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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 7/2/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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
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.
(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) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al. US 2008/0041759 A1.
With regards to claim 1, Chiu (Para. 0027-0030; Fig. 2B and 2D) discloses a wafer container, comprising: a dome 100 defining a space configured to accommodate a wafer cassette, the dome including an inner surface and a door opening (as shown in Fig. 2A); and a door 202 (shown in Fig. 2B) configured to be received in the door opening, the door including a latching mechanism 30 (shown in Fig. 2B), wherein the latching mechanism is movable between an unlatched position and a latched position, the latching mechanism includes a dome contact 305 (shown in in two different positions in Fig. 2A and 2D) and a cassette contact 304, and the latching mechanism is configured such that when the door and the dome are assembled, the latch is driven to the latched position by the inner surface of the dome contacting the dome contact and the cassette contact is driven inward into the space, and when the door and the dome are not assembled, the inner surface of the dome does not contact the dome contact and the latch is retracted from the space.
With regards to claim 2, Chiu (Para. 0027-0030; Fig. 2B and 2D) discloses the dome contact 305 is a roller element.
With regards to claim 4, Chiu (Para. 0027-0030; Fig. 2B and 2D) discloses the cassette contact 304 is configured to contact the wafer cassette at a horizontal bar included in the wafer cassette. (shown in Fig. 2B)
PNG
media_image1.png
471
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
487
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 5, Chiu (Para. 0027-0030; Fig. 2B and 2D) discloses the latching mechanism 30 includes: a base 301; a latching arm 302, wherein the dome contact 305 is disposed at a first end of the latching arm and the cassette contact 304 is disposed at a second end of the latching arm; and a plurality of links 306, each link rotatably connected to each of the base and the latching arm.
With regards to claim 6, Chiu (Para. 0028; Fig. 2B) discloses the base is joined to the door.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. US 2008/0041759 A1.
With regards to claim 3, Chiu 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. US 2008/0041759 A1 in view of Tieben et al US 10,784,135,135 B2.
With regards to claim 7, Chiu 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, Tieben (Fig. 4-7) teaches it was known in the art to have a wafer
cassette container with a latching mechanism 30/50 that includes a biasing spring 40/40a configured to contact the latching arm (shown in Fig. 5). (Col 9:16-41)
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 latching arm in Chiu by providing biasing spring as taught by Tieben for the purposes of properly restraining and positioning the wafer cassette within the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights