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. Claim s 9 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 9 requires that the heat conductive member has an “internal structure” but it is not clear what this requires. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakakawanishi (JP2021/139017, Eng. machine translation) . Nakakawanishi teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising: - a stage having a first contact surface, see stage (mounting table) 20, - a freezing device with a second contact surface, see 35/37 [0024-35], - an elevating device capable of thermally connecting or separating the first and second contact surfaces – see elevating device 78, and , - a heat conductive member between the first and second contact surfaces – see member which comprises the heat transfer material 90. In regard to the material composition of each material: - the table 20 is formed of copper [0022] and the heat transfer material is formed of silver [0049], thereby meeting the requirements that the heat conductive member is formed of a material softer than the first contact surface. Silver is considered softer than copper, but further per instant claims 10-12, silver is exemplified as a soft material relative to copper. 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. 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. Claims 1 -3, 6-9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakakawanishi (JP2020/072249) in view of Demura (JP2021/173475) (both Eng mach trans provided by applicants) . Nakakawanishi teaches a substrate processing system comprising: - a stage with a first contact surface, see Fig. 1, stage 56 with first surface 56c, - a freezing device with a second contact surface, see heat transfer body 54 with a second surface 54b, - an elevating device capable of the thermally contacting the contact surfaces, see per Figs. 3A and 3B and [0036]; - the teachings do not specifically include a heat conductive member as claimed wherein the member is between the freezing device and the stage . Demura , however, teaches an apparatus for controlling heat transfer between a cooling device and a heat transfer stage, see particularly Fig. 1 and [0027-31]. The device includes a cooling stage 24 that is able to be connected or separated from a heat transfer stage, 40. The teachings include that there is a heat transfer layer (44) installed on the cooling stage in order to assist with heat transfer – the layer is preferably indium or silver, i.e. a softer material than the stage [0031]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the indium heat conductive member of Demura to the freezing device of Nakakawanishi as Demura teaches that such a layer is beneficial for heat transfer when contacting a cooling unit (i.e. freezer) with a heat transfer stage (which is equivalent to the substrate stage 56 of Nakakawanishi . Regarding claim 2 , the teachings include a soft metal sheet. Regarding claim 3 , as per Nakakawanishi , the freezing device has a recess as depicted (see gap G [0027]. Regarding claim s 6 -8 , the combined teachings include that a number of different materials are useful for the layer, see [0030], including any soft, highly thermal conductive material. As such, it would have been further obvious to include additional layers as desired for the purpose of thermal conduction, etc. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose . [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven , 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In this case, one would apply an number of layers such as wherein one is copper (claims 7 and 8) as that is well understood as a generally soft and highly conductive metal. Regarding claim 9 , metals have an “internal structure” , i.e. such as the natural crystalline structure. Regarding claim 12 , as per above, Demura teaches indium or silver. Regarding claim 13 , the teachings do not include a specific thickness, but as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a selection of size is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case to form the sheet within the claimed range would have been obvious wherein both the prior art and instant claims include forming a “sheet” without any criticality suggested of the thickness. Claims 6 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakakawanishi and Demura (JP2021/173475) in view of Deram (2011/0096507). Regarding claims 9-11 , t he teachings of Nakakawanishi and Demura are described above, the teachings include a conductive material as noted, such as comprising indium as exemplified by Demura . The teachings do not explicitly include the sheet having an “internal structure” or that being an internal mesh of a material harder than the soft metal sheet as required by claims 9-11. Deram teaches , however, that an effective thermal interface (i.e. heat transfer) plate comprises indium formed to encase a copper screen (i.e. mesh), see particularly [0052-53] and abstract. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the indium plus copper mesh as a n option for the heat conductive member of the combined art as Deram teaches that the composition is useful for heat transfer and the same materials are taught per the combined prior art . The composition meets the requirements of claims 9-11 as indium is softer than copper and copper (mesh) comprises the internal structure. Regarding claims 6-8 , while the composition as claimed is not a copper mesh surrounded by indium (for example), the combined materials as taught by Deram are the same as those claimed. To form the copper and indium, for example, as separate layers would have been further obvious wherein it is a simple matter of the rearrangement of the parts of the same composition, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. and/or further a change of shape (applying a copper sheet versus the mesh). In either case, there is a mixture of the softer indium and relatively harder copper both of which have good conductivity for such a thermal (conductive material) interface. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 and 5 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 teachings do not suggest the configuration in regard to the space between a recess and side wall and a side surface of the heat conductive member as claimed. The further teachings of Lin (2015/0227050) including a cooling arm and stage, as well as Tsuji (2019/0273005) and Sato (2009/ 0 156019) both including cooling and heating plates, are relevant art but do not teach the claimed subject matter. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland , can be reached on 571-272- 1418 . The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712