DETAILED ACTION
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
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chuang et al. (US 11511920).
Regarding claim 1, 6, Chuang discloses an article comprising:
a spacer 212 (bump) for a reticle pod 101, 102, fig. 9, the spacer the used during storage, col. 1: 15-17, spacer including:
a base (pillar 212) of the spacer configured to removably engage with a depression (accommodation cavity) 213 formed in one of a cover or a baseplate of the reticle pod, (reference fig. 4, col. 5: 9-12, note the engaging member 402 can be inserted into the cover, although not numbered, pillar 212 also shows an engaging member peg inserted into the cover) such that the spacer is capable of being temporarily placed within a depression during shipment or on any occasion; and
a contact surface of the spacer configured to contact the other of the cover or the baseplate, col. 6: 40-60 such that the cover and base plate are spaced apart via a gap: “the top lid (101) can be slightly lifted above the bottom lid (102).”
As seen in fig. 9, the contact surface is at a location to both the outside and the inside of the “sealing surface.”
PNG
media_image1.png
592
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation, “the spacer is configured to be removed from the depression to allow the sealing surfaces to contact one another during operational use of the reticle pod,” as established the spacers of Chuang, the spacers inserted via a peg are capable of being removed, removal of the spacers will result in the surfaces of the base and cover of the reticle pod coming into contact with one another.
The "manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus from the prior art" And “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” MPEP 2114. Absent distinguishing structure, a mere functional limitation is not sufficient to define over the prior art.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the depression 213 of Chuang is considered to meet the limitation of “a gripper pocket” for the way it surrounds the spacer as seen in fig. 9 and is formed in the cover 202, and a contact surface contacts the base, see annotated fig. 9.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Chuang discloses that the spacer further comprises a feature, the bump portion, fig. 9, that contacts the base of the pod and extends from the peg, the bump of the spacer that extends from the peg is considered to meet the limitation of a “handling feature” extending from the body since it is capable of being handled or grabbed to remove the spacer from the peg hole.
Regarding claim 8, Chuang further disclose an outer pod (not shown) configured to accommodate the inner pod and the one or more spacers, col. 1: 20-25.
Regarding claim 11, Chuang discloses a spacer in each corner, col. 6: 40-45.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above teach that the spacer (soft contact member) be made from plastic but do not teach specifically a thermoplastic for the embodiment seen in fig. 9. In alternative embodiments, Chuang teaches that soft contact member should be made of PEEK, col. 6: 15-20, which is a thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the plastic of embodiment of fig. 9 of Chuang with a thermoplastic as taught for the embodiment of fig. 7 of Chuang so that the soft contact member can be mass produced via being thermoformed and further since the substitution of one known spacer plastic material for another is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art and yields the same expected result of avoiding the generation of particles, col. 1: 40-45, col. 2: 25-35 of Chuang.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang as applied to claims 1 and 6 above in view of Hsu et al. (US 2019/0101821).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the references applied above teach all of claims 1 and 6, as applied above. Chuang does not disclose the claimed gap width.
Hsu is analogous art in regard to reticle pods, fig. 6(a), with spacers.
Hsu teaches an inner pod [0006] including a baseplate 20 and a cover 10; and
one or more spacers 30 (ball shaped member), [0024], each spacer including:
a base (side of the spacer in contact with the baseplate) configured to engage with a depression 50 formed in the baseplate (also a dimple in the cover [0024]; and
a contact surface (side of the spacer in contact with the cover), wherein the contact surface is configured to space the baseplate apart from the cover such that baseplate sealing surfaces included in the baseplate and cover sealing surfaces included in the cover are spaced apart from one another by a gap, fig. 6(a).
Hsu further teaches that the dimensions of the gap are spaced from another between 0 and 4 mm, which fully encompasses applicant’s claimed range of 20 µm to 1 mm. While applicant discloses no particular reason for the claimed dimensions, Hsu discloses that the gap prevents particles formed from friction [0004], [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the spacers (pillars) of Chuang such that the base and cover of the pod are spaced by a gap width on the narrower end of the range disclosed by Hsu, [0004], [0019], in order to prevent particles formed due to friction, yet also prevent particles from outside the inner pod from entering into the inner pod as required by Chuang, col. 1:30-35.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no available prior art teaches spacers joined together by a handling feature, either the spacers of the prior art are discrete or made as a continuous seal. The handling feature is understood to be a surface that can be gripped as described in [0040] and is intended to be handled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the claim amendments to recite that the contact surface is located outside a sealing surface overcomes Chuang because the pillars are located within the sealing zone, examiner disagrees.
The sealing surfaces of the instant applicant are never “sealed” per se because the spacers cause a gap to be present with the surfaces. With this in mind, it is not clear what areas of prior art would be considered the “sealing zone” when there is never a seal and most prior art would not describe surfaces that intentionally are spaced as a “sealing surface.” Applicant argues that Chaung’s spacers are within the sealing zone, yet a spacer that is within a sealing zone or sealing surface is located both inside and outside the sealing surface. Applicant’s amendment does not exclude locations that include both an outside and an inside area of the sealing surface. With this in mind, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Also, Chuang’s spacers are capable of being removed such that the sealing surfaces will directly contact one another when the spacers are removed.
In addition, although the drawings of Chuang seem to show the spacer within a “sealing zone” in fig. 9, the drawings are conflicting in terms of spacer locations because plan views of the baseplate and cover show openings for the spacer insert inside the perimeter “sealing” surface, reference for example, fig. 7A which shows the sealing areas 700 and 701 as being mounted to the inside of the sealing surface yet cross sectional views, fig 7B, show the spacer within the perimeter/sealing surfaces.
Finally, applicant’s spacer appears to be interior to the sealing surface, not outside the sealing surface. With this in mind, applicant’s argument against the spatial distinction as a capability of the intended use of the pod after the spacers are removed is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
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 MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights