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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 12/30/2025 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on page 6 regarding Burns that the Examiner “The Examiner equates the porous tower 17 of Burns with the claimed gas distributer and equates the sleeve 18 of Burns with the claimed deflector. The Examiner asserts that the fact that gas can be distributed from a longitudinal opening in a sleeve 17 is evidence of a gap and that a gap must be present for gas to have space to reach the longitudinal opening”, and that “no gap is required to exist between tower 17 and sleeve 18 for purge gas to be discharged through a longitudinal opening of the sleeve”
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are spurious, as the Applicants argument seems to ignore the fact that element 17 goes INTO element 18, meaning by nature of the laws of physics, element 17 must be smaller than element 18, for it to fit in the first place, therefore there is at least a gap for the material of element 17 to fit inside element 18.
Additionally, for the argued limitation, the purging gas need only be “configured to” to flow into a gap disposed between the gas distributor and the deflector, as any fluid is configured to flow into a gap. The Examiner is confident one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize the gap of the element 17 as shown in Fig. 5 and as detailed by the Examiner in the Non-Final rejection issued 08/25/2025, that of the gas distributor 17 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas flows into a gap formed between the gas distributor and the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening; of which the area into which the gas flows from the distributor, into the deflector, is the gap;
with the claim limitations as presently constructed being met, as stated in MPEP 2115, which says material or article worked on does not limit an apparatus claim provided the apparatus is capable of performing the claimed function. The prior art is capable of performing the claimed function, as presently constructed overcoming the Applicants argument.
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)(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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns.
Regarding claim 1, Burns (US 2012/0297981) shows a system, comprising:
a deflector (18, Fig. 5), disposed in an interior of a substrate container (Fig. 1B/5), having a longitudinal opening (see Annotated Figure 1) and a deflection surface (see Annotated Figure 1); and
a gas distributor (17, Fig. 5) configured to provide a purging gas to purge the interior of the substrate container (¶0033, Lines 4-12), wherein
the gas distributor is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas flows into a gap formed between the gas distributor and the deflector (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the gas distributor 17 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas flows into a gap formed between the gas distributor and the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening; of which the area into which the gas flows from the distributor, into the deflector, is the gap),
the deflector is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas in the gap flows through the longitudinal opening of the deflector (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the deflector 18 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas in the gap flows through the longitudinal opening of the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening), and
the deflector has an acute opening angle (see Annotated Figure 1 - an acute angle is an angle that measures less than 90 degrees; the deflector has an acute opening angle of the longitudinal opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
302
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Burns shows wherein the deflector includes a first piece and a second piece (¶0033, Lines 20-22 – the deflector 18 comprises of a first piece, which is the tubular structure of the deflector 18, and a second piece, which is the cap), wherein the first piece and the second piece are configured to be joined to one another (¶0033, Lines 12-22 – the tubular structure of the deflector and the cap are configured to be joined to one another).
Regarding claim 3, Burns shows wherein the first piece is configured to engage with the gas distributor (Fig. 5 – the first piece of the deflector 18 is configured to engage with the gas distributor 17).
Regarding claim 4, Burns shows wherein the first piece is configured to engage with a feature provided on the substrate container (7, Fig. 5 – the first piece of the deflector is configured to engage with a feature 7 of the substrate container).
Regarding claim 5, Burns shows wherein the gas distributor is an elongated member (Fig. 5), and the deflection surface is spaced apart radially from the gas distributor (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the deflection surface on the inside of the deflector 18 is spaced apart radially from the gas distributor, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns.
Regarding claim 6, Burns shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the gap between the gas distributor and the deflection surface is a certain size in millimeters (Fig. 5, ¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the fact that gas can be distributed from the longitudinal opening is evidence of a relative gap size in millimeters, for the gas to have space to reach the longitudinal opening).
Regarding claim 6 and the limitation “wherein the gap between the gas distributor and the deflection surface is between 0.5 to 3 millimeters”, this is considered to be Optimization of ranges, as the Applicant has not outlined that the specific millimeter range of the gap being between 0.5 to 3.0 millimeters provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, as in Burns, where Burns shows that of the gap between the gas distributor and the deflection surface having a certain size in millimeters (Fig. 5, ¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the fact that gas can be distributed from the longitudinal opening is evidence of a relative gap size in millimeters, for the gas to have space to reach the longitudinal opening). It is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 Sect II.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burns’ gap between the gas distributor and the deflection surface to be between 0.5 to 3 millimeters for the predictable result and benefit of evacuating the container in a fast and efficient manner in which the pressure in the towers increases and therefore the gas flows through the tower in an evenly distributed manner between the wafers (¶0008, Lines 1-8).
Claims 7-11 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns.
Regarding claim 7, Burns (US 2012/0297981) shows a system, comprising:
a substrate container (1, Fig. 1) having an interior disposed to store substrates (W, Fig. 1); and
a deflector (18, Fig. 5), disposed in the interior of the substrate container (Fig. 1B/5), having a longitudinal opening (see Annotated Figure 1) and a deflection surface (see Annotated Figure 1); and
a gas distributor (17, Fig. 5) disposed to provide a purging gas to purge the interior of the substrate container (¶0033, Lines 4-12),
wherein the purging gas is configured to flow into a gap disposed between the gas distributor and the deflector (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the gas distributor 17 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas is configured to flow into a gap formed between the gas distributor and the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening; of which the area into which the gas flows from the distributor, into the deflector, is the gap),
the gas distributor is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas flows into a gap formed between the gas distributor and the deflector (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the gas distributor 17 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas flows into a gap formed between the gas distributor and the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening; of which the area into which the gas flows from the distributor, into the deflector, is the gap), wherein
the gas distributor is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas flows through the longitudinal opening into the interior of the substrate container (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the deflector 18 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas in the gap flows through the longitudinal opening of the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening and into the interior of the substrate container),
the deflector is configured such that the longitudinal opening is disposed to direct the purging gas (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the deflector 18 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas in the gap flows through the longitudinal opening of the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening and into the interior of the substrate container), and
the deflector has an acute opening angle (see Annotated Figure 1 - an acute angle is an angle that measures less than 90 degrees; the deflector has an acute opening angle of the longitudinal opening).
Regarding claim 8, Burns shows wherein the deflector includes a first piece and a second piece (¶0033, Lines 20-22 – the deflector 18 comprises of a first piece, which is the tubular structure of the deflector 18, and a second piece, which is the cap), wherein the first piece and the second piece are configured to be joined to one another (¶0033, Lines 12-22 – the tubular structure of the deflector and the cap are configured to be joined to one another).
Regarding claim 9, Burns shows wherein the first piece is configured to engage with the gas distributor (Fig. 5 – the first piece of the deflector 18 is configured to engage with the gas distributor 17).
Regarding claim 10, Burns shows wherein the first piece is configured to engage with a feature provided on the substrate container (7, Fig. 5 – the first piece of the deflector is configured to engage with a feature 7 of the substrate container).
Regarding claim 11, Burns shows further comprising: an indexer (7, Fig. 5) disposed to maintain a relative angular position between the gas distributor and the deflector or the deflection surface (Fig. 5, ¶0033, Lines - as the Applicant states an indexer is to maintain a relative angular position between the gas distributor and the deflector or deflector surface, as the gas distributor is form fitted into the indexer 7, of which maintains the relative angular position between the gas distributor 17 and the deflector 18 which is positioned over the gas distributor 17).
Regarding claim 17, Burns shows wherein the longitudinal opening is disposed to direct the purging gas toward a central volume of the interior of the substrate container (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the deflector 18 is configured such that at least a portion of the purging gas in the gap flows through the longitudinal opening of the deflector, as the gas from the distributor is to encircle the inside of the deflector and be discharged through the longitudinal opening and into a central volume of the interior of the substrate container, with the deflector also being capable of being adjustably rotatable to adjust the discharge direction of the longitudinal opening).
Regarding claim 18, Burns shows wherein the longitudinal opening is disposed to direct the purging gas away from a central volume of the interior of the substrate container (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the deflector 18, and its longitudinal opening, are disposed to direct the purging gas away from a central volume of the interior of the substrate container, as the deflector also being capable of being adjustably rotatable to adjust the discharge direction of the longitudinal opening into a position away from a central volume of the interior of the substrate container).
Regarding claim 19, Burns shows wherein the longitudinal opening is disposed to direct the purging gas toward a back of the substrate container (¶0033, Lines 13-22 – the deflector 18, and its longitudinal opening, are disposed to direct the purging gas towards a back of the substrate container, as the deflector also being capable of being adjustably rotatable to adjust the discharge direction of the longitudinal opening into a position towards a back of the substrate container).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns, in further view of Chiu et al (US 2021/0013076), hereinafter referred to as Chiu.
Regarding claim 12, Burns shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11 including the deflector with its deflection surface and its relative angular position, and the gas distributor.
However, Burns lacks showing further comprising one or more ribs extending from the deflection surface and disposed to engage with the gas distributor to maintain the relative angular position.
Chiu (US 2021/0013076), a substrate container system, is in the same field of endeavor as Burns which is a substrate container system.
Chiu teaches further comprising one or more ribs (928, Fig. 9a) extending from the deflection surface (925, Fig. 9a) and disposed to engage with the gas distributor (Fig. 9a – the two bottom, circular structures are the first and second gas inlets; of which the one or more ribs 928 are engaged with the gas distributor) to maintain the relative angular position (Fig. 9a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deflector of Burns to incorporate the teachings of the ribs of Chiu, which would provide reenforce the structural integrity of the deflector (¶0073, Lines 1-5).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns, in further view of Watson et al (US 2011/0114534), hereinafter referred to as Watson.
Regarding claim 14, Burns shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 including the deflector, the gas distributor, and the substrate container.
However, Burns lacks showing further comprising: a stabilizer having a first end and a second end, wherein a first end of the stabilizer engages with the deflector, and a second end of the stabilizer engages with the substrate container to stabilize the deflector and the gas distributor.
Watson (US 2011/0114534), a wafer container, is in the same field of endeavor as Burns which is a substrate container.
Watson teaches further comprising: a stabilizer (320, Fig. 12) having a first end and a second end (Fig. 12), wherein a first end of the stabilizer (336, Fig. 11) engages with the deflector (308, Fig. 11), and a second end of the stabilizer (322, Fig. 10/12) engages with the substrate container (Fig. 10) to stabilize the deflector and the gas distributor (304, Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deflector and the gas distributor of Burns to incorporate the teachings of the stabilizer of Watson, which would provide a single simple means of attachment to provide extra component security (¶0041).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns, in further view of Eggum et al (US 2020/0343117), hereinafter referred to as Eggum.
Regarding claim 16, Burns shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11 including wherein the indexer extends through the substrate container (Fig. 1B/5 – the indexer 7 extends through the substrate container) such that:
a turning of the deflector changes the relative angular position from a first angle to a second angle (¶0033, Lines 18-22), and
the indexer maintains the relative angular position at the second angle when the force is removed (¶0033, Lines 18-22).
However, Burns lacks showing a force turning the indexer from an exterior of the substrate container changes the relative angular position from a first angle to a second angle.
Eggum (US 2020/0343117), a substrate container with gas passageways, is in the same field of endeavor as Burns which is a substrate container with gas passageways.
Eggum teaches a force turning the indexer (500, Fig. 5) from an exterior of the substrate container changes the relative angular position from a first angle to a second angle (¶0049 , Lines 21-23 – when the indexer is rotated with a tool, the indexer 500 rotates from a first position to a second position, representing a first and a second angle, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the indexer of Burns to incorporate the teachings of the indexer of Eggum, which would use connectors that would allow for the use of filers having larger diameters, reducing the resistance to gas flow in and out of the container (¶0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record is Burns (US 2012/0297981), and while Burns discloses an indexer, however this reference does not disclose the indexer is to comprise of a spline joint having a first joint member and a second joint member, with the first joint member being disposed on the deflector, and the second joint member being disposed on the substrate container. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Burns accordingly, as it would compromise mechanical continuity while employing hindsight reasoning.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art of record is Burns (US 2012/0297981) and Watson (US 2011/0114534), and while Burns discloses an indexer that is disposed to maintain a relative angular position a gas distributor and the deflector or the deflector surface, it does not disclose the indexer comprising a spline joint having a first joint member and a second joint member, the first joint member is disposed on the second end of the stabilizer, and the second joint member is disposed on the substrate container. The Examiner finds no reasonable rationale that would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Burns accordingly, as it would compromise mechanical continuity while employing hindsight reasoning.
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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762