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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed June 5, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim 1 Claim Objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 6, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s claim 1 arguments about the teachings of Ku et al., US 9064917 B2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of broadly claimed apparatus engagement without accompanying detailed structure allows for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations in question.
Applicant’s first and second issue arguments are focused on the nature of the engagement between Ku’s limiting structure and lock structure. Applicant’s arguments have highlighted a more basic argument regarding the definition and use of the word “connected” as used on line 8. Applicant claims their limiting structure 240 only contacts and presses down on their locking structure 240, as depicted in Fig 9 on Arguments page 9 of 11, while their argued Ku limiting structure 13 engagement with lock structure 211, as depicted on Arguments page 8 of 11, qualifies as connected resulting from their asserted intertwining of components.
The Arguments page 9 of 11 characterization of the instant invention engagement in instant figure 9 as contacting and pressing but not connecting contradicts the instant figure 12 engagement as discussed in instant specification [0051] where the engagement is described as “The limiting structure 240 has the elastic leg 241, and the elastic leg 241 connects to the top side of the lock structure 230…”. Instant specification paragraph [0037] further discusses the broadness of the term "coupled" by stating the phrases "directly connected" and "indirectly connected" can be used to enable claimed subject matter, an acknowledgement of the broadness of the term connected. It’s the position of the Examiner that these two narrowing phrases are still inadequate to limit the argued claim recitation of “without being connected”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the proposed Ku engagement between limiting structure and locking structure as depicted in Ku, Reproduced Fig 7, on Arguments page 8 of 11. It is the position of the Examiner that Ku second part 132 of elastic part 13 is placed with the convex structure pointing downward into the orifice of connecting member 1215 where the bottom outer circumference of 132 would slide back and forth in 1215 as locking member 211 translates in operation. The Examiner acknowledges the figures of Ku do not clearly depict the limiting structure to locking structure engagement but believes the following Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Ku (Response to Arguments), depicts 132 of 13 assembled by placing 132 into 1215 from above and not being intertwined as depicted on Arguments pages 7 and 8 of 11. Limiting structure 13 is not shown dipping down into the argued and depicted cutout. The Examiner believes Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Ku (Response to Arguments) further depicts the upward facing tip of 132 showing in the left side of 1215. Regardless of the engagement between Ku’s limiting structure and lock structure, the nature of the connection needs to be clearly defined in the claim language.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Ku (Response to Arguments)
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Starting with claim 1, line 8, “the lock structure” is recited. On line 4 of claim 1, “a plurality of lock structures” is recited. It is US custom to maintain a consistent naming convention for claim limitations. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will examine the claims as written with the interpretation of the limitation as “one of the plurality of lock structures”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Ku et al., US 9064917 B2 (hereinafter Ku).
Regarding claim 1, Ku teaches a door (receiving body 111; seal plate 112) having a stabilization mechanism for a lock (Fig 6 depicts 111 having a stabilization mechanism for a lock), the door is suitable for a substrate carrier (container 1), the door comprising:
a bottom plate (111) and a cover (112), the bottom plate and the cover defining an accommodating space (col 3, lines 5-28 discusses the space to be formed by inner surface 1111 and side wall 1112; this space would be enclosed by 112) for accommodating a plurality of lock structures (fasteners 121; driver 122; Fig 5), each lock structure configured to move between an unlocked position and a locked position (col 3, lines 5-28 discusses the locked position to be fixing part 1212 of 121 engaged with fastening part 102 of 10; Fig 1; the unlocking position is when 1212 of 121 is not engaged with 102); and
a limiting structure (elastic part 13) disposed between the lock structure and the cover (Fig 6 depicts 13 disposed between 121;122 and where 112 would be mounted on 111), and the limiting structure having a distal end (Fig 7 depicts the distal end to be the right end of 13 associated with the reference character 132 which terminates in a downward projecting convex projection) configured to press against the lock structure (col 6, lines 11-18) without being connected to the lock structure (13 is not connected to 121 in the same manner as the instant invention) and to provide an elastic force corresponding to the displacement of the lock structure between the unlocked position and the locked position (col 6, lines 19-28), such that the lock structure is maintained to move at a horizontal level under the elastic force (col 6, lines 19-28).
Regarding claim 2, Ku teaches the door of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of supporting posts (connecting parts 1119) disposed between the bottom plate and the cover (Fig 6 depicts 1119 disposed such that it would be between 111 and 112), wherein the limiting structure comprises: a fixing portion (first part 131) socked to one of the supporting posts (Fig 6 depicts and col 6, lines 11-18 discusses 131 engaged with 1119); and an elastic leg (second part 132) extending from the fixing portion and touching against the lock structures (Figs 6;7 depict and col 6, lines 11-18 discusses 132 extending from 131 and touching 121).
Regarding claim 3, Ku teaches the door of claim 1, wherein the limiting structure (13) is connected to an inner wall of the cover (112; Fig 6 depicts 13 connected to 111 so would be indirectly connected to 112 when 112 is mounted on 111) and has a fixing portion (first part 131) and an elastic leg (second part 132), two ends of the fixing portion are connected to the inner wall of the cover and the elastic leg (Figs 6;7 depict one end of 131 connected to 1117 of 111 which would be indirectly connected to 112 when 112 is mounted on 111 and the other end of 131 connected to 132), respectively, and the elastic leg extends from one end of the fixing portion and touches against the lock structures (Fig 6 depicts 132 touching 121).
Regarding claim 5, Ku teaches the door of claim 2, wherein an end portion (Fig 7 depicts the end portion to be the right end of 132) of the elastic leg (132) has a bent portion (Fig 7 depicts the bent portion to be the semi-circular portion of 132), and a bottom of the bent portion touches against the lock structures (Fig 6 depicts and col 6, lines 11-18 discuss 132 engaged with 121).
Regarding claim 6, Ku teaches the door of claim 3, wherein an end portion (Fig 7 depicts the end portion to be the right end of 132) of the elastic leg (132) has a bent portion (Fig 7 depicts the bent portion to be the semi-circular portion of 132), and a bottom of the bent portion touches against the lock structures (Fig 6 depicts and col 6, lines 11-18 discuss 132 engaged with 121).
Regarding claim 8, Ku teaches the door of claim 5, wherein an end portion of the bent portion (Fig 7 depicts the bent portion to be the semi-circular portion of 132) has an upwardly bent portion positioned distal to the fixing portion (131; Fig 7 depicts the far right end portion of the bent portion to be bent upward and positioned distal to 131).
Regarding claim 10, Ku teaches the door of claim 2, wherein a width of an end portion (Fig 7 depicts the end portion to be the far right portion of 132) of the elastic leg (132) is less than a width of an end portion (1212) of the lock structure (121; Fig 6 depicts the end portion of 132 to be less than the width of 1212) .
Regarding claim 12, Ku teaches the door of claim 1, wherein the limiting structure (13) extends from the cover (Fig 6 depicts 13 curving downwards from its mounting in 1119 and stretching forth away from the cover thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1 of extend and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term) toward a locking hole (insertion hole 1110; Fig 6 depicts 13 angled towards ) defined on a lateral side (side wall 1112) of the door (111; 112; Fig 6 depicts 31 extending from 111 towards 1110).
Regarding claim 13, Ku teaches the door of claim 1, wherein each of the lock structures (121) has a plurality of stopping portions (positioning hole 1214), and the bottom plate (111) configures a plurality of supporting posts (stopping parts 1117), each of the supporting posts are respectively engaging with each of the stopping portions for limiting position (Fig 6 depicts 1117 engaged with 1214), the supporting posts limiting a linear displacement of the stopping portions while the lock structures are moving (Fig 6 depicts and col 4, lines 30-52 discusses 1117 moving within 1214), thereby defining the unlocked position and the locked position (col 3, lines 5-28 discusses the locked position to be fixing part 1212 of 121 engaged with fastening part 102; Fig 1; the unlocking position is when 1212 of 121 is not engaged with 102; Fig 6 depicts the linear shape of 1214 would define how 121 moves between the positions).
Regarding claim 15, Ku teaches a substrate carrier (1; col 2, line 56-col 3, line 4), comprising: the door of claim 1 (111; 112); and an outer housing (cover 10) connected to the door by the lock structures (121) to form a receiving space for receiving a substrate (col 2, line 56-col 3, line 4).
Regarding claim 16, Ku teaches the substrate carrier of claim 15, wherein the outer housing (10) has an opening end (Fig 1 depicts the opening end to be the lower end of 10 facing 111), with a plurality of lock portions (102) disposed on an inner side of the opening end (Fig 1), the lock portions are designed to match the lock structures (col 3, lines 5-28), and the end portions (1212) of the lock structures correspond in position to the lock portions (col 3, lines 5-28), thereby presenting the unlocked position or the locked position according to displacement status of the lock structures (col 3, lines 5-28 discusses the locked position to be fixing part 1212 of 121 engaged with fastening part 102 of 10; Fig 1; the unlocking position is when 1212 of 121 is not engaged with 102).
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku, US 9064917 B2.
Regarding claim 4, Ku teaches the door of claim 1, wherein the cover (112) has a plurality of through holes (1119), and the limiting structure has an elastic leg (131), the elastic leg is connected to inner wall of the through hole and touching against the lock structure (Fig 6 depicts 131 of 13 inserted into 1119 and engaged with 121; In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955), the court held mere reversal of parts to be an obvious modification; Ku teaches 1119 to be part of 111 so it would be an obvious modification to relocate the throughhole of 1119 to 112; one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reverse the mounting in order to improve the moldability of a door component by more evenly distributing structure between door components).
Regarding claim 7, Ku teaches the door of claim 4, wherein an end portion (Fig 7 depicts the end portion to be the far right portion of 13) of the elastic leg (131) has a bent portion (Fig 7 depicts the end portion to be the semi-circular portion of 13), and a bottom of the bent portion touches against the lock structures (121; Fig 6 depicts the bottom of the bent portion to touch 121).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, while Hasegawa, US 20050230398 A1, teaches it is known in the art for a door of a substrate carrier to comprise a limiting structure (cam faces 19,20,21 located on cover plate 22) with continuously variable width (Fig 5 depicts 19, 20, and 21 to have continuously variable width), one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Ku as claimed in the instant invention wherein the elastic leg comprises an extension portion and the end portion (Fig 7 depicts the end portion to be the right end of 132) that extend from the fixing portion (131), the extension portion and the end portion have a continuously variable width, the width of the end portion is greater than the extension portion without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Regarding claim 11, while Lee et al., KR 101115851 B1, teaches it is known in the art for substrate carriers to have components with a plurality of bumps in contact with an inner wall of another component, one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to modify Ku in view of Lee without the use of impermissible hindsight and/or destroying the references.
Conclusion
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 STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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.
/STEVEN A TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights