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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Rotational driver (rotational drive mechanism having a built-in motor, para. [0029]) in at least claims 1-12. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Generator (microwave introduction device or the like , para. [0032]) in at least claim s 1-12 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may : ( 1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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 . Claim(s) 1, 8-9 , 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150031218 to Karakawa . Claim s 1 , 11 : Karakawa discloses a plasma processing apparatus comprising: a stage ( 14 [ mounting table ], Fig. 2-3 ) located inside a processing container (1 2 [processing container ]) and configured to place a substrate ( W [ substrate ]) thereon (para. [00 81 ]) ; a rotational driver ( 24 [ driving mechanism ] ) configured to rotationally drive the stage ( 12, para. 0084]) ; a generator (22 [plasma generating section]) attached to a wall portion of the processing container (top of 12) facing the stage (14) and configured to generate plasma inside the processing container (para. [0078], Fig. 3) ; and a controller (60 [control unit]) configured to control overall operation of the plasma processing apparatus (para. [0114]) , wherein the controller includes an acquisition circuitry ( para. [0188]) configured to acquire a processing condition including a generation period and a rotation speed of the stage as the processing condition for a plasma processing in which the generation period during which plasma is generated inside the processing container and a nother period during which no plasma is generated are alternately repeated a plurality of times (para. [0278 - 0282]) ; and a processing control circuitry ( configured to control at least one of the generation period by the generator and the rotation speed such that the stage rotates N times (N is an integer of 1 or more) during generation of the plasma inside the processing container (para. [0149]) , when the plasma processing is performed by generating the plasma inside the processing container by the generator while rotating the stage (14) by the rotational driver (24) based on the processing condition acquired by the acquisition circuitry (para. [0188]) . However Karakawa does not explicitly disclose “a non-generation period.” Yet Karakawa teaches purging periods (para. [0173-0176]) which is interpreted as non- generation periods, for the purpose of remov ing atoms or molecules excessively chemically adsorbed on the surface of the substrate (para. [0091]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the non-generation period as taught by Karakawa with motivation to remove atoms or molecules excessively chemically adsorbed on the surface of the substrate . Claim 8 : The apparatus of Karakawa disclose s wherein the processing control circuitry is configured to control a length of the non-generation period such that the rotation position of the stage at a start timing of each generation period of the plasma processing varies, when the plasma processing is performed based on the processing condition (para. [0137-0138, 149-0150, [0189-020 5] ) . Claim 9 : The apparatus of Karakawa does not disclose wherein the processing condition includes a purge period for purging an inside of the processing container during the non-generation period, and the processing control circuitry is configured to control a length of the purge period (para. [0117-0118, 0141-0144]) . Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakawa as applied to claim s 1, 8, 9 , 11 above, and further in view of US 20200335331 to Xiao . Claim 7: The apparatus of Karakawa does not disclose wherein the processing control circuitry is configured to perform control to store a rotation position of the stage at a start timing when the generator starts plasma generation inside the processing container, and to terminate the plasma generation by the generator at a timing when the rotation position of the stage becomes the rotation position at the start timing after the generation period of the processing condition elapses. Xiao teaches the processing control circuitry is configured to perform control to store a rotation position of the stage at a start timing when the generator starts plasma generation inside the processing container (para. [0061, 0068]) , and to terminate the plasma generation by the generator at a timing when the rotation position of the stage becomes the rotation position at the start timing after the generation period of the processing condition elapses (para. [0061, 0068-0070]) for the purpose of compensating for non-uniformity on the substrate (para. [0070]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the rotation position storage and limitations as taught by Xiao with motivation to compensat e for non-uniformity on the substrate . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-6 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. Claim s 10, 12 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record discloses (claim 10) a n information processing apparatus comprising: a reception circuitry configured to receive an input of a generation period and a rotation speed of a stage as a processing condition for a plasma processing in which the generation period during which a plasma is generated inside a processing container and a non-generation period during which no plasma is generated are alternately repeated a plurality of times while rotating the stage, the stage being located inside the processing container and configured to place a substrate thereon . However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a correction circuitry configured to correct at least one of the generation period and the rotation speed received from the reception circuitry such that the stage rotates N times (N is an integer of 1 or more) during generation of the plasma inside the processing container , as set forth in the pending claims. The apparatus of Karakawa in view of Xiao fails to disclose the limitations above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable. The prior art of record discloses (claim 1 2 ) a correction method comprising:(a) receiving, by a reception circuitry, an input of a generation period and a rotation speed of a stage as a processing condition for a plasma processing in which the generation period during which a plasma is generated inside a processing container and a non-generation period during which no plasma is generated are alternately repeated a plurality of times while rotating the stage, the stage being located inside the processing container and configured to place a substrate thereon . However the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest (b) correcting at least one of the generation period and the rotation speed received from the reception circuitry such that the stage rotates N times (N is an integer of 1 or more) during generation of the plasma inside the processing container , as set forth in the pending claims. The apparatus of Karakawa in view of Xiao fails to disclose the limitations above. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. This subject matter is therefore rendered allowable. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200350179 discloses setting a speed controlled rotating platform to rotate for integral rounds during deposition time, in order to ensure same influence of a RF overlap produced by the two RF generators (para. [0038], Fig. 6-8) . US 20130105298 discloses a holder rotation controller ( 51 , Fig. 1) performs control according to the detected rotational position thereby to adjust the rotation speed of the substrate ( 21 ) according to the rotational position detected by the position sensor ( 23 , para. [ 0085]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Charlee J. C. Bennett whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7972 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 10am-6pm . 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 Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712725166 . 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. /Charlee J. C. Bennett/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718