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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, Claims 10 - 23 in the reply filed on 8/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there’s no serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the method of dividing, as defined, isn’t required in independent claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1 – 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/21/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation " a portion of the bottom plate ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 14 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondoh et al. (10134619).
Regarding claim 10, the Kondoh et al. reference discloses a purge gas assembly (100; Fig. 1) for supplying purge gas to a substrate container (10), the purge gas assembly comprising: a gas distributor (manifold 52; Fig. 6) comprising at least one outlet (defined at the point where gas flows beyond the check valves 32); a purge module (51) comprising an inlet (50; defined where gas enters check valve) for receiving a flow of the purge gas (53), a check valve (32), and an outlet (multiple outlets defined where gas exits check valve of the purge module); wherein a combination of the gas distributor and the purge module form a chamber (inherent), and the chamber is configured to supply the purge gas to the at least one outlet of the gas distributor (purge gas moves through check valves 32 into the FOUP 10).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the gas distributor comprises at least two outlets (defined at 51 in 3 locations; the outlets being defined by gas moving beyond check valve 32). See Figure 6.
Regarding claim 13, chamber (41) surrounds at least one outlet of the purge module (51).
Regarding claim 14, see filter (34; Col. 5, lines 51 – 52; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23, an upper surface of the chamber (41) is formed by a bottom wall (23) of the substrate container (10; see Figure 7).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondoh et al. (discussed supra).
Regarding claim 22, the Kondoh et al. reference further discloses a control valve (V1 – V3), tubing (52), and a carrier plate (42), discussed supra, but doesn’t disclose wherein the purge module, the control valve, and the tubing are connected along a top surface of the carrier plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the purge module, the control valve, and the tubing to be connected along a top surface of the carrier plate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15 – 21 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, teach one of the at least two outlets
defines a first opening for directing a first flow path to a first gas distributing device for distributing a first portion of the purge gas in a first portion of the substrate container and one of the at least two outlets defines a second opening for directing a second flow path to at least one second gas distributing device for distributing a second portion of the purge gas to a second portion of the substrate container.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Pan reference (2010/0089491) discloses a purge gas assembly (Fig. 3) for supplying purge gas to a substrate container (para. [0007]), the purge gas assembly comprising: a gas distributor (Figs. 2A, 2B) comprising at least one outlet; a purge module (any of the valve heads 33) comprising an inlet for receiving a flow of the purge gas (40) and a valve (34).
The Sumi et al. reference (7455180) discloses a purge gas assembly (Figure 9) for supplying purge gas to a substrate container (1), the purge gas assembly comprising: a gas distributor (60) comprising at least one outlet; a purge module (20A) comprising an inlet (63) for receiving a flow of the purge gas, a check valve (32),
and an outlet (26; Fig. 15 or 44; Fig. 19); wherein a combination of the gas distributor (60) and the purge module form a chamber (62), and the chamber is configured to supply the purge gas to the at least one outlet of the gas distributor.
The Bernard et al. (7350544) discloses purge gas assembly (Figure 3) having valves (5, 6, 9), filter (5c) and pipe (10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 5pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights