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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by del Puerto et al (U.S.Pat. 7,304,720 B2).
PNG
media_image1.png
290
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Puerto discloses an apparatus and a corresponding method comprising a reticle pod (1250) and comprising all features of the instant claims such as: a baseplate (1254 or 1258) having a first surface (see figure 12) the first surface having a first sealing surface on a periphery of the baseplate; a cover (1252 or 1263) having a second surface including a second sealing surface on a periphery of the cover and a stand-off mechanism (1268 or 1306) is configured to create sealing via a linear gap between the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface when the cover is attached to the baseplate.
As to claim 2, wherein the linear gap extends from the periphery of the cover and the periphery of baseplate to an interior within the reticle pod (see figures 12-13).
As to claim 3, wherein the reticle pod (1250) is an Extreme Ultraviolet reticle pod, the baseplate and the cover are configured to accommodate a reticle (1) when the cover is attached to the baseplate.
As to claim 6, wherein the stand-off mechanism (1268; 1306) includes a plurality of projections/pins from one of the cover or the baseplate, the other of the cover or the baseplate including a surface configured to contact the plurality of projections.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US 2022/0404696 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
256
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1 and 16, Wang discloses an apparatus and a corresponding method comprising a reticle pod (1) and comprising all features of the instant claims such as: a baseplate (10) having a first surface (see figure 1A) the first surface having a first sealing surface on a periphery of the baseplate; a cover (40) having a second surface including a second sealing surface on a periphery of the cover and a stand-off mechanism (7B) is configured to create sealing via a linear gap between the first sealing surface and the second sealing surface when the cover is attached to the baseplate.
As to claim 2, wherein the linear gap extends from the periphery of the cover and the periphery of baseplate to an interior within the reticle pod (see figures 1A and 1B).
As to claim 3, wherein the reticle pod (1) is an Extreme Ultraviolet reticle pod, the baseplate and the cover are configured to accommodate a reticle (5) when the cover is attached to the baseplate.
As to claim 6, wherein the stand-off mechanism (7B) includes a plurality of projections/pins from one of the cover or the baseplate, the other of the cover or the baseplate including a surface configured to contact the plurality of projections.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over del Puerto et al (U.S.Pat. 7,304,720 B2).
With respect to claims 4-5, del Puerto discloses an apparatus comprising substantially all limitations of the instant claims. Del Puerto does not specifically disclose that the minimum size of the liner gap is at or about 2 microns and a maximum size of the linear gap is at or about 40 microns. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to set the minimum size as well as the maximum size of the linear gap of Del Puerto at or about 2 micros and 40 micros, respectively as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-15, 17-20 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: claims 7-15, 17-20 have been found allowable since the prior art of record either alone or in combination, neither discloses nor makes obvious a combination of a reticle pod comprising among other features, a stand-off mechanism or a filter with particular structures and characteristics as recited in the instant claims of the present application.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al (US 11,508,592) and Bonora et al (U.S.Pat. 5,611,452) disclose reticle pods and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
9/24/25
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882