Continued Prosecution Application
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nishikiori et al. (5,704,494; hereinafter Nishikiori). Nishikiori discloses a process carrier (10) comprising a first side wall (16) including a first plurality of teeth (Figs. 1, 3 & 5-6; the teeth 16i disposed on the lower beam 16c), and a second side wall (18) including a second plurality of teeth (Figs. 1, 3 & 5-6; the teeth 18i disposed on the lower beam 18c), and the second side wall opposite the first side wall. Nishikiori discloses adjacent teeth of the first plurality of teeth are separated by a gap (d; Fig. 6) at an inner surface of the first side wall, and adjacent teeth of the second plurality of teeth are separated by the gap at an inner surface of the second side wall. The first plurality of teeth (16i) extends along a height direction of the first side wall by half or less of the height direction of the first side wall and the second plurality of teeth (18i) extends along a height direction of the second side wall by half or less of the height direction of the second side wall (Figs. 1 & 5).
As to claims 9-10, Nishikiori discloses a thickness of the gap (d) is at least a thickness of the substrate, and the teeth of each of the first plurality of teeth and the second plurality of teeth each include a first side, a second side, and a tip between the first side and the second side (Fig. 6).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikiori et al. (5,704,494; hereinafter Nishikiori) in view of Buitron (7,600,359) and/or Dressen (5,348,151).
As to claims 1 and 5, Nishikiori discloses a process carrier (10) comprising a first side wall (16) including a first plurality of teeth (Figs. 1, 3 & 5-6; the teeth 16i disposed on the lower beam 16c), and a second side wall (18) including a second plurality of teeth (Figs. 1, 3 & 5-6; the teeth 18i disposed on the lower beam 18c), and the second side wall opposite the first side wall. Nishikiori discloses adjacent teeth of the first plurality of teeth are separated by a gap (d; Fig. 6) at an inner surface of the first side wall, and adjacent teeth of the second plurality of teeth are separated by the gap at an inner surface of the second side wall. The first plurality of teeth (16i) and corresponding teeth (18i) of the second plurality of teeth define a plurality of slot with each slot of the plurality of slots configured to receive one substrate (t; Fig. 6); and when the substrate is seated in one of the plurality of slots, a center of the substrate is positioned towards a tooth end of the process carrier (Fig. 3) with respect to a height direction of the first side wall and the second side wall. Nishikiori also discloses each of the slots having a slot angle (see Fig. 6) and other claimed limitations. However, Nishikiori fails to show each of the slots having a slot angle in a range from 47° to 76° or 50° to 54° as claimed. Buitron discloses a process carrier (10; Figs. 5-10; Figs. 20-31) comprising a first side wall (92) including a first plurality of teeth (96), a second side wall (92) including a second plurality of teeth (96), the second side wall opposite the first side wall; and adjacent teeth of the first plurality of teeth are separated by a gap (102) at an inner surface (108; Fig. 28) of the first side wall, and adjacent teeth of the second plurality of teeth are separated by the gap (102) at an inner surface (108; Fig. 28) of the second side wall. Buitron further discloses the first plurality of teeth and corresponding teeth of the second plurality of teeth define a plurality of slots (102; Fig. 30) with each slot of the plurality of slots configured to receive at least a substrate (D) and each of the slots having a slot angle of 60° (the angle between two sidewalls 100, 100; Fig. 28 & 30) which is equivalent to a slot angle in a range from 47° to 76°. Dressen discloses a process carrier comprising a first side wall (10) including a first plurality of teeth (20), and a second side wall (10’) including a second plurality of teeth (20), the second side wall opposite the first side wall. Dressen further discloses the first plurality of teeth and corresponding teeth of the second plurality of teeth define a plurality of slots (34, 36; Fig. 7) with each slot of the plurality of slots configured to receive a substrate, each of the slots having a slot angle of approximately 60° (column 4, lines 1-4) which is equivalent from 47° to 76°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Buitron and/or Dressen to modify the process carrier of Nishikiori so the process carrier is constructed with each of the slots having a slot angle in a range from 47° to 76° or 50° to 54° as claimed because the selection of the specific slot angle such as the slot angle as taught by Buitron or Dressen or Nishikiori or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well and/or to provide more convenience for a user to insert the substrate into the slot.
As to claim 2, Nishikiori further discloses the first plurality of teeth (16i) extends along a height direction of the first side wall by half or less of the height direction of the first side wall and the second plurality of teeth (18i) extends along a height direction of the second side wall by half or less of the height direction of the second side wall (Figs. 1 & 5).
As to claims 3 and 4, see Fig. 6 of Nishikiori.
As to claim 6, Nishikiori discloses the process carrier as above having all the limitations as claimed.
As to claims 7 and 8, see claims 1 and 5 above.
As to claims 9 and 10, see Fig. 6 of Nishikiori.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all rejected claims have been considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights