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 4/3/2026.
Claims 1, 3-16 and 18-20 are pending in the application. Claims 2 and 17 are cancelled.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim status for claim 11 recites “Previously Presented”, however, the claim has been amended and the Applicant has indicated in the remarks that claim 11, has been amended. Therefore, it is assumed, claim 11 should have the claim status “Currently Amended”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. US 2015/0041360 A1 in view of Gallagher et al. US 5,452,795 and further in view of PECK US 2,541,828.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
389
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 1, Watson discloses a shell 20 defining therein a wafer storage space; and at least one installation structure (Fig. 10-12) attached to an inner wall of the shell and configured to clamp at least one gas diffuser tube, allowing the at least one gas diffuser tube to be disposed outside an operating range of a front end of a robotic arm wherein the installation structure comprises a first clamping arm (335/336 in drawing), a second clamping arm (335/336 in drawing) and an abutting portion (shown above; abutting the back of the tube), the first and second clamping arms clamping the gas diffuser tube, and the abutting portion abutting against the gas diffuser tube. (Para. 0041)
Watson discloses, in Para. 0041 that the installation structure is attached to the wall of the container with the use of the tabs 322 that are a part of the installation structure but it does not specifically disclose the at least one installation structure is integrally formed with the inner wall of the shell.
However, Gallagher teaches that it was known in the art to have a shell 10 with a wafer storage space have at least one installation structure 36/38 that may be integrally formed with an inner wall of the shell. (Col 7:1-6 and Fig. 7)
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 installation structure in Watson by having the installation structure integrally formed with the inner wall of the shell as taught by Gallagher since it has been held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in Gallagher would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. - MPEP2144.04-V-B
Watson discloses an abutting portion with a contacting portion (inner side of the structure) but it does not specifically disclose the contact surface of the abutting portion is convex.
However, PECK teaches that it was known in the art to have an abutting portion have a contact surface be convex. (Shown and described in the embodiment of Fig. 3 with 16 and 18, Col 2:42-42-46 and the Embodiment of Fig. 7 with 23 and 18, Col 3:36-42)
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 abutting portion in Watson by having the contact surface be convex as taught by PECK for the purposes of creating a better hold to the tube.
With regards to claim 3, Watson discloses the first clamping arm or the second clamping arm (335/336 in drawing) is resilient. (Para. 0041)
With regards to claim 9, Watson discloses the at least one installation structure (Fig. 10-12) is configured to clamp the gas diffuser tube having a cross section of round shape.
With regards to claim 10, Watson discloses at least one water- discharge vent (shown above; between the clamping arms to enable drainage) is defined between any two of the first clamping arm, the second clamping arm, and the abutting portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection. However, the Applicant argues Watson or Gallagher do not disclose a contact surface of the abutting portion is convex. However, as recited above, PECK has been cited to teach that it was known in the art to teach a clamping member, contact surface of the abutting portion be convex. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to do so for the purposes of creating a better hold on the tube.
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