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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US9312157) in view of Haylock et al (US8647036) (“Haylock”).
Referring to claim 1. Adams discloses a “Wafer Carrier”. See Figs. 1-10 and respective portions of the specification. Adams discloses a valve cover for use in a substate carrier having a shell (33), a base (base plate 52) disposed on a bottom of the shell (base plate 52 is mounted near the lower portion 38 of the container portion 32), which includes a bottom wall (39) (¶0051), a purge valve (230) comprising a grommet (232) received at the bottom of the shell. It should be noted that the access port housing the purge valve is integrally formed with the shell of the container portion, that is, unitary with the shell, at the lower portion of the container (¶0070), the grommet includes exterior ribs (238) to seal and friction fit within the access port (216) (¶0072), and a gas opening (port 200) provided on the base (¶0069). Adams further discloses a cover structure disposed at the base opening that cooperates with the base and shell at the location where the purge valve is seated (a twist lock connector (58) disposed at the access port (216), which cooperates with the base plate and shell to capture and retain components at the access port opening (¶¶0067, 0071-0072, 0075). Likewise, Adams discloses the purge valve is secured at the access port solely by friction fit of the grommet’s exterior ribs (¶0072). Adams does not disclose a plurality of elastic arms disposed on a main body of the valve cover, the elastic arms being used for fixing the purge valve between the bottom of the shell and the base, nor wherein a top face of the valve cover is lower than a surface height of the base and a surface height of the purge valve, or wherein the valve cover remains static relative to the substrate carrier when in contact with the purge valve. Haylock discloses a “Retainer Ring”. See Figs. 1-13 and respective portions of the specification. It should be noted Haylock is directed to a captive panel fasteners and is therefore in a different field of endeavor than Applicant’s substrate carrier art. As should be noted, a reference need to be within the applicant’s field of endeavor to be properly relied upon, however, it is sufficient that the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Haylock as will be detailed below addresses the problem of retaining a structure with elastic arms. Haylock discloses a retainer ring (20) comprising a main body (outer ring 76) and a plurality of elastic arms (spring beam elements (82), each including elongated arms (84) having a first end (86) attached integrally to the interior surface (80) of the outer ring (76) disposed on the main body (¶0023). Likewise, the retainer ring is adapted to be installed at an opening (¶0028). The elastic arms expand and spring back to engage a limiting feature (groove 40) (Haylock (¶0030-0031). Haylock further discloses a first annular portion (42) inhibits the bolt (12) from being displaced from the grommet assembly (14) (¶0031) and the retainer ring holds or fixes the bolt (12) which it accommodates, restricting the components axial movement relative to the surrounding structure (¶0034). Furthermore, Haylock discloses that the grommet assembly (14) will hold the bolt (12) stationary in any axial position until an external force is applied by a user, and that the ability of the grommet assembly (14) to hold the bolt (12) stationary (¶0033). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the elastic arm structure of Haylock into the access-port environment of Adams a discrete component disposed at the access port to retain the purge valve, separate and independent from the twist lock connector function of securing the base plate to the shell, such that the elastic arms fix the purge valve between the base plate and the shell, as this would supply a positive mechanical interlock against movement/decaptivation, so that purge valve’s retention no longer solely depended on the friction fit of Adams remaining intact, thereby preventing the valve from working loose or becoming dislodged over repeated purge-valve docking cycles or vibration during transport and preventing loss of the hermetic seal. It should further be noted that selecting the top face of the cover to be recessed relative to the adjacent base and purge valve constitutes a routine dimensional and positional design choice, which would be made by someone of ordinary sill in the art to provide clearance and avoid interference with adjacent equipment, recessing the cover below the adjacent surfaces eliminates that possible interference.
Referring to claim 2. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Adams doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the top face of the valve is lower than the surface height of the base or the surface height of the purge valve by more than 1mm. It is generally understood that the recess depth between the valve cover’s top face and the adjacent base/purge valve surfaces is a result effective variable directly affecting the clearance available for docking an external purge nozzle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams wherein the top face of the valve cover is lower than the surface height of the base or the surface height of the purge valve by more than 1mm, so that a reasonable margin of was provided that provided a reliable tolerance so that the there wasn’t any valve/nozzle interference problems with incidental contact that could misalign the components.
Referring to claim 3. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Adams doesn’t disclose wherein each of the elastic arms has an elastic angle in relation to the main body, and the elastic from 0 to 90 degrees. Haylock discloses elastic arms that can be configured in varying shapes and orientations relative to the main body (¶0023). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the elastic arms of the combination at the angle within the range of 0 to 90 degrees relative to the main body, so that a configuration that provides retention forces adequate to resist dislodgment of the purge valve while keeping insertion and removal force low enough to avoid damaging the arms or the valve during routine processing or replacement.
Referring to claim 4. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Adams doesn’t disclose wherein the main body of the valve cover is a ring, one side of each elastic arm is connected to an outer side of the ring for abutting against the purge valve, and the other side of each elastic arm extends toward the gas opening for contacting a lateral side of the base, so that each elastic arm is partly situated on the base, thereby having the elastic arms detachably connect to the gas opening. Haylock discloses that the main body of the retainer ring is a ring (outer ring 76)(¶0023). Furthermore, Haylock discloses a retainer ring (520) having cantilevered arms (584) wherein a first end (586) of each arm includes an engagement member (594) for engaging a groove of the retained component, and a second end (588) extends to engage a slot (611) formed in a housing wall (¶¶0038-0039, Figs. 10a-10b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the main body of the combination as a ring, with one side of each elastic arm connected to an outer side of the ring for abutting against the purge valve and the other side extending toward the gas opening for contacting a lateral side of the base, so that each elastic arm is partly situated on the base and detachably connects to the gas opening, which would be beneficial because it would allow a technician to remove and replace the valve cover for maintenance while ensuring it’s in a correctly aligned position.
Referring to claim 5. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 4. Adams doesn’t disclose wherein each elastic arm is provided with a hook portion and the purge valve is provided with a limiting portion, and the hook portion faces the gas opening and engages with the lateral side of the base, and a location where the elastic arms connect to the outer side of the ring is used for abutting against the limiting portion. Haylock discloses that each elastic arm (584) is provided with a hook portion (589) at its second end, and that each of the hook members (589) engage a corresponding one of the slots (611) of the housing 522 (¶¶0038-0039). Its broadly construed and generally understood that the hook portion faces and engages a lateral wall structure analogous to the claimed base. Haylock further discloses that the opposite end of each arm, where it connects to the ring, includes an engagement member that engages and resides within the annular groove (40) of the retained component (¶0039). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each elastic arm with a hook portion facing the gas opening and engaging the lateral side of the base, and to use the location where the arms connect to the ring for abutting against a limiting portion of the purge valve, as this would provide an interlock along the direction that the cover would otherwise be pulled off from, thus preventing the cover and valve assembly from separating during routing processing, vibration or forces from docking and undocking.
Referring to claim 6. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 5. Adams doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the base is provided with a recession recessed from an edge of the gas opening, the hook portion is engaged with the base through the recession, and an engagement region where the hook portion overlaps with the base is from 0.8mm to 1.5mm. Haylock discloses a hook and slot engagement that requires a recessed region in the surrounding wall to receive the hook member (¶0038). Its broadly known that a deeper engagement increases the forces needed to pull the hook back out of the recess, thus making the joint more resistant to being knocked loose by incidental contact, but if made too deep can require excessive force to release the hook for valve replacement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the base with a recession recessed from an edge of the gas opening to receive the hook portion, and to select an overlap/engagement depth within the range of 0.8mm to 1.5mm, in order to obtain resistance strong enough to prevent inadvertent disengagement while also keeping the hook releasable for servicing without requiring excessive force.
Referring to claim 7. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Adams doesn’t disclose wherein the ring has a width sufficient for abutting against the limiting portion of the purge valve, and the width is defined by an inner diameter of the ring which is from 25mm to 26.5mm and an outer diameter of the ring which is 25.1 mm to 28.5mm. Haylock discloses that the rings dimensions are selected according to the size of the component retained and that the retainer ring (20) has a radial displacement which contracts in its free state to a diameter equivalent to the threaded portion (36) of bolt (12) (¶0034). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the ring with an inner diameter of 25mm to 26.5mm and an outer diameter of 25.1mm to 28.5mm, as this would ensure reliable abutment across normal tolerance while also being sized to fit within the available space at the access opening without protruding and obstructing, the external purge nozzle to dock against the valve.
Referring to claim 8. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Adams doesn’t disclose wherein the main body of the valve cover is provided with a covering portion which is located below the elastic arms and away from the gas opening, and the covering portion is used for covering a portion of the purge valve. Haylock discloses a separate cover element attached ot the housing that encloses a retention assembly (retainer ring 52, housing 522 and cover 523) (¶0038). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main valve cover to extend into a covering portion located below the elastic arms and away from the gas opening, so as to partially overlie and shield a portion of the purge valve, as this covering would prevent from having an unshielded valve that was exposed to incidental contact which could scratch and damage the sealing components or knock it out of alignment.
Referring to claim 9. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. Adams doesn’t disclose wherein one side of each elastic arm is configured by extending from the base toward the gas opening and the other side of each elastic arm connects the main body of the valve cover, and the main body is used for abutting against the purge valve. Haylock discloses that each of the elastic arms first end is attached to the ring (main body) and its free second end engages the surrounding housing (¶0023). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the points of attachment of the elastic arms such that one side of each arm extends from the base toward the gas opening and the other side connects to the main body, with the main body abutting against the purge valve, as this would reduce stress and wear at the contact point.
Referring to claim 10. Adams in view of Haylock discloses the combination as set forth above as applied to claim 1. See Claim rejection 1. Adams discloses a purge valve retained at the access port solely by the friction fit of the grommet’s exterior ribs against the port wall (¶0072), while Haylock discloses a means of addressing this problem of retaining the purge valve through the use of a bolt, screw, or the like onot the a structure (¶0093) and discloses resilient elastic arms that flex to permit insertion of a component and then engage a limiting feature of that component such that a first annular portion inhibits a bolt form being decaptivated (¶0031). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the elastic arms retainer structure of Haylock into the access port of Adams as a discrete component disposed at the access port (216) to retain the purge valve (230), separate from and independently of the twist lock connector function of securing the base plate to the shell, such that the elastic arms fix the purge valve between the base plate and the shell as this would supply a positive mechanical interlock against movement/decaptivation, so that purge valve’s retention no longer solely depended on the friction fit of Adams remaining intact, thereby preventing the valve from working loose or becoming dislodged over repeated purge-valve docking cycles or vibration during transport and preventing loss of the hermetic seal. It should further be noted that selecting the top face of the cover to be recessed relative to the adjacent base and purge valve constitutes a routine dimensional and positional design choice, which would be made by someone of ordinary sill in the art to provide clearance and avoid interference with adjacent equipment, recessing the cover below the adjacent surfaces eliminates that possible interference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL HOWARD MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-5929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/TERRELL H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights