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) 1-3, 5-13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Adams et al. (10,147,624; hereinafter Adams).
As to claim 1, Adams discloses a substrate container (30, 52) comprising an aperture (200, 216, 219; Figs. 9B, 10C) formed in the substrate container, the aperture configured to receive a module (230; Figs. 9D, 10C), one or more tabs (202, 204; Figs. 8, 10A, 10C) with each tab extending inwards (Fig. 10C) into the aperture over a portion of a perimeter of the aperture, the one or more tabs defining one or more gaps (212, 214; Fig. 8), a module (230), and a module retainer (58) including one or more of engagement features (188; 190) and the one or more engagement features are configured to be inserted through a corresponding one or more gaps when in a first position (Fig. 10A) and to engage with the one or more tabs when in a second position (Figs. 10B-10C). The module retainer configured to be rotatable between the first position and the second position when the module retainer is inserted into the aperture. Adams further discloses the module attached to a fastening member (213, 216; column 11, lines 1-13) and the module retainer (58) attached to the fastening member (Fig. 10C) which is considered equivalent to a module retainer attached to the module as claimed.
As to claim 2, Adams further discloses the module retainer comprises a detent (192) configured to contact one of the one or more gaps (column 11, lines 19-26).
As to claim 3, Adams discloses the module is selected from the group consisting of a purge module, a vent purge module, a getter module, and a sensor module (230).
As to claims 5-7, see Fig. 10C.
As to claim 8, Adams discloses the one or more tabs are provided on the bottom plate (Fig. 10C).
As to claims 9 and 10, Adams discloses the module retainer includes one or more tooling interfaces (188; 190) on an outward facing surface of the module retainer and the tooling interfaces are distributed around a central opening formed in the outward facing surface of the module retainer (Figs. 7A & 7B).
As to claim 11, Adams discloses a method of installing the module into the substrate container as above comprising the step of inserting the module including the module container into the aperture formed in the substrate container, and the step of rotating the module retainer into the second position as claimed.
As to claims 12-13, 15-16 and 19-20 are anticipated by the disclosure of Adams as above.
As to claim 17, Adams further discloses the step of rotating the module retainer includes inserting a pin/tool (column 12, lines 6-12) into one or more tooling interfaces (170, 176) provided in the module retainer.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (6,732,877; hereinafter Wu) in view of Adams et al. (10,147,624; hereinafter Adams).
As to claim 1, Wu discloses an assembly comprising a substrate container (8), the substrate container including an aperture (80) disposed on a bottom plate (1, 81; Wu discloses a mounting ring (1) can be formed integral with the bottom plate (81) of the substrate container around the aperture (column 3, lines 13-15)) of the substrate container and the aperture configured to receive a module, one or more tabs (121) with each of the one or more tabs extending outwards away from the aperture, the one or more tabs defining one or more gaps (each gap disposed between two tabs), a module (2, 3, 5; Fig. 2) and a module retainer (4) attached to the module. The module retainer including one or more of engagement features (411-413) which are configured to be inserted through a corresponding one or more gaps when in a first position and to engage with the one or more tabs when in a second position (Figs. 3-4). The module retainer configured to be rotatable between the first position and the second position when the module retainer is inserted into the aperture. Wu also discloses the other claimed limitations except for each of the one or more tabs extending inwards into the aperture over a portion of a perimeter of the aperture in lieu of the one or more tabs extending outwards away from the aperture. Adams discloses a substrate container (30, 52) comprising an aperture (200, 216, 219; Figs. 9B, 10C) formed in the substrate container, the aperture configured to receive a module (230; Figs. 9D, 10C), one or more tabs (202, 204; Figs. 8, 10A, 10C) with each tab extending inwards (Fig. 10C) into the aperture over a portion of a perimeter of the aperture, the one or more tabs defining one or more gaps (212, 214; Fig. 8), a module (230), and a module retainer (58) including one or more of engagement features (188; 190) and the one or more engagement features are configured to be inserted through a corresponding one or more gaps when in a first position (Fig. 10A) and to engage with the one or more tabs when in a second position (Figs. 10B-10C). The module retainer configured to be rotatable between the first position and the second position when the module retainer is inserted into the aperture. Therefore, 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 Adams to modify the assembly of Wu so the assembly is constructed with each of the one or more tabs extending inwards into the aperture over a portion of a perimeter of the aperture instead of the one or more tabs extending outwards away from the aperture and the engagement features are constructed to engage with the one or more tabs as modified because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 2, Wu further discloses the module retainer includes a detent (413) configured to contact one of the one or more gaps so as to resist rotation of the module retainer from the second position to the first position (Fig. 3).
As to claim 3, Wu discloses the module (2, 3, 5) is selected from the group consisting of a purge module, a vent purge module, a getter module, and a sensor module.
As to claim 4, Wu discloses the one or more tabs include at least three tabs (121) and the one or more engagement features includes at least three engagement features (411).
As to claims 5-7, see Fig. 1 of Wu.
As to claim 8, Wu discloses the one or more tabs (121) are provided on the bottom plate (Fig. 2).
As to claims 9 and 10, Adams discloses the module retainer includes one or more tooling interfaces (188; 190) on an outward facing surface of the module retainer and the tooling interfaces are distributed around a central opening formed in the outward facing surface of the module retainer (Figs. 7A & 7B).
As to claim 11, a method of installing the module into the substrate container is drawn to the obvious method of using the assembly of Wu as modified above.
As to claim 12, Wu discloses the module (2, 3, 5) is selected from the group consisting of a purge module, a vent purge module, a getter module, and a sensor module.
As to claim 13, see Figs. 3-4 of Wu.
As to claim 14, it appears that Wu discloses attaching the module retainer to the module (422, 224) includes forming a snap-fit as claimed. To the extent that Wu fails to provide attaching the module retainer to the module includes forming a snap-fit between at least one first snap-fit feature provided on the module retainer and at least one second snap-fit feature provided on a body of the module, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate container of Wu so the substrate container is constructed by attaching the module retainer to the module includes forming a snap-fit between at least one first snap-fit feature provided on the module retainer and at least one second snap-fit feature provided on a body of the module to facilitate attaching between the module and the module retainer because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claims 15-16, see Figs. 1-2 of Wu.
As to claims 17-19, the substrate container of Wu as modified further fails to provide a step of rotating the module retainer includes inserting a tool into one or more tooling interfaces provided in the module retainer and the tool is manipulated by automation. Adams further discloses the step of rotating the module retainer includes inserting a pin/tool (column 12, lines 6-12) into one or more tooling interfaces (170, 176) provided in the module retainer by manually instead of automation as claimed. 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 Adams to modify the substrate container of Wu as modified so the substrate container is constructed to include a step of rotating the module retainer includes inserting a tool into one or more tooling interfaces provided in the module retainer to provide more convenience for a user to remove the module retainer from the substrate container and it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate container of Wu as modified so the substrate container is constructed with the tool is manipulated by automation instead of by manually to facilitate removing the module retainer and/or to prevent error by a user.
As to claim 20, see Fig. 1 of Wu or Fig. 10C of Adams.
Claim(s) 4, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams.
As to claim 4, Adams discloses the assembly as above and further discloses the one or more tabs comprises two tabs instead of three tabs as claimed and the one or more engagement features comprises two engagement features instead of three engagement features as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Adams so the assembly is constructed with the one or more tabs comprises three tabs instead of two tabs and the one or more engagement features comprises three engagement features instead of two engagement features the selection of the specific numbers of tabs and engagement features such as the numbers as claimed or as disclosed by Adams would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well.
As to claim 14, to the extent that Adams fails to provide attaching the module retainer to the module includes forming a snap-fit between at least one first snap-fit feature provided on the module retainer and at least one second snap-fit feature provided on a body of the module, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate container of Adams so the substrate container is constructed by attaching the module retainer to the module includes forming a snap-fit between at least one first snap-fit feature provided on the module retainer and at least one second snap-fit feature provided on a body of the module to facilitate attaching between the module and the module retainer because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As to claim 18, Adams further discloses the step of rotating the module retainer includes inserting a pin/tool (column 12, lines 6-12) into one or more tooling interfaces (170, 176) provided in the module retainer by manually instead of automation as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate container of Adams so the substrate container is constructed with the tool is manipulated by automation instead of by manually to facilitate removing the module retainer and/or to prevent error by a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Adams in the remarks such as “Adams does not disclose a module retainer assembled into the aperture of the substrate container …” are noted. They are not persuasive because Adams discloses the substrate container (30, 52; see above), the aperture formed in the substrate container (see Fig. 10 below) with each of the one or more tabs extending inwards into the aperture over a portion of the perimeter of the aperture, the module retainer (58) attached to the module (230), and the engagement features of the module retainer are configured to be inserted through the corresponding one or more of gaps when in the first position and to engage with the one or more tabs when in the second position as claimed. Adams also discloses the module retainer assembled into the aperture of the substrate container as argued by the Applicant (Fig. 10C). However, there is no such language “a module retainer assembled into the aperture of the substrate container” in the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
290
409
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Wu in the remarks such as “Wu, similar to Adams, does not disclose a module retainer which assembled into the aperture in the substrate container such that the structural features defining the aperture surround the retainer module” are noted. They are noted and persuasive. However, such structural limitations as argued by the Applicant are taught by Adams (see above). Therefore, 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 Adams to modify the assembly of Wu so the assembly is constructed with each of the one or more tabs extending inwards into the aperture over a portion of a perimeter of the aperture instead of the one or more tabs extending outwards away from the aperture and the engagement features are constructed to engage with the one or more tabs as modified because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
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 extension fee 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.
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