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. Claims 1-15 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al ( US 20150068890 A1 ) in view of Dordi et al ( US 6582578 B1 ) and One Monroe (“ The Complete Guide to Pillow Block Bearings ”, June 2023, referred to as Monroe). Claim 1 : Yoshioka discloses a plating fixture (see e.g. abstract) comprising: a hanger (see e.g. #40 o n the Figures) ; a motor fixed to the hanger (see e.g. #90 o n the Figures) ; a shaft coupled to the stepper motor (see e.g. #91 o n the Figures) ; wherein the stepper motor is configured to rotate the shaft (see e.g. [0041]) ; a pinion gear (see e.g. #9 3 and #94 on the Figures ) coupled to the shaft such that rotation of the shaft by the stepper motor causes rotation of the pinion gear (see e.g. [0041]) ; wherein the motor, the shaft, and the pinion gear share a common axis of rotation (see e.g. #90, #91, and #93 on Fig 7) ; and a bevel gear coupled to and configured to rotate relative to the hanger (see e.g. # 30 on the Figures) ; wherein the bevel gear is disposed perpendicular to the pinion gear (see e.g. # 30 on the Figures; [0042]: “ The transmission of a rotational force to the gear p ortion 94 from the drive part 90 may be the transmission using the combination of the shaft and the gear as in the case of the first embodiment ”) ; wherein the bevel gear meshes with the pinion gear ([00 20 ]: “ The transmission of a rotational force to the gear p ortion 94 from the drive part 90 may be the transmission using the combination of the shaft and the gear as in the case of the first embodiment ”) . Yoshioka does not explicitly teach that the motor is a stepper motor. However, the motor of Yoshioka is described as being electrically-operated to rotate the shaft (see e.g. [0041]). Dordi teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Dordi teaches that stepper motors are known motors for applying rotational force to substrate holders (see e.g. col 40, lines 4-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka by using a routine and known rotational motor, such as the stepper motor taught in Dordi . Yoshioka does not explicitly teach one or more pillow block bearings fixed to the hanger; wherein the one or more pillow block bearings constrain the shaft to rotate relative to the one or more pillow block bearings . Monroe teaches that pillow block bearings are often “ used in machinery applications, specifically those that involve a rotating shaf t” to “ allow for a limited degree of misalignment. Even if the rotating shaft isn’t perfectly aligned, the pillow block bearing will hold it in place … pillow block bearings can reduce vibrations … t hey provide stability, support and smooth rotation for shafts within machinery ” (see e.g. page 2 of Monroe) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka by including teach one or more pillow block bearings to constrain the shaft to rotate relative to the one or more pillow block bearings because pillow block bearings provide stability, support and smooth rotation for shafts within machinery . Claim 2 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe discloses that the hanger comprises a horizontal portion (see e.g. top surface of #40 on the Figures) ; wherein the stepper motor is fixed to the horizontal portion (see e.g. #90 on the Figures). Claim 3 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe discloses that the hanger comprises the horizontal portion (see e.g. top surface of #40 on the Figures) and a stem portion that extends from the horizontal portion . (see e.g. the surface of #40 perpendicular to the top surface on the Figures ). Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly teach that the one or more pillow block bearings are fixed to stem portion. However, the stem portion of Yoshioka has the rotating shaft connected to the motor (see e.g. #9 1 on the F igures) and the one or more pillow block bearings work to maintain said shaft in alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka so that the one or more pillow block bearings are fixed to stem portion because the stem portion contains the shaft. Claim 4 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe discloses that the hanger comprises the horizontal portion (see e.g. top surface of #40 on the Figures), the stem portion (see e.g. the surface of #40 perpendicular to the top surface on the Figures) , and a base portion (bottom portion of #40 containing the gears such as #93 or #34 on the Figures) ; wherein the base portion extends from the stem portion; wherein the bevel gear is coupled to and configured to rotate relative to the base portion by a bushing (see e.g. [0034]) . Claim 5 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly teach that the one or more pillow block bearings comprise at least two pillow block bearings. However, the pillow block bearings are included to provide stability, support and smooth rotation for shafts within machinery . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka by determining a suitable amount of pillow block bearings to ensure the necessary about of stability for the rotating shaft. Claim 7 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe discloses a plurality of probes (see e.g. #314 on Fig 1) coupled to and configured to rotate relative to the bevel gear (see e.g. [0036]) ; wherein the plurality of probes and the bevel gear form a substrate holder (see e.g. Fig 1) . Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Feng et al ( US 20150218726 A1 ). Claim 6 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly teach that the hanger, the shaft, the pinion gear, and the bevel gear comprise polyether ether ketone (PEEK). Yoshioka teaches that titanium is a suitable material (see e.g. [0036]). Feng teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Feng teaches the following in [0108]: The material from which the cup bottom element is formed is typically a relatively rigid material. Furthermore, it may be made from a conductive or insulating material. In some embodiments, the cup bottom element is made from a metal such as titanium, or a titanium alloy, or stainless steel. In some embodiments, if it is made from a conductive material, the conductive material may be coated with an insulating material. In other embodiments, the cup bottom element is made from a non-conductive material such as a plastic such as PPS or PEEK. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka to use PEEK as one of the materials for the device because Feng teaches that PEEK is a suitable alternative to titanium and MPEP § 2144.07 states ‘ The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ’. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yoshioka et al ( US 20050092600 A1 , referred to as Katsuoka herein) Claim 8 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe teaches a face portion (see e.g. #312 on Fig 1). Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly a plurality of spacer portions that extend normal to the face portion . Katsuoka teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The wafer holder of Katsuoka comprises a face portion (see e.g. #50 on Fig 4) with a plurality of spacer portion that extend normal to the face portion (see e.g. 58 on Fig 4) for supporting the substrate (see e.g. [0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka so that the plurality of probes and the plurality of spacer portions of the bevel gear form the substrate holder as taught in Katsuoka because the spacers of Katsuoka provide a support surface for the substrate that assists in aligned the pieces of the substrate holder (see e.g. [0049]). Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kagajwala et al ( US 20160215408 A1 ). Claim 9 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly teach a shield coupled to the bevel gear; wherein the shield and the bevel gear form a substrate holder; wherein the shield defines a plurality of holes. Kagajwala teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The wafer holder of Kagajwala comprises a shield (see e.g. Fig 4) ; wherein the shield defines a plurality of holes (see e.g. #413 on Fig 4) that are “ optimized for uniform plating of the wafer ” (see e.g. [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka to incorporate the shield of Kagajwala into the substrate holder because the shield has openings optimized for uniform plating of the wafer . Claim 11 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi , Monroe, and Kagajwala teach that the plurality of holes are disposed in a polar array about an axis of rotation of the shield and the bevel gear (see e.g. Kagajwala - #413 on Fig 4) Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Dordi , Monroe , and Kagajwala as applied to claim 9 above, and in further view of Katsuoka . Claim 10 : Yoshioka in view of Dordi , Monroe, and Kagajwala teaches a face portion (see e.g. #312 on Fig 1). Yoshioka in view of Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly a plurality of spacer portions that extend normal to the face portion . Katsuoka teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The wafer holder of Katsuoka comprises a face portion (see e.g. #50 on Fig 4) with a plurality of spacer portion that extend normal to the face portion (see e.g. 58 on Fig 4) for supporting the substrate (see e.g. [0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka so that the plurality of probes and the plurality of spacer portions of the bevel gear form the substrate holder as taught in Katsuoka because the spacers of Katsuoka provide a support surface for the substrate that assists in aligned the pieces of the substrate holder (see e.g. [0049]). Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kurashina et al ( US 20060086616 A1 ), Dordi , Monroe , and Claim 12 : Yoshioka discloses a plating system (see e.g. Fig 1 ) comprising: a plating bath (see e.g. #11 on the Figures) holding a plating fluid (see e.g. #10 on the Figures) ; a substrate (see e.g. # W on the Figures) ; an anode (see e.g. #50 on the Figures) ; a power source (see e.g. #70 on the Figures) ; wherein the rectifier is electrically coupled to the substrate and the anode (see e.g. [0036] ; #70, #50, # W on the Figures ) ; a plating fixture (see e.g. abstract) comprising: a hanger (see e.g. #40 on the Figures) ; a motor fixed to the hanger (see e.g. #90 pn the Figures) ; a shaft coupled to the stepper motor (see e.g. #91 on the Figures) ; wherein the stepper motor is configured to rotate the shaft (see e.g. [0041]) ; a pinion gear (see e.g. #93 and #94 on the Figures) coupled to the shaft such that rotation of the shaft by the stepper motor causes rotation of the pinion gear (see e.g. [0041]) ; wherein the motor, the shaft, and the pinion gear share a common axis of rotation (see e.g. #90, #91, and #93 on Fig 7) ; and a bevel gear coupled to and configured to rotate relative to the hanger (see e.g. #30 on the Figures) ; wherein the bevel gear is disposed perpendicular to the pinion gear (see e.g. #30 on the Figures; [0042]: “ The transmission of a rotational force to the gear p ortion 94 from the drive part 90 may be the transmission using the combination of the shaft and the gear as in the case of the first embodiment ”) ; wherein the bevel gear meshes with the pinion gear ([0020]: “ The transmission of a rotational force to the gear p ortion 94 from the drive part 90 may be the transmission using the combination of the shaft and the gear as in the case of the first embodiment ”) . wherein the bevel gear, the anode and the substrate are disposed within the plating fluid (see e.g. #10 on the Figures); and wherein the motor is disposed above the plating fluid (see e.g. #10 and #90 on the Figures). Yoshioka does not explicitly teach a rectifier . Kurashina teaches a plating apparatus for a substrate making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The system of Kurashina uses a rectifier (see e.g. [0254]; see e.g. #115 on Fig 42) connected with the power source (see e.g. #114 on Fig 42) to convert AC current from the power source into DC and adjust the voltage or currents to the desired amounts (see e.g. [0254]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Yoshioka to include a rectifier to convert any AC current from the power source into DC and adjust the voltage or currents to the desired amounts. Yoshioka does not explicitly teach a controller that causes the motor to rotate the bevel gear and the substrate. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would understand there would need to be some form of controller in the system to control the rotation of the device. Kurashina teaches a plating apparatus for a substrate making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The system of Kurashina includes a controller that controls the speed of rotation (see e.g. [0144]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Yoshioka to include a controller that causes the motor to rotate the bevel gear and the substrate as taught in Kurashina to ensure proper rotation is applied and maintained to the substrate. Yoshioka does not explicitly teach that the motor is a stepper motor. However, the motor of Yoshioka is described as being electrically-operated to rotate the shaft (see e.g. [0041]). Dordi teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). Dordi teaches that stepper motors are known motors for applying rotational force to substrate holders (see e.g. col 40, lines 4-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka by using a routine and known rotational motor, such as the stepper motor taught in Dordi . Yoshioka does not explicitly teach one or more pillow block bearings fixed to the hanger; wherein the one or more pillow block bearings constrain the shaft to rotate relative to the one or more pillow block bearings . Monroe teaches that pillow block bearings are often “ used in machinery applications, specifically those that involve a rotating shaf t” to “ allow for a limited degree of misalignment. Even if the rotating shaft isn’t perfectly aligned, the pillow block bearing will hold it in place … pillow block bearings can reduce vibrations … t hey provide stability, support and smooth rotation for shafts within machinery ” (see e.g. page 2 of Monroe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka by including teach one or more pillow block bearings to constrain the shaft to rotate relative to the one or more pillow block bearings because pillow block bearings provide stability, support and smooth rotation for shafts within machinery . Claim 13 : Yoshioka in view of Kurashina , Dordi and Monroe discloses a plurality of probes (see e.g. #314 on Fig 1) coupled to and configured to rotate relative to the bevel gear (see e.g. [0036]) ; wherein the plurality of probes and the bevel gear form a substrate holder (see e.g. Fig 1), wherein the substrate is disposed between the plurality of probes and the bevel gear (see e.g. # W on Fig 2). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kurashina, Dordi and Monroe as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kagajwala . Claim 14 : Yoshioka in view of Kurashina, Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly teach a shield coupled to the bevel gear; wherein the shield and the bevel gear form a substrate holder; wherein the shield defines a plurality of holes ; wherein the substrate is disposed between the shield and the bevel gear . Kagajwala teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The wafer holder of Kagajwala comprises a shield (see e.g. Fig 4) ; wherein the shield defines a plurality of holes (see e.g. #413 on Fig 4) that are “ optimized for uniform plating of the wafer ” (see e.g. [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka to incorporate the shield of Kagajwala into the substrate holder because the shield has openings optimized for uniform plating of the wafer . Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Kurashina, Dordi and Monroe as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ivanov ( US 20060030157 A1 ). Claim 15 : Yoshioka in view of Kurashina, Dordi and Monroe does not explicitly teach that the controller causes the motor to rotate the bevel gear and the substrate in alternating directions between a clockwise direction and an anticlockwise direction. Ivanov teaches a device for electroplating substrates (see e.g. abstract) making it analogous art (see MPEP § 2141.01(a) I). The controller of Ivanov controls the motor to rotate in alternating directions between a clockwise direction and an anticlockwise direction (see e.g. [0026]) to prevent bubble formation (see e.g. [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the device of Yoshioka so that the controller causes the motor to rotate the bevel gear and the substrate in alternating directions between a clockwise direction and an anticlockwise direction as taught in Ivanov to reduce the formation of bubbles. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEXANDER W KEELING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9961 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM . 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 Luan Van can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8521 . 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. /ALEXANDER W KEELING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795