DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 2/26/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9-10 are pending in the application. Claims 3-4 and 8 are cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not sufficiently describe the limitation “ordinary use”. The specification does not describe the details of how the container is formed with the cassette hold down during ordinary use or how it is used during ordinary use. Claims 2, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9-10 are 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 1 and 5 recites the limitation “the plurality of stoppers is spaced apart from the side of the closed end facing the internal space by a gap under ordinary conditions and is configured to contact the side of the closed end during a mechanical shock event to stop further movement of one or both of the first cassette contact and the second cassette contact”. It is unclear how to interpret this limitation because it is unknown what is meant by the term “ordinary use”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gregerson et al. US 9,472,431 B2.
PNG
media_image1.png
174
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 1, Gregerson (shown in Fig. 12-16) discloses a cassette hold down, comprising: a flexible and resilient frame 38 (Col 5:59-6:5); a first cassette contact (170; plurality extending down from top to bottom) extending from the frame in a vertical direction on a first side of the frame; a second cassette contact (170; plurality extending down from top to bottom on the opposite side) extending from the frame in the vertical direction on the first side the of the frame; and a spring (at 130) connecting the second cassette contact to the frame, the spring configured to allow vertical movement of the second cassette contact relative to the frame, wherein the first cassette contact is spaced apart from the second cassette contact in a length direction of the frame, wherein each of the first cassette contact and the second cassette contact each include one or more stoppers (at 134; on each side further shown in Fig. 16); extending in the vertical direction on a second side of the cassette hold down, opposite the first side, and each of the one or more stoppers are positioned on one of the first cassette contact or the second cassette contact, and wherein each of the one or more stoppers contact a pod of a wafer container, wherein, when the cassette hold down is installed in a wafer container, each of the one or more stoppers (at 134) is spaced apart (spacing shown in Fig. 16) from an inside of a pod of the wafer container by a gap under ordinary conditions and is configured to contact the inside of the pod during a mechanical shock event to stop further movement of one or both of the first cassette contact and the second cassette contact.
With regards to claim 2, Gregerson (shown in Fig. 12-16) discloses a plurality of mounting bosses (at 144), each of the mounting bosses extending in the vertical direction on a second side of the cassette hold down, opposite the first side.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregerson et al. US 9,472,431 B2 in view of STEFFENS et al. US 2021/0143040 A1.
With regards to claim 5, Gregerson (shown in Fig. 12-16) discloses a wafer container 20, comprising: a pod 24 including one or more side walls, a closed end, an internal space defined by the one or more side walls and the closed end, and an open end a door 28, the door configured to close the open end of the pod, the door including a channel; a wafer cassette 30 configured to be received in the channel of the door; and a cassette hold down 38, including: a flexible and resilient frame (Col 5:59-6:5); a first cassette contact (170; plurality extending down from top to bottom) extending from the frame in a vertical direction on a first side of the frame; and a second cassette contact (170; plurality extending down from top to bottom on the opposite side) extending from the frame in the vertical direction on the first side the of the frame; wherein the first cassette contact is spaced apart from the second cassette contact in a length direction of the frame, wherein when the wafer cassette and the cassette hold down are located in the internal space and the door is closing the open end, in a plane of the door, wherein the cassette hold down includes a plurality of stoppers (at 134; on each side further shown in Fig. 16) configured to extend towards a side of the closed end facing the internal space when the wafer cassette and the cassette hold down are located in the internal space and the door is closing the open end, and each of the plurality of stoppers are positioned on one of the first cassette contact or the second cassette contact, and wherein each of the plurality of stoppers (at 134) is spaced apart from the side of the closed end facing the internal space by a gap under ordinary conditions and is configured to contact the side of the closed end during a mechanical shock event to stop further movement of one or both of the first cassette contact and the second cassette contact.
Gregerson discloses a wafer cassette but it does not specifically disclose the wafer cassette includes a bar.
PNG
media_image2.png
337
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, STEFFENS teaches that it was known in the art to have a wafer container that holds a wafer cassette 318 that includes a bar and first 306 and second 306 cassette contacts (on each side of 300) and the first cassette contact and the second cassette contact are in contact with the wafer cassette on opposing sides of the bar (when structure 300 are in each corner 320 of the container).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wafer cassette in Gregerson by providing a bar as taught by STEFFENS for the purposes of allowing easier removal of the cassette from the container.
With regards to claim 6, Gregerson (shown in Fig. 12-16) discloses a side of the closed end facing the internal space includes a plurality of mounting features (at 144), and the cassette hold down includes a plurality of mounting bosses each configured to engage with at least one of said mounting features.
With regards to claim 7, Gregerson (shown in Fig. 12-16) discloses each of the plurality of mounting features is a hole formed in the side of the closed end facing the internal space.
With regards to claim 9, Gregerson (shown in Fig. 12-16) discloses a spring connecting (at 130) the second cassette contact to the frame, the spring configured to allow vertical movement of the second cassette contact relative to the frame.
With regards to claim 10, Gregerson discloses a wafer container but it does not specifically disclose the container is a standard mechanical interface (SMIF) pod.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the wafer container of Gregerson be a standard mechanical interface (SMIF) pod since it was known in the art that doing so would provide a container for a specific product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the reference Gregerson does not disclose stoppers separated from the pod by a gap under ordinary conditions, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In a reinterpretation of Gregerson, it is cited that Gregerson discloses stoppers 134 that is spaced from the wafer container shown in Fig. 16. The Applicant also argues structures 170 are not wafer contacts, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gregerson recites in part (Col 7:19-24) “Extending downwardly from the support rails 140 are wafer guides configured as prongs 170. The prongs are elongate and tapered and are the first part of the top cover encountered by the wafers when the top cover portion is lowered onto a cassette seated in a base portion.” Therefore 170 is considered a cassette contact. Therefore, Gregerson meets the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
