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 .
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.
3. Claims 9, 14-15 have been cancelled, and claims 1-8, 10-13 are pending as amended on 03/20/26.
4. Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
5. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
This application has PRO 63/292,886 12/22/2021.
Response to Amendment
7. Applicant's amendment filed on 03/30/26, has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (JP 2013231171), and claim 8, 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato filed on 03/20/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicants arguments of ‘Sato explains that the elastomer component contributes primarily to improvement in impact strength. (Sato, para. [0005], [0013], [0015]-[0018]).Thus, Sato affirmatively requires the presence of an elastomeric impact-strength-improving component which is contrary to the requirement of claim 1 or claim 10 that the blend be substantially free of impact modifying agent’ have been respectfully considered but are not persuasive, because in Sato the so called improvement in impact strength is attributed by component (C) (Sato, para [0015]) which is in fact required by instant claims 1-2 (polyethylene (PE)), e.g. olefin-based elastomer is preferably a polymer of an olefin such as ethylene (para [0016]). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934). As such, applicants have failed to identify what exact impact modifying agent is taught in Sato. Further, the claims 1, 10 not requiring free of impact modifying agent but substantially free of impact modifying. Accordingly, the previous rejections have been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (JP 2013231171).
(Elements of this rejection are set forth in the action dated 12/22/25, reiterated below in its entirety)
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-6, Sato discloses a substrate article comprising microenvironment including a shell structure, wherein the shell structure is configured to hold semiconductor wafers, wherein the microenvironment comprises blend of cyclo olefin (co)polymer and one or more polyolefin polymers such as polyethylene, wherein the microenvironment is front opening unified pod (FOUP), wherein the blend further comprises conductivity enhancing agent comprises carbon nanotube and free of impact modifying agent (para [0002], [0005]-[0007], [0013], [0016], [0030]), meeting the requirements of claims 1-2, 4-6.
Regarding claim 3, Sato discloses 5 to 25 parts of polyolefin per 100 parts of cyclo olefin (para [0005]), fall into instant claim 3 range of 1 to 40 wt%.
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses 5 to 25 parts of polyolefin per 100 parts of cyclo olefin (para [0005]), fall into instant claim 3 or 10 range of 1 to 40 wt%. The claim 12 is same as claim 7, require the limitations of claim 10). Further, specification para [0021] teaches the elongation breaks depends on amount of polyolefin material. Since the composition and polyolfin requirement in the blend is met by Sato, the properties such as claimed elongation break at least 5% would inherently be the same as claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato as applied to claim 1 above.
(Elements of this rejection are set forth in the action dated 12/22/25, reiterated below in its entirety)
Sato includes the features of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Sato discloses outgassing of less than 40 ppm (para [0061]), encompassing instant claim range of below 1 microgram per gram (below 1 ppm).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for article comprising microenvironment, wherein Sato discloses outgassing of less than 40 ppm, encompassing the requirement of claim 8. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato.
(Elements of this rejection are set forth in the action dated 12/22/25, reiterated below in its entirety)
Regarding claims 10-11, Sato discloses a substrate article comprising a front opening unified pod (FOUP) comprises a blend of cyclo olefin copolymer and one or more polyolefin polymers such as polyethylene, wherein the blend further comprises conductivity enhancing agent carbon nanotube and free of impact modifying agent (para [0002], [0005]-[0007], [0013], [0016], [0030]), wherein blend includes 5 to 25 parts of polyolefin per 100 parts of cyclo olefin (para [0005]), fall into instant claim 10 range of 1 to 40 wt%. Sato further discloses outgassing of less than 40 ppm (para [0061]), encompassing instant claim range of below 1 microgram per gram (below 1 ppm).
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for article comprising microenvironment, wherein Sato discloses outgassing of less than 40 ppm, encompassing the requirement of claim 10. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Sato discloses 5 to 25 parts of polyolefin per 100 parts of cyclo olefin (para [0005]), fall into instant claim 10 range of 1 to 40 wt%. Further, specification para [0021] teaches the elongation breaks depends on amount of polyolefin material. Since the composition and polyolfin requirement in the blend is met by Sato, the properties such as claimed elongation break at least 5% would necessarily be the same as claimed. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01(I) , In re Best, 562 F2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433, Titanium Metals Corp v Banner, 778 F2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir 1985), In re Ludtke, 441 F2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) and Northam Warren Corp v D F Newfield Co, 7 F Supp 773, 22 USPQ 313 (EDNY 1934).
Regarding claim 13, Sato discloses the surface resistivity of 1E+4 to 1E+10 (para [0060]), encompassing instant claim range of 1E5 to 1E10 ohm/sq.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists for article comprising microenvironment, wherein Sato discloses the surface resistivity of 1E+4 to 1E+10, encompassing the requirement of claim 13. See In re Wertheim regarding prima facie cases with overlapping ranges (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) See MPEP § 2144.05).
Conclusion
References Kubota (WO 2021234808) and Ouchchen (WO 2018/211064) were cumulative in nature to the above rejection and thus not set forth.
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 KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights