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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/19/2026, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 102(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Okabe (U.S. Patent No. 20070151619) in view of Shiraishi et al (JP 2004214552).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (U.S. Patent No. 20070151619) in view of Shiraishi et al (JP 2004214552) and Ogawa et al (U.S. Patent No. 10312122).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe teaches a gas curtain device for a front opening unified pod (Abstract), comprising:
a casing (12) disposed externally to said front opening unified pod (2) in proximity to a front opening (2b) and in alignment with an upper portion of the front opening (2b) of the front opening unified pod (2), said casing (12) being configured with at least one gas inlet and a gas outlet (12b) (Paragraph 0049, lines 5-8, 13-16; Paragraph 0050, lines 1-4; Fig. 2, elements 2b, 12, 12b; annotated figure);
A multi-staged gas flow regulating system disposed in an interior space of said casing (12) and configured for multi-staged changing of a trajectory and a cross-section of a gas flow passing through the casing (12) of the gas curtain device from said at least one gas inlet to said gas outlet (12b), wherein the gas flow is ejected from the casing (12) through the gas outlet (12b) in a substantially downward direction from the upper portion of the front opening (2b) of the front opening unified pod (2), thus forming a gas curtain adjacent (14) to and covering the front opening (2b) of the front opening unified pod (2) to prevent entrance of external matters into an internal chamber of the front opening unified pod (2) through said front opening (2b) thereof (Paragraph 0050, lines 7-10; Paragraph 0052, lines 1-7; Fig. 2, elements 2b, 14),
said multi-staged gas flow regulating system defining, within said interior space of the casing, a transverse gas space (13), a curved gas space communicating with the transverse gas space (13), and a vertical gas space communicating with the curved gas space according to a cross section of the casing (12) (annotated figure),
Said at least one gas inlet communicating with the transverse gas space (13) and said gas outlet (12b) communicating with the vertical gas space, wherein said transverse gas space (13), said curved gas space, and said vertical gas space are disposed in sequence along the path of the gas flow inside said casing (12) (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
548
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okabe does not teach gas guide plates. Shiraishi et al teaches a purge gas device with at least one first gas guide plate (27) and a second gas guide plate (28), said at least one first gas guide plate (27) and said second gas guide plate (28) being positioned at different stages of said multi-staged gas flow regulating system (Page 11, paragraph 7; Fig. 2B, elements 27, 28),
Said at least one first gas guide plate (27) being disposed in the transverse gas space and/or the curved gas space in a fluid communication with said at least one gas inlet (15), the first gas guide plate (27) having a plurality of first gas guide holes (Page 11, paragraph 7; Fig. 2B, elements 15, 27), and
Said second gas guide plate (28) being disposed downstream from and in a space-apart relationship with said at least one first gas guide plate (27), said second gas guide plate (28) being positioned adjacent to said gas outlet (17) at one end of the vertical gas space, the second gas guide plate (28) having a plurality of second gas guide holes (Page 11, paragraph 7; Fig. 2B, elements 17, 27, 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Shiraishi et al in Okabe to facilitate the creation of guide plates that can uniformly distribute purge gas as taught by Shiraishi et al (Page 11, paragraph 7).
Okabe as modified by Shiraishi et al does not teach gas guide holes. Ogawa et al teaches a gas curtain device wherein the number of the second gas guide holes (55) is greater than the number of the first gas guide holes (55), and a total area of the second gas guide holes (55) of the second gas guide plate (55) is greater than a total area of the first gas guide holes (55) of the at least one first gas guide plate (52) (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Ogawa et al in combination with Shiraishi et al and Okabe to facilitate the creation of gas guide holes that can distribute purge gas over a wide range as taught by Ogawa et al (Column 13, lines 60-64).
PNG
media_image2.png
615
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Okabe fails to teach the vertical gas space having a greater cross section than the transverse and curved gas spaces. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create gas spaces with varying cross sections since it is held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to modify the size of a part on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Okabe fails to teach the curved gas space having a greater cross section than the transverse gas space, and the vertical gas space having a greater cross section than the curved gas space. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create gas spaces with varying cross sections since it is held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to modify the size of a part on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Okabe further teaches the casing (12) is integrally formed (Fig. 2, element 12).
Regarding claim 11, Okabe further teaches said transverse gas space (13), said curved gas space, and said vertical gas space are arranged sequentially to guide said gas flow introduced into said interior space in the casing (12) though said at least one gas inlet toward said outlet (12b) (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
586
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Okabe fails to teach guide plates. Shiraishi et al teaches a purge gas device wherein said at least one first gas guide plate (27) is located upstream of the second gas guide plate (28) along a path of said gas flow, thus passing said gas flow through said at least one first gas guide plate (27) prior to passing though said second gas guide plate (28) (Fig. 2B, elements 27, 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Shiraishi et al in Okabe to facilitate the creation of guide plates that can create a laminar flow as taught by Shiraishi et al (Page 11, paragraph 7).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe, Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al in view of Vogel et al (US 7375791).
Regarding claim 4, Okabe as modified by Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of first gas guide plates. Vogel et al teaches a purge gas device wherein the at least one first gas guide plate (500) includes three first gas guide plates (Column 9, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Vogel et al in combination with Okabe, Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al to facilitate the creation of first gas guide plates that can simplify the manufacturing process for a flow channel as taught by Vogel et al (Column 9, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Okabe as modified by Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al fails to teach replaceable gas guide plates. Vogel et al teaches a purge gas device wherein the first gas guide plates (500) and the second gas guide plate (206) are replaceable structures for changing the number and the total area of the first gas guide holes and the second gas guide holes, thereby regulating a velocity and a uniformity of a gas flow passing through the first gas guide plates (500) and the second gas guide plate (208) (Column 3, lines 58-63; Column 9, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Vogel et al in combination with Okabe, Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et alto facilitate the creation of interchangeable gas guide plates that can create an even flow distribution as taught by Vogel et al (Column 3, lines 59-63).
Regarding claim 7, Okabe et al as modified by Ogawa et al teaches the first gas guide holes (55) are distributed evenly or unevenly on the first gas guide plate (52) for regulating the gas flow (Column 13, lines 45-49, 52-56; Fig. 19, element 55).
Regarding claim 13, Okabe as modified by Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al fails to teach the velocity of the gas flow. Vogel et al teaches a purge gas device wherein a number and a total area of the first gas guide holes and the second gas guide holes of said at least one first gas guide plate (500) and said second gas guide plate (206), respectively, are controllable for regulating a velocity and a uniformity of said gas flow passing though said at least one first gas guide plate (500) and said second gas guide plate (206) (Column 8, lines 29-51; Column 9, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Vogel et al in combination with Okabe, Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al to facilitate the creation of guide plates that can minimize turbulence as taught by Vogel et al (Column 9, lines 12-16).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okabe, Shiraishi et al, Ogawa et al and Vogel et in further view of Fuller et al.
Regarding claim 5, Okabe as modified by Shiraishi et al, Ogawa et al and Vogel et al teaches the claimed invention except for a horizontal gas guide plate. Fuller et al teaches a purge gas device wherein the curved gas space is a downward curved gas space, one of the other two first gas guide plates (148D) is disposed at one end of the curved gas space in a horizontal direction, and the other (148C) is disposed at another end of the curved gas space in a vertical direction (Fig. 4, element 148D; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Fuller et al in combination with Ogawa et al and Vogel et al to facilitate the creation of a horizontal gas guide plate that can distribute the purge gas towards the opening of the substrate container as taught by Fuller et al (Paragraph 0052, lines 5-9).
PNG
media_image4.png
791
746
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe, Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al in view of Kang et al (KR 20200011290).
Regarding claim 8, Okabe as modified by Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al fails to teach a casing with panels or partitions. Kang et al teaches an air current device wherein the casing includes a left panel, a right panel, and a plurality of partitions (1030) (Page 7, paragraphs 1, 2; Fig. 10, element 1030; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kang et al in combination with Okabe, Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al to facilitate the creation of a casing with partitions that help direct air flow as taught by Kang et al (Page 7, paragraph 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
488
855
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Okabe as modified by Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al fails to teach a casing with left and right portions. Kang et al teaches an air current device wherein the casing includes a left casing and a right casing joined to the left casing (annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teachings of Kang et al in combination with Okabe, Shiraishi et al and Ogawa et al to facilitate the creation of a casing that can join around an air inlet as taught by Kang et al (Page 6, paragraphs 9, 10).
PNG
media_image6.png
488
855
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
