CTNF 18/467,775 CTNF 94932 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 4/8/2026. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/8/2026 . Claim Status Claims 1-10 are pending . Claims 8-10 are withdrawn . Claims 1-7 have been examined herein on the merits . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation To clarify the record and the Examiner’s position, the Examiner submits the following: Claims 1-7 are drawn to an apparatus and are replete with functional language relating to the operation of the claimed apparatus. This functional language has been construed in light of the specification, which is devoid of any “special structure” assigned to the functional language, as merely an intended use of the apparatus. In accordance with established case law, the functional language is given patentable weight only to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing the functional language. See MPEP 2114(II). In the interest of brevity, the Examiner thus presents herein the rejections of the claims with this functional language addressed in a “capable of” statement, not specifically mapped to the prior art beyond identifying the various structures disclosed by the prior art necessary to perform the functional language. Claims 1-7 are drawn to an apparatus and contain several recitations of “an object to be processed” (notably claims 1-2 and 5-7). These recitations have been construed in light of the specification as merely statements relating to a material or article worked upon by a structure . A claim containing an “inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. See MPEP 2115. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Harikai (US Pub. 2020/0098636) . Regarding claim 1 , Harikai teaches a plasma processing apparatus ([0095] and Fig. 8, plasma processing unit #100), comprising: a chamber in which a plasma processing on an object to be processed is performed ([0096] and Fig. 8, chamber #103 and substrate #10); a stage which is disposed in the chamber and on which the object to be processed is placed ([0095] and Fig. 8, stage #111); a cover disposed above the stage and covering an outer edge portion of the object to be processed ([0039] and Fig. 8, frame #21); a first support member disposed so as to penetrate the stage ([0101] and Fig. 8, support members #122) and configured such that an upper end of the first support member protrudes from the stage to support the object to be processed ([0101]), to raise and lower the object to be processed ([0101]); a second support member supporting the cover ([0102] and Fig. 8, lifting rods #121), to raise and lower the cover ([0102]); and a drive part configured to raise and lower the cover supported by the second support member ([0102] and Fig. 8, lifting system #123B), between a lowered position and a raised position, by driving the second support member ([0102]). The remainder of the claim: “ wherein the drive part, when raising the cover from the lowered position to the raised position, in a first process in which the cover is raised from the lowered position until reaching an intermediate position between the lowered position and the raised position, raises the second support member without raising the first support member, and thus to raise the cover without raising the object to be processed, and in a second process in which the cover is raised from the intermediate position until reaching the raised position, raises the first support member and the second support member integrally, and thus to raise the cover from a beginning of the second process, and raise the object to be processed from the beginning of the second process or after the beginning of the second process ” is construed as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. See the Claim Interpretation section above. The Harikai apparatus would be capable of performing the functions above by virtue of the physical structures set forth above as well as the process described in at least pars. [0106]-[0107] ( Id. ). Regarding claim 2 , the entire claim is merely an intended use and is given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2114(II) and the Claim Interpretation section above. The Harikai apparatus would be capable of performing the functions above by virtue of the physical structures set forth above as well as the process described in at least pars. [0106]-[0107] ( Id. ). Regarding claim 5 , Harikai teaches wherein the object to be processed has a substrate, a holding sheet holding the substrate, and a frame supporting the holding sheet ([0037]), the cover covers the frame and an area outside the substrate in the holding sheet, and the first support member supports the object to be processed, at a portion corresponding to the frame (see Fig. 8). Regarding claim 6 , Harikai teaches wherein the object to be processed is a substrate, and the cover covers an outer edge portion of the substrate ([0108], see Fig. 8). Regarding claim 7 , Harikai teaches wherein when the cover is in the lowered position, a distance between the upper end of the first support member and the object to be processed is 1 mm or less ([0101]: support members #122 are flush with surface of stage #111, thus are in nearly direct contact with the substrate #10) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harikai (US Pub. 2020/0098636) , as applied to claim s 1-2 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Koelmel (US Pub. 2009/0209112) . The limitations of claims 1-2 and 5-7 are set forth above. Regarding claim 3 , Harikai does not teach the added limitations of the claim (does not depict/describe the structures connecting #122/#121 and #123A/#123B). However, Koelmel teaches a first base which is raisable and lowerable and to which the first support member is directly or indirectly connected; and a second base which is raisable and lowerable and is disposed below the first base and to which the second support member is directly or indirectly connected, wherein the first base is configured to, when the cover is between the lowered position and the intermediate position, be spaced apart from the second base, and when the cover is between the intermediate position and the raised position, be raised and lowered together with the second base (Fig. 2 and [0027]: lift pins #230 and #232 may have different actuator arms similar to #240; details operation in [0029]-[0030]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to utilize the lifting structure of Koelmel for the Harikai apparatus in order to maintain alignment of lift pins while moving (Koelmel – [0027]) and as a matter of obvious combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I). The Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA in the CVD arts is a highly educated, highly trained, highly skilled engineer with a breadth of knowledge spanning multiple scientific disciplines (chemical, mechanical, electrical, material, etc.). In accordance, the Examiner respectfully submits that a PHOSITA would recognize that Harikai omits the mechanical structure linking the pins to the actuating devices (#122/#121 and #123A/#123B) and that, given Koelmel’s teaching of an extremely similar apparatus, said PHOSITA could easily envision utilizing the Koelmel structure in the “omitted portion” of Harikai to achieve the same predictable operations, as is detailed in both references . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harikai (US Pub. 2020/0098636) and Koelmel (US Pub. 2009/0209112) , as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hisada (US Pub. 2017/0236686) and Schaller (US Pub. 2020/0157678) . The limitations of claim 3 are set forth above. Regarding claim 4 , modified Harikai does not teach the added limitations of the claim. However, Hisada teaches a third base (Hisada – and Fig. 3, housing #300). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Harikai apparatus to include the “third base” of Hisada in order to prevent particulates generated by a transport mechanism from reaching the processing chamber (Hisada – [0069]). Thus, as a combination, modified Harikai would have the third base positioned in the claimed arrangement. Modified Harikai does not teach a spacer disposed between the first base and the third base, wherein the spacer is configured to, when the cover is between the lowered position and the intermediate position, separate the first base from the second base, with a distance maintained between the first base and the third base. However, Schaller teaches a spacer configured in this way (Schaller – [0035] and Fig. 5A, spacer #510). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to further modify the modified Harikai apparatus to comprise the spacers of Schaller in order to position each lift pin at a desired position (Schaller – [0035]). Thus, as a combination, modified Harikai would have the spacer positioned in the claimed arrangement . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsuura (US 12,394,605, Fig. 7), Husang (US 2023/0002894, Fig. 4A), and Kitamura (US 2022/0157575, Fig. 2) teach similar apparatuses . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt Sweely whose telephone number is (571)272-8482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571)-272-5166. 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. /Kurt Sweely/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 2 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 3 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 4 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 5 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 7 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 8 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 9 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 10 Art Unit: 1718 Application/Control Number: 18/467,775 Page 11 Art Unit: 1718
Prosecution Insights