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 .
This action is written in response to the amendment filed 02/23/2026
Claims 1 and 7 have been amended
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination
This action is Final
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata et al. (JP 2015074273).
Claims 1, 7. Sakata discloses a wafer container, comprising:
a top wall;
a bottom wall;
a first side wall;
a second side wall;
a back wall comprising a central panel, wherein the top wall, the bottom wall, the first side wall, the second side wall, and the back wall define an interior space, the interior space configured to accommodate one or more wafers;
a first diffuser located within the interior space; and
a second diffuser located within the interior space,
wherein an angle between the first diffuser and the second diffuser relative to a central axis of the one or more wafers when the one or more wafers are accommodated within the interior space is 60 degrees or less, wherein the central axis extends perpendicular to a plane of the one or more wafers through a center of each of the one or more wafers, and
wherein the first diffuser is spaced apart from the second diffuser in a direction parallel to the plane of the back wall by a distance less than a width of the central panel (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
816
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sakata does teach the angle between the first diffuser and the second diffuser relative to a central axis of the one or more wafers has been recognized as a result- effective variable i.e., a variable which achieves the recognize result of quickly and reliably replacing the gas of the internal space of the wafer container (page 9, para. 7). The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said angle might be characterized as routine experimentation. (See MPEP 2144.05 II B). Furthermore, Sakata teaches that the angle is formed to be in a specific range inside the container so that the flow does not collide with the walls and therefore, helps minimize turbulence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an angle between the first and second diffusers at 60 degrees or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in order to blow gas efficiently toward the vicinity of the center of the wafers. (See MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 2. Sakata disclose the wafer container of claim 1, wherein the first diffuser is located on a first side of a center line of the interior space, the center line being evenly spaced between the first side wall and the second side wall, and the second diffuser is located on a second side of the center line of the interior space, the center line extending perpendicular to an opening of the wafer container and intersecting the central axis of the one or more wafers (see annotated figures of claim 1).
Claims 3, 9. Sakata discloses the wafer container of claim 2, wherein an angle between the center line and the first diffuser relative to the central axis is 30 degrees or less and an angle between the center line and the second diffuser relative to the central axis is 30 degrees or less (fig. 1).
Sakata does teach the angle between the first diffuser and the second diffuser relative to a central axis of the one or more wafers has been recognized as a result- effective variable i.e., a variable which achieves the recognize result of quickly and reliably replacing the gas of the internal space of the wafer container (page 9, para. 7). The determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said angle might be characterized as routine experimentation. (See MPEP 2144.05 II B). Furthermore, Sakata teaches that the angle is formed to be in a specific range inside the container so that the flow does not collide with the walls and therefore, helps minimize turbulence. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an angle between the first and second diffusers at 60 degrees or less since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in order to blow gas efficiently toward the vicinity of the center of the wafers (as taught by Ogawa). (See MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Claim 4. Sakata discloses the wafer container of claim 1, further comprising a first offset between the first diffuser and a first purge port and a second offset between the second diffuser and a second purge port.
Claim 5. Sakata discloses the wafer container of claim 1, wherein the first diffuser comprises a diffuser tower (page 9, para. 2).
Claim 6. Sakata discloses the wafer container of claim 1, wherein the first diffuser is spaced apart from the center line by a distance that is less than a distance from the center line to the first purge port 72, and the second diffuser is spaced apart from the center line by a distance that is less than a distance from the center line to the second purge port 72 (page 7; fig. 17b).
Claim 8. Sakata discloses the wafer container of claim 7, wherein the first diffuser and second diffuser are symmetrical with respect to the center line (fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The annotated art of claim 1 has been updated to better describe the Examiner’s position. It is suggested that Applicant include subject matter relating to the structure of the central and back panel/wall to better position the diffusers within the central panel.
Because the diffusers of Sakata have the ability to release gases at varying angles, modifying the angle placement of the diffusers to diffuse in a pre-existing gas release location would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. The rejection is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-1672. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at 571-272-4561. 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.
/RAVEN COLLINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735