FINAL REJECTION
Applicants’ arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons as detailed below.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams (US9312157) in view of Py (US20070095857).
Referring to claim 1. Adams discloses a “Wafer Carrier”. See Figs. 1-10 and respective portions of the specification. Adams further discloses a valve cover for use in a substrate carrier having a shell and a base disposed on a bottom of the shell (See Fig.1C-3), a purge valve being received at the bottom and a gas opening being provided on the base, the valve cover (58) comprising: a main body of valve cover disposed on the base (52). Likewise, Adams discloses wherein the base includes openings configured to receive a valve assembly for gas flow or access purposes and a valve component received at the bottom of the carrier and positioned within an opening of the base (See at least Col. 4-6 & at least Figs. 1-3, 7-8). Further, Adams discloses a cover structure disposed at the base opening and cooperating with the base and shell to retain the valve in position (See at least Col. 6-7 & at least Figs. 7-8) (See Sect. 0067, 0071). Adams doesn’t disclose a plurality of elastic arms disposed on the main body, the elastic arms being use for fixing the purge valve between the bottom of the shell and the base or 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. Py discloses a “Container and One-Way Valve Assembly and Related Method”. See Figs. 1-20 and respective portions of the specification. Py discloses a one-way valve assembling including a valve cover (96) formed from elastic material having a cover base (28) mounted on a body base(46), wherein the valve assembly further comprises a plurality of elastic (spring) arms extending therefrom, wherein the elastic arms are disposed at an opening, elastically deform during insertion, and engage surrounding structure to retain a valve within the opening and wherein the elastic arms elastically deform during insertion and engage surrounding structure to retain the valve within the opening, fixing and retaining the valve cover in position (See at least Sects. 0045, 0054, 0058 & at least Figs. 6-9, 16-18). Hence, Py teaches that the elastic arms snap-fit and engage the valve and adjacent structure to fix and retain the valve in position within the opening. 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 retainer structure of Py into the valve-opening environment of Adams, therein the elastic arms fix the purge valve between the base and the shell, wherein likewise once the elastic-arm valve cover of Py is applied to the substrate carrier of Adams, selecting the top face of the cover to be recessed or lower than the adjacent surfaces constitutes a routine dimensional and positional design chose made to provide clearance and avoid interference with adjacent components.
Referring to claim 2. Adams as discussed above with respect to claim 1, teaches a valve cover associated with a base opening of a substrate carrier, and Py teaches a valve retainer having elastic arms extending from a main body for snap-fit retention. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that once the elastic-arm valve cover of Py is incorporated into the carrier environment of Adams to select the top face of the valve cover to be lower than the base and purge valve by a predetermined amount of at least 1mm constitutes a routine dimensional optimization to provide clearance and avoid interference with adjacent components.
Referring to claim 3. Adams in view of Py disclose the combination as described above. As, discussed Adams discloses a valve cover/retainer associated with a base opening of a substrate carrier and Py discloses a valve retainer having a main body with a plurality of elastic arms extending therefrom for snap-fit retention. Py further discloses that elastic arms extend from the main body at inclined angles and are configured to elastically deform during insertion (See at least Sects. 0038-0058 & Figs. 6-9). Py shows arms that extend from the main body at angles that fall within a broad angular range relative to the main body, including orientations that are parallel, inclined and substantially perpendicular to the main body. 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 elastic arms with an angle within the range of 0 to 90 degrees to acquire adequate retention force, desired insertion force and available space.
Referring to claim 4. Adams in view of Py disclose the combination as described above. As, discussed Adams discloses a valve cover/retainer associated with a base opening of a substrate carrier and Py discloses a valve retainer having an annular or ring-like main body surrounding an opening from which plural elastic arms extend (See at least Figs. 6-9). Py additionally, discloses that each elastic arm is configured such that one portion engages or abuts the valve body, while another portion extends toward and engages the surrounding opening or housing wall, thereby detachably retaining the valve within the opening through snap-fit engagement (See at least Sects. 0038-0058). 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 and configure the valve cover of the main body as a ring and arrange the elastic arms to engage both the valve and the lateral side of the base opening, as this configuration would allow for snap-fit retention that would retain the purge valve within the opening.
Referring to claim 5. Adams in view of Py disclose the combination as described. Py discloses elastic arms having hooked or barb-like engagement portions (See Figs. 6-9) that snap-fit into engagement with adjacent structure to retain a valve within an opening. 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 valve cover of Adams to include elastic arms with hook portions as taught by Py in order to provide a secure and cost-efficient way to retain the valve within the opening.
Referring to claim 6. Adams in view of Py disclose the combination as described above in detail. Adams discloses a substrate carrier base having a gas opening configured to receive a valve and valve retention structure, while Py discloses elastic arms having terminal engagement portions and snap behind a surrounding wall or edge of an opening, to thereby retain a valve, such engagement inherently requires a recessed region, groove, or undercut relative to the opening edge to receive the engagement portion. 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 a recess adjacent the opening edge in the base of Adams to receive the terminal engagement portions of Py and further selecting an overlap/engagement depth within the range of 0.8mm to 1.5mm, to help provide increased and balanced retention force while accommodating quick removal.
Referring to claim 7. Adams in view of Py disclose the combination as described above. As, discussed Adams discloses a valve cover/retainer associated with a base opening of a substrate carrier and Py discloses a valve retainer having an annular or ring-like main body surrounding an opening from which plural elastic arms extend (See at least Figs. 6-9). Adams doesn’t disclose wherein the valve cover is a range with a width defined by an inner diameter from 25mm to 26.5mm and an outer diameter of 25.1mm to 28.5mm. 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 ring-like main body of Py, into Adams as discussed above (See Claim 4). Likewise, selecting the inner and outer diameters (25mm to 26.5mm and 25.1mm to 28.5mm) of the ring to ensure abutment with the purge valve and compatibility with the opening would constitute routine dimensional design based on the size of the valve being retained. It should be noted that claimed diameter ranges merely reflect routing scaling and fitting of an annular retainer to a known valve, which is a result-effective variable that would have been chosen to achieve proper abutment and clearance.
Referring to claim 8. Adams in view of Py disclose the combination as described above. As, discussed Adams discloses a valve cover/retainer associated with a purge valve and Py discloses a valve retainer having a annular main body from which a plurality of elastic arms extend. Adams doesn’t discloses a valve cover is provided with a covering portion which is located below the elastic arms and away from the gas opening, wherein the covering portion is used for covering a portion of the purge valve. 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 valve cover of Adams so that the main body was extended to form a covering portion that partially overlies or shields the purge valve to protect the valve from external contact, improve stability of the valve by limiting lateral movement and avoid interference with the gas flow/opening. It should further be noted that it is common for retainers to serve dual purposes for retention and shielding.
Referring to claim 9. Adams in view of Py disclose the combination as described above. As, discussed Adams discloses a valve cover/retainer associated with a purge valve and further teaches that the valve cover is positioned such that it’s body abuts or contacts the purge valve within the carrier. Py discloses a valve retainer having a main body from which a plurality of elastic arms extend. 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 retainer of Py, into Adams, such that the elastic arms would extend between the base region and the opening, while the main body contacts and abuts the valve, so that it provided a structural arrangement that would allow the retainer/cover to be snap-fit so that movement was limited and retention force was increased.
Referring to claim 10. Adams discloses a substrate carrier, comprising: a shell having a bottom for receiving a purge valve; a base plate (52) disposed on the bottom of the shell, a gas opening being provided on the base for receiving a portion of the purge valve; a valve cover (58) (See at least Cols 4-7 & at least Figs. 1-3). Adams further discloses that the valve is received at the bottom of the shell and seated within the base opening, and that the valve is arranged in a flush or recessed configuration relative to the base surface (See at least Figs. 2-3). Adams doesn’t disclose explicitly wherein the surface height of the purge valve is lower than or equal to a surface height of the base and wherein the valve cover is disposed between the bottom of the shell and the base for fixing the purge valve from falling out of the gas opening. Py discloses a valve cover/retainer having a main body and a plurality of elastic arms that deform during insertion and snap-fit behind a surrounding structure to detachably retain a valve in an opening (See at least Sects. 0038-0058). 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 retainer of Py, into Adams and to dispose the valve cover between the bottom of the shell and the base, would allow for the structure to be configured such that the purge valve was securely retained and prevented from falling out of the gas opening and retained in a way that allowed for quick removal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Examiner misidentified Adams' kinematic coupling grooves component 56 as a member that covers or fixes a purge valve, and that component 56 is instead designed solely to interface with fitting projections for positioning and provides no valve-covering or valve-securing function. Applicant further argues that the twist lock connector 58 of Adams is designed to secure the base plate 52 to the container shell and is not intended to cover or secure valve components.This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges applicant's characterization of component 56 and has re-anchored the rejection. The rejection is no longer premised on component 56 as the valve cover. Instead, the rejection now r relies on Adams' disclosure of the twist lock connector 58 in combination with the access port 216 environment as teaching the cover/retainer structure disposed at the baseopening. Specifically, Adams discloses that the twist lock connector 58 is disposed at the access port 216 of the base plate 52, that the purge valve 230 (grommet 232) is received and seated within that same access port 216, and that the twist lock connector 58 cooperates with the base plate and shell to capture and retain components at the access port opening. [Adams, ¶[0067], ¶[0071], ¶[0072], ¶[0075]. Likewise, the relevant structural environment; a cover/retainer structure disposed at the base opening, cooperating with the base and shell, at the location where the purge valve is seated — is taught by Adams at the access port 216 / twist lock connector 58 interface, not bycomponent 56. Applicant's argument, while correctly distinguishing component 56, does not overcome the rejection as now presented because it does not address the access port 216 environment where the purge valve 230 is received and the twist lock connector 58 is operative. Second, the inoperability argument misapprehends the nature of the proposed combination. The Examiner does not propose grafting Py's elastic arm structure onto the twist lock connector 58 itself in a manner that would interfere with its rotational locking function. Rather, the proposed combination incorporates Py's elastic-arm valve cover 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's function of securing the base plate 52 to the shell. These are structurally and functionally distinct operations occurring at the same access port location, and one does not preclude the other. The elastic arm valve cover retains the purge valve within the opening; the twist lock connector secures the base plate to the shell. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand thatboth functions can coexist at the access port 216 without conflict. Under KSR, a combination that yields predictable results from known elements performing their known functions is not rendered improper merely because the elements operate in proximity to one another. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).Lastly, Applicant argues that the limitation requiring the top face of the valve cover to be lower than a surface height of the base and a surface height of the purge valve is a functional structural feature that solves a specific docking interference problem, specifically, ensuring that the valve cover does not interfere with an external purge nozzle when it docks with the purge valve and is therefore not a mere design choice. Applicant further argues that Adams teaches away from such a modification because lowering the top surface of the twist lock connector 58 would impede the twist-lock operation.
This argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, the teaches away contention is inapposite to the rejection as now presented. The Examiner is not proposing to lower the top surface of Adams' twist lock connector 58. The height limitation applies to the elastic arm valve cover derived from Py, which is a separate component from the twist lock connector. Accordingly, Adams does not teach away from the proposedheight relationship.
With respect to the functional significance of the height limitation: the Examiner does not dispute that the recessed top face provides a clearance benefit during purge nozzle docking. However, the existence of a functional benefit does not establish patentability where that benefit and the means of achieving it would have been obvious to aperson of ordinary skill in the art. Once the elastic-arm valve cover of Py is incorporated into the access port environment of Adams as proposed, the top face height of that valve cover relative to the adjacent base surface and purge valve surface is a result-effective variable, a dimension that directly and predictably affects the amount of clearance available for docking operations. Selecting a recessed profile to ensure that the valve cover does not protrude above adjacent surfaces and thereby avoids interference with equipment that must access the purge valve is precisely the type of routine dimensional optimization that a person of ordinary skill in the art would undertake without inventive effort. See MPEP § 2144.05 (optimization of result-effective variables). The fact that the chosen dimension solves an interference problem does not elevate it to patentable subject matter where the problem, the solution, and therelationship between the dimension and the result would all have been apparent to the skilled artisan. It should further be noted that “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges."
Conclusion
Accordingly, 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 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