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
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed on 14 April 2026, and Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 15 April 2026, is acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claims 4-5, 6-7, and 16-20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objections: In light of Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, pg. 6), the drawing objections for Claim 4 (“…the temperature control device is a mechanical orifice”) is withdrawn.
However, and for clarity to the record, Examiner notes the following:
- Applicant argues “the mechanical orifice of claims 4 and 9 is a species of temperature control device 232, which is depicted in Figures 4B and 4C,” wherein “purge gas temperature control is described as being achieved by passing a purge gas through an orifice, with pressure, to cause the purge gas to expand and achieve a reduced temperature.” Applicant further identifies support at paragraphs [0048], [00104], [00113], and [00116].
- However, Examiner notes that the phrase “mechanical orifice” aside from the specific language of the claims (e.g., the paras 104, 113, and 116 as identified by Applicant above are simply “aspects” of the claimed invention that contain the phrase “mechanical orifice”), does not appear elsewhere in Applicant’s Specification. Examiner further notes that temperature control device 232 is taught as being “used to control the temperature of a purge gas mixture produced by combining an amount of nitrogen gas from source 220b with clean dry air from source 220a” per para 72, is “useful to control the temperature and consequently a density of a purge gas delivered from source 220 to interior 206” per para 73, and communicates with the control systems of Fig 4B and 4C per para 74.
- Specifically, Examiner notes that the terms “temperature control device” (and/or item 232) and “mechanical orifice” do not appear together in the Specification.
- Examiner further notes that Applicant’s disclosure does not define what Applicant considers to be a “mechanical orifice”, which could encompass a wide variety of apparatuses such as a check valve, a control valve, a directed nozzle with a variable aperture, or some other configuration. It is also not entirely clear how such an undefined “mechanical orifice” can communicate with either of the control systems of Figs 4B and 4C, as taught by Applicant’s para 74.
From the above analysis, Examiner concludes that although the present set of drawing meet a minimum requirement for showing the claimed “mechanical orifice”, Applicant should consider amending the claimed subject matter to provide better clarity as to the intended scope of Claim 4 with regards to the nature of the temperature control device, and what would or would not infringe upon the claim.
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(b): In light of the amended claims, the rejections of Claims 6-7 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 14 April 2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 -20 under 35 USC § 102 and 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are unpersuasive.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks concerning the typographical error of page 4 of the previous Office Action, wherein Claims 1, 8, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and thanks the Applicant for noticing the error. As Applicant noted (see “Remarks”, pg. 7), the Senn reference is eligible as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(2); the Examiner inadvertently mis-typed “(a1)” in the previous Office Action. Regardless, the thrust of Examiner’s rationale has not changed (see further below), and the present Office Action is released as “Final”.
Applicant arguments (see “Remarks”, pgs. 7-9) are generally drawn to Senn et al.’s (US 2025/0093890) teachings of an equipment front end module (EFEM), and the Examiner’s reliance on these teachings in the rejection of the claims. Applicant specifically argues that the “substrate container” of Claim 1 in the present application “as the term is used in the present application, is a portable, sealed container designed to hold and transport substrates in a controlled atmosphere. Examples include FOUPs (Front Opening Unified Pods), FOSBs (Front Opening Shipping Boxes), and SMIF pods.” Applicant further argues that “An EFEM is a large, stationary transfer module containing robotic arms and serves as an interface between substrate containers (such as FOUPs) and process tools… Thus, the EFEM is the transfer station between containers and processing equipment and is not itself a substrate container.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s statement that the claimed “substrate container” is intended to be used as a SMIF pod, FOUP, and/or FOSB (see Applicant’s statement above and published Specification, para 3), Applicant’s claims are broadly drawn to a “substrate container system”, simply requiring (per Claim 1) a “container body”, door, an interior with a purge gas inlet, a source of purge gas, and the capability to “support” substrates.
Additionally, although Applicant argues via the filed Remarks that there is a difference between an EFEM and a SMIF, FOUP, and/or FOSB, there is nothing within Applicant’s disclosure that restricts an EFEM from being broadly interpreted as a “substrate container”, or a “substrate container system” as claimed. To the contrary, Senn et al. specifically teaches:
- (para 5) “…Substrates are transferred into a substrate processing tool through one or more intermediate chambers, such as front opening unified pods (FOUPs), an equipment front end module (EFEM), and/or load locks.” Here, the Senn reference explicitly defines both FOUPs and EFEMs as different types of “substrate containers”.
- (para 52) “An EFEM may include a sealed enclosure (referred to as the EFEM enclosure) and a robot disposed in the EFEM enclosure for transfer of substrates between, for example, FOUPs and one or more load locks.” Here, the Senn reference again defines an EFEM as an enclosed “substrate container” with the capability to “support” (via a robot disposed therein) substrates.
Applicant’s arguments, therefore, disclose a species (FOUP) of a broader genus (substrate container system). However, it is well established that a disclosure of a species does not provide adequate support for claims directed to a broader genus. In the present set of claims, the broad limitation of “a substrate container system” and its individual components fail to explicitly exclude EFEMs.
Therefore, Examiner concludes that while an EFEM may not technically be a FOUP as argued by Applicant, the component does meet the very broadly claimed criterion of a “substrate container system” of the present claim set.
Examiner additionally concludes that the EFEM, via a robot, does “support” said substrates as broadly claimed, further noting that while Applicant argues that FOUPs have “internal slots that engage the substrate edges and support the substrates in a vertically stacked arrangement” (see “Remarks”, pg. 8), the present claims themselves do not require this limitation.
With further regards to Claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant further argues (see “Remarks,” pg. 8) that Senn et al. fails to read on the limitation of "a door adapted to be placed over and removed from the opening.”, that the “door” described in Applicant’s Specification specifically describes a FOUP (and not an EFEM), and that “the EFEM itself does not have "a door adapted to be placed over and removed from the opening" in the manner of a FOUP door that seals a container interior.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that, as stated in the previous Office Action (see pg. 4) removable, air-tight sealing doors are known. Applicant’s admission of such (even if drawn to a FOUP as a species of a “substrate container system”) is evidence of this. The Senn reference additionally teaches (see para 52, as cited in the previous Office Action) the EFEM as including “a sealed enclosure (referred to as the EFEM enclosure) and a robot disposed in the EFEM enclosure for transfer of substrates between, for example, FOUPs and one or more load locks.”
As reasoned by Examiner before, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sealed enclosure (“enclosure” defined as “an area surrounded by a fence, wall, or natural barrier used to restrict access or keep something contained” by Cambridge dictionary and “a protective box or casing that houses electrical components, machinery, or speakers to protect them from the environment” by YourDictionary) would necessarily have a “door” over an opening, in order for the enclosed robot to actually perform the transfer of substrates as taught by Senn et al. Therefore, the previously referenced Senn teachings read upon the limitation.
Please see the Conclusion of the Office Action (prior art not relied upon) for further teachings of EFEM comprising removable doors.
With further regards to Claims 1, 8, and 15, Applicant further argues (see “Remarks”, pg. 8) that the “fan filter module 305” as taught in the Senn reference does not read upon the claimed limitation of a "purge gas inlet at the interior" of a substrate container through which purge gas is dispensed to displace a container atmosphere. Applicant further argues Senn item 350 “receives gas from a recirculation duct and manifold system and pushes filtered gas downward through the EFEM enclosure”, and that “the structural and functional differences between a fan filter module and a purge gas inlet of a substrate container are substantial.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Fig 3, as cited in the previous Office Action, clearly shows a fluidic inlet into EFEM Enclosure 302 (please see the schematic diagram that is Fig 3, along with the legend that depicts fluid flow). This inlet provides the gases that the previously cited "fan filter module 305" then circulates into the EFEM Enclosure 302, as cited in para 65 and admitted in Applicant’s remarks. For further clarification, please also refer to Senn et al. Claim 5, which also establishes “an inlet” into the enclosure.
Applicant further argues (see “Remarks”, pg. 9) that the Senn reference does not teach “a control system to control a density of purge gas dispensed through the purge gas inlet to the interior” as claimed at Claim 8, and specifically argues that while “Senn's composition controller 314 controls gas flow rates to achieve a target gas composition in the EFEM enclosure, expressed in terms of constituent levels such as oxygen percentage and relative humidity”, the reference “contains no teaching, suggestion, or recognition of controlling purge gas density, controlling density to approximate the density of an existing atmosphere, or using density control to achieve uniform gas displacement.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Claim 8 merely requires “a control system to control a density of purge gas dispensed through the purge gas inlet to the interior”, and has no further limitations drawn to the approximation of the density of an existing atmosphere, or achieving a uniform gas displacement. Examiner notes that limitations drawn to approximation of the density of an existing atmosphere are present in Claim 16; this limitation is separately taught by Oosterlaken et al., as shown at pgs. 15-16 of the previous Office Action.
The previous Office Action (see pg. 8) cited control system 314 and paras 66-68 to teach the broad limitations of Claim 8. For further clarification, controller 314 controls the operation “of the one or more fans 305” (see para 66), which imparts (along with exhaust valve 313, also disclosed at para 66) pressure control within the EFEM enclosure 302. It is well-established that the control of pressure within an enclosed space is, essentially, the control of density within that space, as the two concepts are inextricably linked through basic physics. The cited teachings of the Senn reference, therefore, teach the broad limitation of Claim 8.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, and the rejections stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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.
(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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Senn et al. (US 2025/0093890, with priority to 7 January 2022).
Regarding Claim 1, Senn et al. discloses a substrate container system comprising:
a container body (Senn et al. discloses equipment front end module (EFEM) 208 at para 59 and Fig 2, and/or 302 at para 65 and Fig 3) comprising:
- an opening (per at least para 52, the disclosed EFEM is used to transfer substrates between front opening unified pods (FOUP) 204 and "one or more load locks" 212. Although the term "an opening" is not used in the Senn reference, it is clear from this teaching that "an opening" exists. See also the structure of Fig 2, Examiner's annotations),
- a door adapted to be placed over and removed from the opening (Applicant admits that an opening on a container body, and "a removable door that is adapted to cover the opening to enclose the interior with an air-tight seal" is known to the prior art, per Applicant's Specification, para 4. Since the Senn reference discloses a enclosed container body and opening as shown above, Examiner asserts that the existence and use of a door is also known),
- an interior (enclosure 252 / 302) defined by the container body,
- substrates supported within the interior (see at least para 52),
- a container atmosphere within the interior (provided by "filtered gas" per at least para 52. The filtered gas is provided by the EFEM Composition Mixture Control System, shown as item 250 in Fig 2 and shown in greater detail as "mixture control system 300) at Fig 3 and at least paras 64-70 ),
- a purge gas inlet at the interior (via "fan filter module 305" see Fig 3 and para 65),
- a source of purge gas (multiple gas sources 312, see at least paras 66-69) comprising:
- a source of clean dry air (para 69), and
- a source of nitrogen gas (para 69), and
- a purge gas flow control system (paras 66-68, "composition controller 314", which controls mass flow controllers 310) that combines a flow of the clean dry air and a flow of the nitrogen gas to produce a purge gas mixture (paras 66: "multiple mass flow controllers 310 control flow of gases from the gas sources 312 to a manifold 315". Para 68: "The manifold 315 mixes gases received from the gas mass flow controllers 310...The manifold 315 is configured to mix the gases received from the mass flow controllers 310 and direct the resultant gas mixture to the enclosure 302 in the equipment front end module 303").
PNG
media_image1.png
662
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
394
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, similarly, Senn et al. also discloses a substrate container system comprising (see the rejection of Claim 1 above):
- a container body (208) comprising an opening (para 52),
- a door adapted to be placed over and removed from the opening (admitted as known by Applicant; see the rejection of Claim 1 above),
- an interior (enclosure 252 / 302) defined by the container body,
- a purge gas inlet (305) connected to the interior,
- a relative humidity sensor (para 122),
- a source of purge gas (312), and
- a control system (314) to control a density of purge gas dispensed through the purge gas inlet to the interior (paras 66-68; see also Examiner's rationale above in the rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 15, similarly, Senn et al. discloses a method of purging a substrate container with purge gas, the substrate container comprising a method (the normal use of the apparatus as described in the rejections of Claim 1 and/or Claim 8 above) of purging a substrate container with purge gas, the substrate container comprising:
- a container body (208) comprising an opening (para 52 and Examiner's explanation in the rejection of Claim 1 above),
- a door adapted to cover the opening (admitted as known by Applicant; see the rejection of Claim 1 above),
- an interior (enclosure 252 / 302) defined by the container body,
- substrates supported within the interior (see at least para 52),
- a container atmosphere within the interior (provided by "filtered gas" per at least para 52. The filtered gas is provided by the EFEM Composition Mixture Control System, shown as item 250 in Fig 2 and shown in greater detail as "mixture control system 300) at Fig 3 and at least paras 64-70),
- one or more purge gas inlets at the interior (via "fan filter module 305" see Fig 3 and para 65);
the method (through the use of the apparatus as described in the rejections of Claim 1 and or Claim 8) comprising dispensing purge gas through the one or more inlets to the interior, the purge gas comprising:
- clean dry air received from a source of clean dry air (para 69), and
- nitrogen gas received from a source of nitrogen gas (para 69).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senn et al.
Regarding Claim 2, as shown above, the disclosure of the Senn reference teaches gas sources 312 and a control system comprising composition controller 314. Said control system is configured to "operate similarly" to "composition controller 620" of "control circuit 608" (as taught at para 99) and comprises:
- a first flow meter (control circuit 608 includes flow meter(s) 606, see para 99 and Fig 6) to control a flow of the clean dry air to the purge gas inlet,
- a second flow meter (a duplicate of flow meter 606) to control a flow of the nitrogen gas to the purge gas inlet.
Examiner recognizes Fig 6 appears to only show a single flow meter 606. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would simply duplicate the flow meter 606 to control the flow of clean dry air from a second source 312; the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In the present case, the duplication of flow meter 606 as taught by Senn et al. would have the obvious result of additional control over all gas sources.
Regarding Claim 3, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system comprising: a temperature control device to control a temperature of the purge gas (controller 314 monitors temperature and "limits a moister set point of the EFEM to prevent a dew-point set point" that results in condensation in the EFEM, based on temperature readings from temperature sensors "configured to detect levels of respective gases". See paras 72, 103, 122-123 and 129).
Claims 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senn et al., in view of Shirley (US 2002/0002944).
Note: the following claims are presented in order of dependency as filed by Applicant, and not in numerical order. Please see the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b) above.
Regarding Claim 4, Senn et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a temperature control device (as monitored by controller 314 and explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above). However, the Senn reference is silent on the temperature control device (being) a mechanical orifice.
However, it is known to control temperature by control of air flow through an orifice. Shirely teaches a temperature control device (that) is a mechanical orifice (orifice 55a, as taught at least at 15, 18 23, and Claim 26).
The Senn and Shirley references each teach methods for controlling the temperature for a substrate. While the Senn reference only mentions general temperature control, the Shirley reference provides specific guidance, and the advantageous ability to heat or cool different portions of the substrate at different rates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the general temperature control guidance of Senn et al. with the specific guidance of Shirley (to include the use of orifice 55a), in order to gain the advantages of heating or cooling different portions of the substrate at different rates.
Regarding Claim 5, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system comprising: a relative humidity sensor (see Senn et al., para 122), wherein the purge gas flow control system selects a flow rate of the clean dry air, or a flow rate of the nitrogen gas, or flow rates of the clean dry air and the nitrogen gas based on a measured relative humidity of the system (see Senn et al., the combination of Claims 13-15, where the "composition mixture control system…comprises a plurality of sensors configured to monitor parameters related to the composition in …the enclosure...wherein the monitored parameters comprise constituent levels of the gases...wherein the monitored parameters comprise an oxygen level and a relative humidity level in... the enclosure).
Regarding Claim 9, Senn et al. teaches the claimed invention, to include a temperature control device (as monitored by controller 314 and explained in the rejection of Claim 1 above). However, the Senn reference is silent on the temperature control device (being) a mechanical orifice.
However, it is known to control temperature by control of air flow through an orifice. Shirely teaches a temperature control device (that) is a mechanical orifice (orifice 55a, as taught at least at 15, 18 23, and Claim 26).
The Senn and Shirley references each teach methods for controlling the temperature for a substrate. While the Senn reference only mentions general temperature control, the Shirley reference provides specific guidance, and the advantageous ability to heat or cool different portions of the substrate at different rates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplant the general temperature control guidance of Senn et al. with the specific guidance of Shirley (to include the use of orifice 55a), in order to gain the advantages of heating or cooling different portions of the substrate at different rates.
Regarding Claim 10, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system, wherein the source of purge gas (Senn et al., multiple gas sources 312, see at least paras 66-69 and Examiner's rationale in the rejection of Claim 1 above) comprises:
- a source of clean dry air (para 69), and
- a source of nitrogen gas (para 69), and
- the control system (314, 620, and 608; see Examiner's rationale in the rejection of Claim 2 above) comprises:
- a flow meter (606) to control a flow of the clean dry air to the purge gas inlet,
- a flow meter (a duplicate of 606) to control a flow of the nitrogen to the purge gas inlet.
Regarding Claim 6, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system further comprising: a pressure sensor (Senn et al., disclosed at para 122 as part of a residual gas analyzer) and a temperature sensor (also disclosed at para 122).
Regarding Claim 11, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system (see Senn et al.), the source of purge gas consisting of a source of clean dry air (para 69), the control system comprising a temperature control device to control a temperature of the clean dry air (controller 314 monitors temperature and "limits a moister set point of the EFEM to prevent a dew-point set point" that results in condensation in the EFEM, based on temperature readings from temperature sensors "configured to detect levels of respective gases" See paras 72, 103, 122-123 and 129).
Regarding Claim 7, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system (see Senn et al.), wherein
- the humidity sensor (see para 122) measures a humidity, the pressure sensor (see para 122) measures a pressure, and the temperature sensor (see para 122) measures a temperature of the container atmosphere and
- the control system forms a purge gas mixture from amounts of the clean dry air and the nitrogen based on the humidity, pressure, or temperature of the container atmosphere (see the combination of Claims 13-15, where the "composition mixture control system…comprises a plurality of sensors configured to monitor parameters related to the composition in …the enclosure...wherein the monitored parameters comprise constituent levels of the gases...wherein the monitored parameters comprise an oxygen level and a relative humidity level in... the enclosure).
Regarding Claim 12, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system (see Senn et al.), wherein
- the source of purge gas consisting of a source of nitrogen gas (para 69),
- the control system comprising a temperature control device to control a temperature of the nitrogen gas (controller 314 monitors temperature and "limits a moister set point of the EFEM to prevent a dew-point set point" that results in condensation in the EFEM, based on temperature readings from temperature sensors "configured to detect levels of respective gases." This would include nitrogen. See paras 72, 103, 122-123 and 129).
Regarding Claim 13, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system further comprising: a pressure sensor and a temperature sensor (Senn et al., both sensors disclosed at para 122).
Regarding Claim 14, Senn et al. as modified above teaches a substrate container system (see Senn et al.), wherein
- the humidity sensor measures a humidity, the pressure sensor measures a pressure, and the temperature sensor measures a temperature of the container atmosphere (as taught at least at para 122) and
- the control system forms a purge gas mixture from amounts of the clean dry air and the nitrogen based on the humidity, pressure, or temperature of the container atmosphere (see the combination of Claims 13-15, where the "composition mixture control system…comprises a plurality of sensors configured to monitor parameters related to the composition in …the enclosure...wherein the monitored parameters comprise constituent levels of the gases...wherein the monitored parameters comprise an oxygen level and a relative humidity level in... the enclosure).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senn et al., in view of Oosterlaken et al. (US 2005/0170662).
Regarding Claim 16, the Senn reference discloses the claimed invention, to include a method of combining the clean dry air with the nitrogen gas to produce a purge gas mixture (via gas sources 312 as shown above in the rejections of Claims 1 and 15). Examiner recognizes the Senn reference is silent on density. Regardless, since both the clean dry air and nitrogen gases inherently have "a density", the teachings of Senn et al. are considered to read upon Applicant’s limitation of “combining the clean dry air with the nitrogen gas to produce a purge gas mixture that has a gas mixture density”, as claimed by Applicant at Claim 16.
Additionally, the Senn reference teaches dispensing the purge gas mixture through an inlet (via "fan filter module 305" see Fig 3 and para 65), as also claimed by Applicant.
However, the Senn reference is considered silent on the remainder of Applicant’s claim, namely “controlling the purge gas mixture density to approximate a density of the container atmosphere.”
Oosterlaken et al., however, teaches a method of purging a substrate container with purge gas, comprising controlling the purge gas mixture density to approximate a density of the container atmosphere.
Specifically, the Oosterlaken reference teaches that changing the atmosphere within the chamber "can introduce undesirable transition effects" (this is known to the prior art), and presents "methods for effectively removing gases and changing atmospheres in a reaction chamber, while minimizing the impact of atmosphere changes on process results." See paras 5-9. The method of the Oosterlaken reference uses first and second purge gases with first and second densities (see at least para 26) to accomplish this goal. See also the purge process described at paras 26-35 and FIgs 2-4, where purge gas (or a mixture of purge gases per para 35) is introduced into the chamber such that "the above-discussed molecular weight and density relationship is preferably maintained, e.g., by reference to the weighted average molecular weights of the gas mixtures" (also taught at para 35).
The Senn and Oosterlaken references each teach the processing of substrates utilizing purge gases. The Oosterlaken reference teaches that maintaining a constant atmosphere is preferred by the industry, and also provides a way to avoid undesirable effects caused by atmospheric changes during purging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the disclosure of Senn et al. with the teachings of the Oosterlaken reference, and modify the control system of Senn et al to monitor gas densities and control gas mixtures using those densities, in order to obtain the industry-recognized advantageous result of processing substrates within a constant atmosphere.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 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: the prior art fails to disclose or render obvious a method of purging a substrate container with purge gas, wherein
- (Claim 17) the purge gas mixture density is within 5 percent of the container atmosphere density, or
- (Claim 20) the purge gas mixture has a density in a range from 1.15 to 1.21 kilograms per cubic meter.
in combination with the other limitations set forth in the independent claims.
Senn et al. (US 2025/0093890) and Oosterlaken et al. (US 2005/0170662) are the closest prior art of record. However, the Seen and Oosterlaken references are silent on these above recited features. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to modify the Seen and Oosterlaken references to arrive at these above recited features without improper hindsight reasoning. In addition, amending the Seen and Oosterlaken references to include the above recited features would improperly change the principles of operation of the Seen and Oosterlaken references.
Specifically, although the Oosterlaken reference teaches maintaining a constant atmosphere through the monitoring of purge gas densities and subsequent mixture control, the reference is silent on how effective said control is on the atmosphere surrounding the substrate. The reference does not discuss monitoring purge gas densities in terms of a percentage of the container gas density, nor density ranges (in terms of kilograms per cubic meter) of the purge gas mixture. The Oosterlaken reference and the base Senn reference are therefore silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claims 17 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- US 10,403,514 B1 teaches that it is known for an EFEM to have a door, and is presented here to provide a refutation to Applicant’s argument (see “Remarks”, pgs. 7-8). Specifically, the 514 reference teaches “a substrate transporting system includes a substrate transporting robot, a module that houses the substrate transporting robot therein and has an EFEM door, a load port for placing a FOUP having a FOUP door thereon, and a controller for opening the EFEM door while the FOUP door is closed when the FOUP is located at a dock position of the load port.” Please refer to at least Figs 2 and 6, which teach EFEM 10, and removable EFEM door 40.
- Lin et al. (US 2019/0148196 A1) teaches systems and methods for monitoring an environment of a front opening universal pod (FOUP).
Specifically, Lin et al. teaches FOUP 102 “configured to support a controlled environment. Aspects or parameters of this controlled environment may include, for example, humidity, temperature, vibration, incident radiation, particle density, and chemical composition…. these environmental support devices 112 may include vents and purging systems (which may be disposed on the walls, base 214, top 226, and door 222 of the FOUP 102). See para 26. Examiner notes that door 222 is shown in Fig. 3 to be “removable”.
Examiner concludes that the teachings of Lin et al. likely read on at least Applicant’s independent Claims 1 and 8, and would likely serve as primary art to read upon Applicant’s Claim 15, as the reference is silent on the provision of “clean dry air” as part of a purge gas. However, US 7,314,068 B2 (provided by Applicant on the IDS filed 15 April 2026) teaches that it is known to the prior art to mix clean dry air with nitrogen for the purposes of purging the interior of a FOUP; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the well-known clean dry air/nitrogen mixing procedure of the ‘068 reference to the teachings of Lin et al., if only for the purposes of more effective purging of the interior of a FOUP.
However, the Lin reference also appears to be silent on monitoring purge gas densities in terms of a percentage of the container gas density, and does not discuss density ranges (in terms of kilograms per cubic meter) of the purge gas mixture. The Lin reference therefore appears to be silent on the limitations of Applicant’s Claims 17 and 20, which were deemed to be novel in the previous Office Action.
- Kishkovich et al. (US 2011/0114129 A1) teaches a substrate container (an SMIF pod and/or FOUP) with a plurality of purging inlets, at least one purge inlet directed into the interior of the substrate container, said purge gas containing nitrogen.
- Although not eligible as prior art, KR 20240125342 A teaches an EFEM comprising a FOUP, and “a local humidity control apparatus for EFEM humidity control comprising: a local dehumidifying module which dehumidifies inputted compressed gases and supplies the dehumidified gases to a transportation tube; and a vertical laminar flow generating device which is connected to the transportation tube, is arranged inside the chamber, equalizes a flow of the inputted dehumidified gases, creates a vertical laminar flow, and sprays the dehumidified gases on the inside side of the chamber of the door.” Here, “The EFEM chamber (110) can control the pressure of the internal space through the differential pressure exhaust section (12) and control the density of nitrogen (N2) in the internal space.”
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 CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights