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 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 § 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.
With regards to claim 1, Gregerson (shown in Fig. 12-16) discloses a cassette hold down, comprising: a frame 38; 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) extending from the frame in the vertical direction on the first side the of the frame; and a spring (at 134; Col 7:11-12) 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 140 (on each side further shown in Fig. 13 and 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.
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(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 frame; 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) extending from the frame in the vertical direction on the first side the 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 140 (on each side further shown in Fig. 13 and 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 one or more stoppers contact a pod of a wafer container.
Gregerson discloses a wafer cassette but it does not specifically disclose the wafer cassette includes a bar.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
418
media_image1.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 134) 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 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues “the Examiner's mapping of Gregerson's support rails 140 to the claimed stoppers. Referring to Figures 11, 13, and 16 of Gregerson together, as reproduced below with annotation, it is clear that the support rails 140 are elongate features that extend over the height of the cassette. Their purpose is to engage with a top cover portion 28 via the recess 144. This is not the same function served by the claimed stoppers, which are configured to selectively contact a wafer container only during a mechanical shock event.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assessment. Gregerson discloses a stopper (140; support rail) 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, as required in the claim. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the function of the stoppers are configured to selectively contact a wafer container only during a mechanical shock event) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant argues Gregerson fails to teach or suggest such vertical movement. While Gregerson discloses U-shaped polymer springs (134), the structure and function of these springs are fundamentally different. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gregerson recites in Col 7:6-12, structure 134 (as springs) connecting the second cassette contact to the frame, the spring is configured and capable to allow vertical movement of the second cassette contact relative to the frame.
The Applicant argues “combining the Gregerson and Steffens references
constitutes impermissible hindsight. The Steffens reference is concerned with holding desiccant packets and has no teaching, suggestion, or motivation related to making a wafer cassette easier to remove. One of skill in the art looking to improve on the cassette and cushion system of Gregerson would not look to the desiccant holder in Steffens and extract a single structural element from it. The proposed combination is a roadmap drawn from Applicant's own disclosure, not from the teachings of the prior art.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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, Gregerson and Steffens inventions relate to wafer cassette carriers, both references recite features and structures regarding protection of the wafer cassette during transport against any shock events Gregerson (throughout the specification) and Steffens (para. 0005). Steffens just happens to have additional features with regards to the desiccant holder.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 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
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights