim limitations. As explained in the email D11.1 (see also attached English Machine translation of D11.1), the bolt (i.e. workpiece does not sit directly on the yoke). As explained in Annex 1, gearbox 129 T18 can use different cover sleeves (Annex 1 page 26 line 4-13).
PNG
media_image9.png
678
861
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Additionally, or alternatively, when modifying annex 1 in claim 6 in view of teachings of Rokkaku to comprise a non-magnetic cover surrounding the distal end of the at least one magnet, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such a modification would mean that the non-magnetic cover would be the holding surface since the non-magnetic cover would be encompassing the end of the at least one magnet.
Claim 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable based upon a public use or sale or other public availability over NPL document Annex 1 to Notice of Opposition Filed to the EPO on 26 June 2019 against EP3256619 (European equivalent of the instant invention) with attached evidence documents D9.1 to D 9.20 and D 11.1 to D 11.5 showing public availability/prior sale in the year 2014. [Hereinafter the NPL document will be referred to as “Annex 1” and the evidence documents will be referred to as D9.1 to D9.20 and D 11.1. to D 11.5 respectively] in view of Rokkaku et al. (US 4,664,572 hereinafter “Rokkaku”) as applied to claims 6-8 above and further in view of Bluck et al. (US 2013/0276978 A1 hereinafter “Bluck”) and further substantiated by Laughton (Electrical Engineer’s Reference Book-8.7.3 Rare Earth Cobalt) (IDS art).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Annex 1 in view of Rokkaku as applied above teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as applied above but does not explicitly teach that the magnet in Annex 1 is a permanent magnet made of hard magnetic material.
However, Bluck teaches a magnetic fixture system (comprising susceptor 405, Fig. 4, paragraph [0035]) comprising magnets (434, Fig. 4, paragraph [0035]) made of Samarium Cobalt, which is suitable for high temperature operations (paragraph [0035]).
It is noted that the instant application teach that Samarium cobalt is a hard magnetic material (page 11 line 7-8).
Further, Laughton teach that Samarium Cobalt has a Curie Temperature of over 700◦C (foot note).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a hard magnetic material having a Curie-Temperature of above 450C such as samarium cobalt in view of teachings of Bluck (and further substantiated by Laughton) in the apparatus of Annex 1 in view of Rokkaku as a known suitable hard magnetic material for a magnetic fixture system suitable for use in high temperature processing (Bluck: paragraph [0035]).
Further, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Annex 1 in view of in view of Rokkaku, Bluck (and further substantiated by Laughton) teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above and Laughton further teaches wherein the hard magnetic material has a Curie-Temperature of above 450C (see foot note in Laughton).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further discussed below.
Applicant argues (remarks page 6-7) regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 6, none of the cited art, alone or in combination teaches the fixture base is configured to extend within the non-magnetic cover as recited by amended claim 1. Applicant argues the “fixture base” of Annex 1 exits completely outside of the “non-magnetic cover” and even if another reference was cited as teaching “a fixture base configured to extend within the non-magnetic cover” as claimed, a combination with Annex 1 would require a substantial redesign of the elements, as well as a change in the basic principle under which Annex 1 was designed to operate.
Examiner responds that “fixture base” is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a support structure of the fixture system. Further, Annex 1 document D9.4 has several views of the apparatus including a cross-section A-A which shows a cross-sectional view of the fixture base. See annotated figure in claim 1 and 6 rejection above showing that D9.4 does teach that the fixture base is configured to extend within the non-magnetic cover.
In light of the above, independent claims 1 and 6 are rejected. Additionally, in view of Examiner’s remarks regarding independent claims 1 and 6, the dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are also rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(previously cited) Oyama (JP2014169469A) teaches a vacuum film forming apparatus comprising permanent magnets (comprising 9’, Fig. 1) in a plasma processing chamber (2, Fig. 1), wherein the magnets are covered with a non-magnetic material cover (10, Fig. 1) to prevent abnormal discharge of the magnets (para. [0008]).
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 LAUREEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:30PM 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571)272-1435. 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.
/LAUREEN CHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /RAM N KACKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716