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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 2/4/2026. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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 § 103
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo et al. US 6,900,878 B2 (the US equivalent to JP 2004071729 A, cited in Applicant IDS) in view of ABE US 2015/0325462 A1, previously presented.
With regards to claim 1, Okubo discloses a container for a non-rectangular reticle, adapted to hold an elliptical reticle, comprising: a cover 5 (shown in Fig. 4(A)) comprising: an inner surface and a compartment wall extending downward from the inner surface, wherein the inner surface and the compartment wall define a space; and a plurality of reticle retainers (7-1/7-2/7-3) partially extending into the elliptical space, each of the reticle retainers having an oblique extending portion (with 31/33; shown in Fig. 1) to abut against an upper edge of the elliptical reticle (top edge of a reticle); and a base 3 coupled to the cover to define an receiving space for receiving the elliptical reticle, the base has a plurality of reticle supports 19-1/19-2/19-3 for supporting a bottom surface of the elliptical reticle.
The inner surface and the compartment wall of the cover and the base of Okubo defines a space to receive an elliptical reticle but it does not specifically disclose the space is elliptical.
However, ABE (Fig. 1-2) teaches that it was known in the art to have a substrate container have the inner surface and the compartment wall of a cover (3; para. 0030) define an elliptical space 31 and the base (2 top surface; para. 0032) define an elliptical receiving space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the space in Okubo to be an elliptical space as taught by ABE for the purposes of conforming to the article.
With regards to claim 2, Okubo discloses the base has a ring groove 15a/15b, and the plurality of reticle supports 19 span the ring groove.
With regards to claim 3, Okubo discloses the ring groove 15a/15b divides the base into an internal region and an external region, and the internal region is an elliptical region. (internal considered inside of the ring area and external considered outside of the ring area; shown in Fig. 2)
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo et al. US 6,900,878 B2 (the US equivalent to JP 2004071729 A, cited in Applicant IDS) in view of ABE US 2015/0325462 A1, previously presented and further in view of Kolbow et al. US 8,231,005 B2.
With regards to claim 4, Okubo discloses each of the plurality of reticle supports 19 have a supporting block for supporting a bottom of the elliptical reticle and an edge restraint for restraining the elliptical reticle (with 19c and 19b) but it does not specifically disclose the supporting block being in the internal region of the base, and the edge restraint being in the external region of the base.
However, Kolbow (Figs. 19-26) teaches that it was known in the art to have a reticle pod have a plurality of reticle supports 1350/1310 have a supporting block 1350 for supporting a bottom of the elliptical reticle and an edge restraint 1310 for restraining the elliptical reticle, with the supporting block being in the internal region of the base, and the edge restraint being in the external region of the base (shown in Fig. 26).
The inventions of Okubo and Kolbow are both drawn to the field of containers that are capable of holding items such as substrates. Each container includes a cover and base and a supports on the base to hold the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the supports in Okubo by having the supporting block be in the internal region of the base, and the edge restraint be in the external region of the base as taught by Kolbow for the purposes of providing more support to the substrate and keep it in place.
With regards to claim 5, Okubo discloses each of the plurality of retainers (7-1/7-2/7-3) of the cover have an axis of symmetry pointing to a center of the space of the cover, and each of the plurality of reticle supports (19-1/19-2/19-3) of the base have an axis of symmetry pointing to a center of the internal region of the base. (shown in Fig. 1)
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okubo et al. US 6,900,878 B2 (the US equivalent to JP 2004071729 A, cited in Applicant IDS) in view of ABE US 2015/0325462 A1, previously presented.
With regards to claim 7, Okubo discloses a container 1 for a non-rectangular reticle, adapted to hold an elliptical reticle, comprising: a base 3 having: a load-supporting surface; and a plurality of reticle supports (19-1/19-2/19-3) disposed at a periphery of the load- supporting surface and adapted to support a bottom surface of the elliptical reticle; and a cover 5 coupled to the base to define an receiving space for receiving the elliptical reticle, the cover comprising a plurality of reticle retainers (7-1/7-2/7-3) having an oblique extending portion (with 31/33) for restraining an upper edge of the elliptical reticle (top edge), wherein the receiving space is defined by a plurality of curved edges of an inner surface of the base and a plurality of curved edges of an inner surface of the cover.
The cover and base of Okubo has a receiving space to receive an elliptical reticle and has a plurality of curved edges but it does not specifically disclose the receiving space is elliptical.
However, ABE (Fig. 1-2) teaches that it was known in the art to have a substrate container have the inner surface and the compartment wall of a cover (3; para. 0030) define an elliptical space 31 and the base (2 top surface; para. 0032) define an elliptical receiving space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the space in Okubo to be an elliptical space as taught by ABE for the purposes of conforming to the article.
With regards to claim 8, Okubo discloses the load-supporting surface (the top surface of 3) has a plurality of first curved edges15a/15b, and each of the plurality of reticle supports 19-1/19-2/19-3 are disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of first curved edges.
With regards to claim 9, Okubo discloses a lower surface of the cover 5 has a plurality of second curved edges (shown in Fig. 1), and each of the plurality of reticle retainers (7-1/7-2/7-3) are disposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of second curved edges.
With regards to claim 10, Okubo discloses the inner surface of the cover has a stepped structure formed from a compartment wall and an inner surface of the cover, and the stepped structure has the plurality of second curved edges. (shown in Fig. 1 and 4A)
With regards to claim 11, Okubo discloses the base has a ring groove 15a/15b extending along the periphery of the load-supporting surface, and the reticle supports of the base each span the ring groove, wherein the stepped structure of the cover and the ring groove of the base are concentric.
With regards to claim 12, Okubo discloses both the reticle retainers (7-1/7-2/7-3) and the reticle supports 19-1/19-2/19-3 having axes of symmetry, and the axes of symmetry of the reticle supports and the reticle retainers respectively point to a center of the cover and a center of the load- supporting surface.
With regards to claim 13, Okubo discloses each of the plurality of reticle retainers (7-1/7-2/7-3) have a fixing portion (at 29) and a resilient leg (at 31) which together define the axis of symmetry of the reticle retainers.
With regards to claim 14, Okubo discloses the reticle supports 19-1/19-2/19-3 each have a supporting block 19c and an edge restraint 19b which together define the axis of symmetry of the reticle supports.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 2014/0116920 A1, previously cited.
With regards to claim 6, Lee discloses a reticle storage box, comprising: a casing 108 and a door 110 together defining a storage space capable for storing the container of claim 1.
Lee discloses an outer pod shell and door that stores an inner pod that stores a reticle; therefore, the reticle storage box of Lee is capable of storing the container recited in claim 1, such function being considered an intended use as the language of the claim recites “for” storing the container of claim 1.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 2014/0116920 A1, previously cited.
With regards to claim 15, Lee discloses a reticle storage box, comprising: a casing 108 and a door 110 together defining a storage space for storing the container of claim 7.
Lee discloses an outer pod shell and door that stores an inner pod that stores a reticle; therefore, the reticle storage box of Lee is capable of storing the container recited in claim 7, such function being considered an intended use as the language of the claim recites “for” storing the container of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection.
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 JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights