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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 06/25/2026 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 arguments regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the new form of rejection below. However, the Examiner would address the argument on Page 7 regarding the rejection of claim 6 and the Applicants assertion that “Burns does not disclose a gap between a gas distributor and a deflector as a variable at all”, to which the Examiner is confident one can ascertain the gap described on the record as the only longitudinally opening visible in Fig. 5, overcoming the Applicants arguments.
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 1-5 are 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 2015/0041360), hereinafter referred to as Watson.
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);
a gas distributor (17, Fig. 5) configured to provide a purging gas to purge the interior of the substrate container (¶0033, Lines 4-12),
the gas distributor having an outer surface (¶0033, Lines 4-12 – the gas distributor has an outer surface that is porous and formed in the shape of the tower portion without the nozzle slots), ); 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 18, 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).
However, Burns lacks showing one or more ribs extending from the deflection surface of the deflector, and each of the one or more ribs having a distal end that engages the outer surface of the gas distributor.
Watson (US 2015/0041360), a gas distribution system for wafers, is in the same field of endeavor as Burns which is a gas distribution system for wafers.
Watson teaches one or more ribs (330, Fig. 10) extending from the deflection surface of the deflector (see Annotated Figure 2 – the one or more ribs, extend from the deflection surface of the deflector, where they engage each other), and each of the one or more ribs having a distal end that engages the outer surface of the gas distributor (Fig. 11, see Annotated Figure 2 – the one or more ribs 330 have a distal end that engages the outer surface of the gas distributor).
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 deflection surface of the deflector of Burns to incorporate the teachings of the one or more ribs of Watson, which would provide a means to secure the gas distributor within the deflector, raising the stability of the arrangement (¶0041, Lines 3-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
302
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
389
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns, in view of Watson et al (US 2015/0041360), hereinafter referred to as Watson.
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 dependent on a workable range(s), 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 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 7-12 & 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (US 2012/0297981), hereinafter referred to as Burns, in view of Watson et al (US 2015/0041360), hereinafter referred to as Watson.
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);
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 gas distributor has an outer surface (¶0033, Lines 4-12 – the gas distributor has an outer surface that is porous and formed in the shape of the tower portion without the nozzle slots) and
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),
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), 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).
However, Burns lacks showing one or more ribs extending from the deflection surface of the deflector, and each of the one or more ribs having a distal end that engages the outer surface of the gas distributor.
Watson (US 2015/0041360), a gas distribution system for wafers, is in the same field of endeavor as Burns which is a gas distribution system for wafers.
Watson teaches one or more ribs (330, Fig. 10) extending from the deflection surface of the deflector (see Annotated Figure 2 – the one or more ribs, extend from the deflection surface of the deflector, where they engage each other), and each of the one or more ribs having a distal end that engages the outer surface of the gas distributor (Fig. 11, see Annotated Figure 2 – the one or more ribs 330 have a distal end that engages the outer surface of the gas distributor).
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 deflection surface of the deflector of Burns to incorporate the teachings of the one or more ribs of Watson, which would provide a means to secure the gas distributor within the deflector, raising the stability of the arrangement (¶0041, Lines 3-8).
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 12, Burns shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 11 including the outer surface of the gas distributor.
However, Burns lacks showing wherein the distal end of each of the one or more ribs engages with the outer surface of the gas distributor to maintain the relative angular position.
Watson teaches wherein the distal end of each of the one or more ribs engages with the outer surface of the gas distributor to maintain the relative angular position (see Annotated Figure 2 – the one or more ribs 330 have a distal end that engages the outer surface of the gas distributor, to maintain the relative angular position).
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 deflection surface of the deflector of Burns to incorporate the teachings of the one or more ribs of Watson, which would provide a means to secure the gas distributor within the deflector, raising the stability of the arrangement (¶0041, Lines 3-8).
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 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 view of Watson et al (US 2015/0041360), hereinafter referred to as Watson, in further view of Chiu et al (US 2021/0013076), hereinafter referred to as Chiu.
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.
Chiu (US 2021/0013076), a wafer container, is in the same field of endeavor as Burns which is a substrate container.
Chiu teaches further comprising: a stabilizer (920, Fig. 9a) having a first end and a second end (see Annotated Figure 3), wherein a first end of the stabilizer engages with the deflector (see Annotated Figure 3), and a second end of the stabilizer engages with the substrate container (see Annotated Figure 3) to stabilize the deflector and the gas distributor (930, Fig. 9a/9b/ see Annotated Figure 3 – the stabilizer 920 is a rear panel on the container, to stabilize the deflector and the gas distributor, via its connection to the inlets of the container).
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 Chiu, which would reinforce the structural integrity and rigidity of the associated components of the deflector (¶0073, Lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image3.png
506
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
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 view of Watson et al (US 2015/0041360), hereinafter referred to as Watson, 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 2015/0041360), 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
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
Prosecution Insights