DETAILED ACTION 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 11 and 12 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. As to claims 11 and 12 , it is unclear what is being recited in these claims. They appear to lack antecedent basis since there is no change in the aspect ratio of a thickness or change in interval between the ion blockers (see claims 1 and 4 upon which these claims depend, or claims 11 and 12 themselves) . Additionally , these features appear to be drawn to process limitations (“amount of ion captured…increases” and “amount of the ion…increases) while the claimed invention is an apparatus, and it is unclear how the changing aspect ratio or changing interval can constitute an apparatus limitation. 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. Claim s 1-3, 6, 13 , 14, and 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Savas (US 20040154743) . As to claim 1 , Savas teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Fig. 4c) comprising a chamber (101) having an inner space . Savas teaches a dielectric ([0040], quartz, sapphire) ion blocker (112) dividing the inner space into a first space at a bottom side and a second space at a top side . Savas teaches a support unit (104) configured to support a substrate (109) at the first space . Savas teaches a plasma source ([0044], plasma source) generating a plasma at the inner space . Savas teaches a plurality of passages are formed at the ion blocker (112) for flowing a fluid from the second space to the first space capable of capturing or blocking ions. As to claims 2 and 3 , Savas teaches that the ion blocker (1 1 2) has passages which penetrate the entire ion blocker and make the ion blocker a mesh structure. As to claim 6 , Savas teaches a lamp heating unit (108) configured to transmit a heat source to a substrate supported on the support uni t . As to claim 13 , Savas teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Fig. 4c) comprising an ion blocker (item 112, [0036] and [0040]) made of a dielectric ([0040], quartz, sapphire) capable of capturing an ion included in a plasma ([0021]). Savas teaches a support unit (104) disposed at a bottom side of the ion blocker and configured to support a substrate (109) . As to claim s 14 and 17 , Savas teaches a plurality of through holes (Fig. 4c, holes in 112) in the ion blocker capable of flowing a fluid between a top space and bottom space , which makes the Savas ion blocker a mesh structure . As to claims 18 and 19 , Savas teaches lamps (108) that transmit heat to the substrate ([0041]). As to claim 20 , Savas teaches a substrate treating apparatus (Fig. 4c) comprising a chamber having an inner space (101) . Savas teaches a dielectric ([0040], quartz, sapphire) ion blocker (112) with a plurality of passages for flowing a fluid and capable of blocking ions , the ion blocker dividing the inner space into a first space at a bottom side and a second space at a top side . Savas teaches a support unit (104) configured to support a substrate (109) at the first space and a gas supply u nit (106; [0032]) configured to supply a gas excited to a plasma (120) at the second space . Savas teaches a plasma source ([0044], plasma source) generating the plasma at the first space and/or the second space . The Savas lamp (108) meets the claimed heating source and pass es energy through the ion blocker and transmitted to a substrate supported on the support unit ([0041]). 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 s 4, 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savas (US 20040154743) in view of Ma (US 20180230597). Savas teaches the subject matter of claims 1 and 14 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). As to claims 4, 5, 15, and 16 , Savas is silent to a plurality of ion blockers spaced apart with non-overlapping passages. Ma teaches a plasma processing system with a plurality of spaced plates with at least some passages being depicted as non-overlapping (134 and 138). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Ma spaced and offset passage plates into Savas motivated by blocking more/additional ions using a additional ion blockers. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in the combination since Savas already teaches successfully using a single ion blocker Claim s 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savas (US 20040154743) in view of Mun (US 20120305191 ). Savas teaches the subject matter of claim 6 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). As to claim s 7 and 8 , Savas teaches a support unit that is interpreted as grounded, but is silent to a coil, high frequency which transmits heat toward the ion blocker, and an electrode plate which applies a high frequency power. Mun teaches a coil (411) which surrounds an outer wall of a chamber (400) and provides an electrode plate positioned at a top end of the chamber which applies high frequency power ([0044]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Mun coil, electrode plate, and high frequency power source into Savas as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the lamps already taught by Savas . The prior art contains a comparable device (of Mun) with the substituted components also for generating a plasma, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted these components for the lamps of Savas to provide the predictable result (generation of a plasma). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Even in the substitution above (see Savas in view of Mun), one would not have found it obvious to fabricate an electrode plate from a material including ITO (indium tin oxide) or a drive capable of driving the ion blocker along a guide rail to change its position . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4826 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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 Christina Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1176 . 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. /MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742