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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges the addition of claim 7.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the specification amendment, see page 9 of the Remarks, filed 3 November 2025, with respect to objection of the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in view of the claim amendments, see page 6 of the Remarks, filed 3 November 2025, with respect to the claim objection of claims 1 and 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claims 1 and 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of claims 1-6 seen on pages 6-8 of the Remarks:
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant that Murata does not disclose keeping the discharge rate at zero until the supply rate reaches the first flow rate and then performing the maintenance control as well as Yoshida does not teach the performance of the discharge rate maintenance control and maintaining the gas discharge rate.
Murata discloses the discharge rate control unit (37, Figure 4) keeps the discharge rate at zero while the supply rate increase control is executed and, after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit performs discharge rate maintenance control (Paragraphs [0042], [0044], and [0050]). While Paragraphs [0043] and [0044] were mentioned by the Applicant to show Murata not teaching the feature, there are at least two flow rates inputted to the flow rate controller (Paragraph [0043]) that is then used to control the opening and closing of the discharge rate control unit to prevent negative pressure within the storage container (Paragraph [0045]). During the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit is closed until the second flow rate is used in which the valve will open (Paragraphs [0042] and [0050]). The predetermined flow rate is considered to be the first flow rate that is lower than the second flow rate. The maintenance control is considered to be the discharge of purge gas from the container to prevent a negative pressure. Murata reads on the limitation of keeping the discharge rate at zero until the supply rate reaches the first flow rate and then performing the maintenance control.
Onishi was used in the rejection to teach after a start of supply of the purge gas to the storage container (F, Figure 2), the supply rate control unit (24, Figure 2) performs supply rate increase control to gradually increase the supply rate such that the supply rate reaches a first flow rate (Paragraph [0048]) and after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the supply rate control unit performs supply rate maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at the first flow rate or larger (Paragraph [0048]) with the motivation to control the purge gas being provided to reduce the overall consumption of purge gas in order to reduce the overall cost (Paragraphs [0005-0006] and [0017]).
Yoshida was used in the rejection to teach the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit (242, Figure 3) performs discharge rate maintenance control to maintain the discharge rate at or below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate (Paragraphs [0068-0069]) with the motivation to control the pressure during purging within the container to prevent potential damage to the wafers (Paragraph [0069]). The supply rate of purge gas, considered to be the first flow rate, is increased as it is introduced into the process furnace (Paragraph [0068]). The timing of the opening of the discharge rate control unit is controlled to ensure the proper pressure in the system is reached (Paragraph [0069]). The second flow rate is the exhaust flow rate where it is maintained as the pressure within the furnace needs to be at a predetermined pressure (Paragraph [0067-0068]). Yoshida maintains the discharge rate at a second flow rate which is less than the first flow rate when the pressure is lower than a predetermined value as the supply rate of purge gas changes (Paragraphs [0041] and [0066]). Yoshida does read on the limitation of performing the discharge rate maintenance control as well as maintaining the gas discharge rate as recited in independent claim 1.
Through the combination of Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida the discharge control unit of Murata is modified to maintain its flow rate at a second flow rate lower than the first flow rate as seen with the supply of purge gas in Onishi and the second flow rate will be maintained as seen in Yoshida.
The limitations of keeping the discharge rate at zero until the supply rate reaches the first flow rate and then performing the maintenance control as well as maintaining the gas discharge rate are taught by the prior art references used in claim 1.
Claims 2-7 are dependent on claim 1. The response to claim 1 above is applied to the dependent claims.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the supply rate maintenance control includes maintaining the supply rate at the first flow rate after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate" in lines 2-3. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 where the supply rate control unit performs supply rate maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at the first flow rate or larger. The use of “or” in claim 1 gives the option of the supply rate to be greater than the first flow rate. Claim 7 is unclear as to how the maintenance control would operate if the supply rate is not at the first flow rate rather larger than the first flow rate. The office recommends amending the claim to have the supply rates be similar. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the supply rate is maintained at a first flow rate for the supply rate maintenance control.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the discharge rate maintenance controls includes maintaining the discharge rate at the second flow rate" in lines 4-5. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 where the discharge rate control unit performs discharge rate maintenance control to maintain the discharge rate at or below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate. The use of “or” in claim 1 gives the option of the discharge rate to be below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate. Claim 7 is unclear as to how the maintenance control would operate if the discharge rate is not at the second flow rate rather below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate. The office recommends amending the claim to have the discharge rates be similar. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as the discharge rate is maintained at a second flow rate for the supply rate maintenance control.
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.
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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 20160358799 A1) in view of Onishi (US 20170140949 A1) in further view of Yoshida (US 20140045278 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Murata discloses a purging device (30, Figure 4) configured to use a purge gas to purge an inside of a storage container (50, Figure 4) in which a target object is storable (Paragraph [0026], the target object is the semiconductor wafer), the purging device comprising:
a supply pipe (31, Figure 4) connected to the storage container (50, Figure 4) and configured to supply the purge gas to the storage container (Paragraph [0038], purge gas is supplied to the storage container);
a supply rate control unit (35, Figure 4, the mass flow controller is the supply rate control unit) configured to control a supply rate of the purge gas supplied to the storage container (Paragraphs [0037-0038]) via the supply pipe (31, Figure 4);
a discharge pipe (33, Figure 4) connected to the storage container (50, Figure 4) and configured to discharge the purge gas from the storage container (Paragraph [0039]); and
a discharge rate control unit (37, Figure 4, the intake flow rate adjuster valve is the discharge rate control unit) configured to control a discharge rate of the purge gas discharged from the storage container (Paragraph [0042]) via the discharge pipe (33, Figure 4), and
wherein the discharge rate control unit (37, Figure 4) keeps the discharge rate at zero while the supply rate increase control is executed and, after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit performs discharge rate maintenance control (Paragraphs [0042], [0044], and [0050], the discharge rate control unit is closed until a flow rate is lower than a predetermined flow rate (first flow rate) and open to perform discharge rate maintenance control when the flow rate is greater than a predetermined flow rate).
Murata does not disclose:
wherein, after a start of supply of the purge gas to the storage container, the supply rate control unit performs supply rate increase control to gradually increase the supply rate such that the supply rate reaches a first flow rate, and after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the supply rate control unit performs supply rate maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at the first flow rate or larger, and
after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit performs discharge rate maintenance control to maintain the discharge rate at or below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate.
Onishi teaches a purge stocker, comprising:
wherein, after a start of supply of the purge gas to the storage container (F, Figure 2), the supply rate control unit (24, Figure 2, the mass flow controller is the supply rate control unit) performs supply rate increase control to gradually increase the supply rate such that the supply rate reaches a first flow rate (Paragraph [0048], the flow rate of the purge gas is increased until the first target supply flow rate is reached (first flow rate) after the start of the purge gas being supplied to the storage container), and
after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the supply rate control unit performs supply rate maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at the first flow rate or larger (Paragraph [0048] and Figure 4, the first flow rate is maintained once the supply rate reaches the first flow rate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata to include after a start of supply of the purge gas to the storage container, the supply rate control unit performs supply rate increase control to gradually increase the supply rate such that the supply rate reaches a first flow rate, and after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the supply rate control unit performs supply rate maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at the first flow rate or larger as taught by Onishi with the motivation to control the purge gas being provided to reduce the overall consumption of purge gas in order to reduce the overall cost.
Murata and Onishi do not teach:
after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit performs discharge rate maintenance control to maintain the discharge rate at or below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate.
Yoshida teaches a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit (242, Figure 3, the APC valve is the discharge rate control unit) performs discharge rate maintenance control to maintain the discharge rate at or below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate (Paragraphs [0068-0069], the discharge rate control unit reduces the exhaust amount to be less than the appropriate flow rate after a higher flow rate (first flow rate)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata and Onishi to include after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate, the discharge rate control unit performs discharge rate maintenance control to maintain the discharge rate at or below a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate as taught by Yoshida with the motivation to control the pressure during purging within the container to prevent potential damage to the wafers.
Through the combination of Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida, the discharge rate control unit of Murata can maintain the discharge rate at a second flow rate smaller than the first flow rate of Onishi as Yoshida teaches the exhaust amount is reduced when the appropriate flow rate is supplied to the wafers.
Regarding Claim 2:
Murata discloses:
wherein the discharge rate control unit keeps the discharge rate at zero, and performs the discharge rate maintenance control after time has elapsed from the supply start time point (Paragraphs [0042], [0044], and [0050], the discharge rate control unit is closed until a flow rate is lower than a predetermined flow rate (first flow rate) and open to perform discharge rate maintenance control when the flow rate is greater than a predetermined flow rate).
Murata and Yoshida do not teach:
wherein the supply rate control unit performs the supply rate increase control such that the supply rate reaches the first flow rate when a predetermined time has elapsed from a supply start time point of supply of the purge gas to the storage container, and the supply rate control unit performs the supply rate maintenance control after the predetermined time has elapsed from the supply start time point, and
wherein the discharge rate control unit keeps the discharge rate at zero for the predetermined time from the supply start time point, and performs the discharge rate maintenance control after the predetermined time has elapsed from the supply start time point.
Onishi teaches:
wherein the supply rate control unit (24, Figure 2) performs the supply rate increase control such that the supply rate reaches the first flow rate (TF1, Figure 4) when a predetermined time (Figure 4, the predetermined time is the time from t0 to t1) has elapsed from a supply start time point of supply of the purge gas to the storage container (Paragraph [0048]), and the supply rate control unit (24, Figure 2) performs the supply rate maintenance control after the predetermined time has elapsed from the supply start time point (Paragraph [0048], the supply rate maintenance control occurs once the first flow rate is obtained from t1 to t2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata and Yoshida to include the supply rate control unit performs the supply rate increase control such that the supply rate reaches the first flow rate when a predetermined time has elapsed from a supply start time point of supply of the purge gas to the storage container, and the supply rate control unit performs the supply rate maintenance control after the predetermined time has elapsed from the supply start time point as taught by Onishi with the motivation to ensure enough gas is provided to the wafers to prevent contamination.
Through the combination of Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida, the discharge rate control unit of Murata will be closed until the first flow rate of Onishi is reached as the predetermined flow rate and then opens to allow the discharge of gas.
Regarding Claim 4:
Murata discloses:
wherein the discharge rate control unit continues to perform the discharge rate maintenance control while the post-filling maintenance control is executed by the supply rate control unit (Paragraphs [0039] and [0043], the discharge rate maintenance control will still be performed based on the pressure within the storage container).
Murata does not disclose:
wherein after a predetermined filling time has elapsed from a start time point of the supply rate maintenance control, the supply rate control unit performs post- filling maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at a third flow rate smaller than the first flow rate and larger than the second flow rate, and
wherein the discharge rate control unit continues to perform the discharge rate maintenance control while the post-filling maintenance control is executed by the supply rate control unit.
Yoshia teaches:
The second flow rate (Paragraphs [0068-0069], the exhaust amount is the second flow rate).
Murata and Yoshida do not teach:
wherein after a predetermined filling time has elapsed from a start time point of the supply rate maintenance control, the supply rate control unit performs post- filling maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at a third flow rate smaller than the first flow rate and larger than the second flow rate, and
wherein the discharge rate control unit continues to perform the discharge rate maintenance control while the post-filling maintenance control is executed by the supply rate control unit.
Onishi teaches:
wherein after a predetermined filling time (Figure 4, the predetermined filling time is t0 to t3) has elapsed from a start time point (t0, Figure 4) of the supply rate maintenance control, the supply rate control unit performs post- filling maintenance control (Paragraph [0049], the post-filling decreases and maintains the flow rate starting at time t3) to maintain the supply rate at a third flow rate (TF2, Figure 4) smaller than the first flow rate (TF1, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata and Yoshida to include after a predetermined filling time has elapsed from a start time point of the supply rate maintenance control, the supply rate control unit performs post- filling maintenance control to maintain the supply rate at a third flow rate smaller than the first flow rate and larger than the second flow rate as taught by Onishi with the motivation to ensure enough gas is provided to the wafers to prevent contamination.
Through the combination of Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida, the discharge rate control unit of Murata will maintain the discharge rate maintenance control during the post-filling maintenance control of Onishi where the second flow rate of Yoshida when implemented into Murata, would still be less than the third flow rate since Murata ensures that the pressure in the storage container does not become negative.
Regarding Claim 5:
See claim 1 for the purging device.
Murata discloses:
a container storage facility (100, Figure 2, the clean room is the container storage facility), comprising:
a container storage shelf (7, Figure 2, the rack is the container storage shelf) comprising at least one placement unit (7A, Figure 2, the storage shelfs are the at least one placement unit) on which the storage container (50, Figure 2) is placeable,
wherein the at least one placement unit (7A, Figure 2) comprises:
a supply port connected to the supply pipe (Paragraph [0038], the supply port is the tip of the supply pipe (31));
a discharge port connected to the discharge pipe (Paragraph [0039], the discharge port is the tip of the discharge pipe (31); and
wherein the supply port and the discharge port are configured to be connected to the storage container (50, Figure 4) while the storage container is placed on the at least one placement unit (Paragraphs [0033] and [0037], the storage container is connected to the supply and discharge ports when placed on the at least one placement unit).
Murata and Yoshida do not teach:
wherein the at least one placement unit comprises:
a detection unit configured to detect that the storage container was placed on the at least one placement unit, and
wherein the supply rate control unit starts supply of the purge gas to the storage container in response to the detection unit detecting that the storage container was placed on the at least one placement unit.
Onishi teaches:
wherein the at least one placement unit (5A, Figure 1, the storage shelfs are the at least one placement unit) comprises:
a detection unit (25, Figure 3, the sensing unit is the detection unit) configured to detect that the storage container (Paragraph [0037]) was placed on the at least one placement unit (5A, Figure 1), and
wherein the supply rate control unit (24, Figure 3) starts supply of the purge gas to the storage container in response to the detection unit detecting that the storage container was placed on the at least one placement unit (Paragraph [0053], the detection units are used to indicate that a container is placed on the placement unit and then purging starts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata and Yoshida to include a detection unit configured to detect that the storage container was placed on the at least one placement unit and the supply rate control unit starts supply of the purge gas to the storage container in response to the detection unit detecting that the storage container was placed on the at least one placement unit as taught by Onishi with the motivation to begin purging the container to prevent a delay that could lead to a longer purge duration for the wafers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Onishi and in further view of Yoshida and Nakada (US 20190019705 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Murata discloses:
The target in the storage container (Paragraph [0026], the storage container contains semiconductor wafers).
Murata and Yoshida do not teach:
wherein the predetermined time is set such that a rate of increase while the supply rate is increased to the first flow rate is in an upper limit region of a range in which the target object in the storage container does not vibrate due to the supply of the purge gas.
Onishi teaches:
the predetermined time (Figure 4, the predetermined time is the time from t0 to t1) is set such that a rate of increase while the supply rate is increased to the first flow rate is in an upper limit (Paragraph [0048], the upper limit is TF1 and the rate of increase occurs during the predetermined time).
Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida do not teach:
wherein the predetermined time is set such that a rate of increase while the supply rate is increased to the first flow rate is in an upper limit region of a range in which the target object in the storage container does not vibrate due to the supply of the purge gas.
Nakada teaches a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
wherein a rate of increase while the supply rate is increased to the first flow rate is in an upper limit region of a range in which the target object in the storage container does not vibrate due to the supply of the purge gas (Paragraphs [0037-0039], the gas is supplied at a first flow rate of 6,500-13,000 L/min to prevent the wafer vibrating or rolling up particles).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida to include a rate of increase while the supply rate is increased to the first flow rate is in an upper limit region of a range in which the target object in the storage container does not vibrate due to the supply of the purge gas by Nakada with the motivation prevent damage to the wafers to prevent the cost of producing new wafers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Onishi and in further view of Yoshida and Onishi 2 (US 20180229277 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Murata discloses:
the at least one placement unit (7A, Figure 2) comprises a plurality of placement units (Paragraph [0030], multiple placement units are present in the container storage facility),
the discharge port of each of the placement units is connected to a corresponding discharge pipe (Paragraph [0039] and Figure 4, each discharge port of each placement unit is connected to a corresponding discharge pipe (33)),
the plurality of discharge pipes (33, Figure 4) are connected to an existing negative pressure duct (Paragraph [0040]), and
the discharge rate control unit (37, Figure 4) comprises a plurality of discharge valves respectively provided in the plurality of discharge pipes (Paragraph [0039], each discharge pipe (33) contains a discharge valve (37) that is also the discharge rate control unit).
Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida do not expressly teach:
the plurality of discharge pipes are connected to one negative pressure generator.
Onishi 2 teaches a purge device, comprising:
the plurality of discharge pipe (35, Figure 2) is connected to one negative pressure generator (41, Figure 2 and Paragraph [0039], the one negative pressure generator is the pump in the purge gas exhaust).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida to include the plurality of discharge pipe is connected to one negative pressure generator by Onishi 2 with the motivation ensure the gas with the contaminants are fully removed from the storage container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The closest pieces of prior art are Murata (US 20160358799 A1) in view of Onishi (US 20170140949 A1) in further view of Yoshida (US 20140045278 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Murata discloses a supply rate control unit (35, Figure 4) and a discharge rate control unit (37, Figure 4).
Onishi teaches the supply rate maintenance control includes maintaining the supply rate at the first flow rate after the supply rate reaches the first flow rate (Paragraph [0048]).
Yoshida teaches the discharge maintenance control incudes maintaining the discharge rate at the second flow rate (Paragraphs [0068-0069]).
Murata, Onishi, and Yoshida teach the purging device as seen in claim 1 as well as some of the limitations seen in claim 7. However, the limitation “the discharge rate control unit performs the discharge rate maintenance control when the supply rate control unit performs the supply rate maintenance control such that the supply rate and the discharge rate are kept constant relative to each other” in the last 3 lines of claim 7 are not taught by the prior art of record in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 7. Another reference has to be used to teach the limitation which will lead to hindsight as the discharge rate control unit of Murata and Yoshida would further be modified.
A full determination of allowability of claim 7 will be made once all rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murata (US 10438829 B2) teaches a purge device comprising a storage container, a purge gas, a supply rate control unit, a discharge pipe, a supply pipe, and a flow meter.
Tanka (US 10607872 B2) teaches a container storage facility comprising a purging device, a container storage shelf, and at least one placement unit.
Kaise (US 9305817 B2) teaches a method for purging a substrate container comprising a storage container, a target object, supply ports, discharge ports, a supply pipe and a discharge pipe.
Tseng (US 11183391 B2) teaches a semiconductor fabrication process comprising a supply pipe, a discharge pipe, target objects, a discharge valve, and controlling the flow rate with the discharge flow rate control unit.
Roberson (US 6368411 B2) teaches a molecular contamination control system comprising a storage container, a purge gas, a supply rate control unit, a discharge pipe, a supply pipe, and a flow meter.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753