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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species 2 with Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Even though some additional searching would be necessary, the scope of analysis of novelty of all the Groups would have to be as rigorous as when only Group I were being considered by itself” also “Applicant respectfully traverses the election of species requirement on the grounds that a generic claim exists. Claims 1 is generic to all disclosed species…Because claim 1 is generic to the elected and non-elected species, Applicant submits that examination of the elected species will result in a search of the subject matter of the generic claim”. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the previous office action (Requirement for Restriction Election/Election) the product (the wafer container) as claimed can be used in a materially different process such as, the container can be used to store other articles with a similar shape as a wafer, such as, compact disks or thin plates, and not specifically a wafer cassette, as required in the method claims of Group II. Also, the species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their recognized divergent subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/18/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “322” has been used to designate both dome contact retainer and second, on page 9 para. 0050 of the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 116. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama US 7,073,999 B2 in view of Wang et al. US 8,833,806 B2.
With regards to claim 1, Oyama discloses a wafer container, comprising: a dome 16 defining a space configured to accommodate a wafer cassette, the dome including an inner surface and a door opening 14; and a door 20 configured to be received in the door opening, a latching mechanism 52/54/56 (Col 7:39-50), wherein the latching mechanism includes a dome contact 52C/54C/56C and a cassette contact 52A/54A/56A, and the latching mechanism is configured such that when the inner surface of the dome is in contact with the dome contact, the cassette contact is driven to contact the wafer cassette (for example as shown in Fig. 5), and when the inner surface of the dome does not contact the dome contact, the latch does not overlap with the wafer cassette (for instance when the plate holding the dome contact is removed from the wafer container), depending on the wafer cassette to be held.
Oyama discloses the latch mechanism but it does not specifically disclose the door includes the latch mechanism.
However, Wang teaches that it was known in the art to have a wafer container having a dome 2 with an opening and a door 3 including a latch mechanism 500.
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 latching mechanism in Oyama by providing the latching mechanism in the door as taught by Wang since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to claim 2, Oyama discloses the dome contact but it does not specifically disclose it is a roller element.
However, Wang teaches it was known in the art to have a latch mechanism dome contact 900 be a roller element. (Fig. 20 and Col 12:25-41)
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 dome contact in Oyama by providing roller element as taught by Wang since doing so would provide an alternative connection configuration between the container and the latch mechanism.
With regards to claim 3, Oyama does not specifically disclose the roller element includes a core made of a first material and an outer portion made of a second material, the second material relatively softer than the first material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the roller element include a core made of a first material and an outer portion made of a second material, the second material relatively softer than the first material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP 2144.07 Please note that in the instant application, page 7, lines 3-6, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
With regards to claim 4, Oyama discloses the cassette contact 52A/54A/56A is configured to contact the wafer cassette at a horizontal bar included in the wafer cassette.
With regards to claim 5, Oyama discloses the latching mechanism includes: a base; a latching arm 52B/54B/56B, wherein the dome contact 52C/54C/56C is disposed at a first end of the latching arm and the cassette contact 52A/54A/56A is disposed at a second end of the latching arm; and a plurality of links (screws; 60), each link rotatably connected to each of the base and the latching arm.
With regards to claim 6, The combination Oyama and Wang discloses the base (Oyama) is joined to the door (Wang).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama US 7,073,999 B2 in view of Wang et al. US 8,833,806 B2 and further in view of Burns et al. US 7,100,772 B2.
With regards to claim 7, Oyama discloses the claimed invention (latching mechanism) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose a biasing spring configured to contact the latching arm.
However, Burns (Fig. 6-7) teaches it was known in the art to have a wafer cassette container with a latching mechanism 80 that includes a biasing spring 96 configured to contact the latching arm 90. (Col 4:30-35)
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 latching arm in Oyama by providing biasing arm as taught by Burns for the purposes of properly restraining and positioning the wafer cassette within the container.
Conclusion
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
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights