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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1 - 10 in the reply filed on 9/30/26 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that serious burden has not been demonstrated. After further consideration of Applicant’s argument, the Examiner has rejoined claims 14 – 20.
Group II, claims 11 – 13 are withdrawn from further examination.
Claims 1-10 and 14 – 20 are examined below.
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) 1 – 5, 8, 9 and 14 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (10347517).
Regarding claim 1, the Smith et al. reference discloses a substrate container (30; Figure 1), housing (module 502 defines a housing) and purge module (502; Fig. 19), comprising: a grommet (521); a check valve (518) at least partially received in the grommet (521); a module body (506), the module body including a cavity (inherent) configured to accommodate the grommet and the check valve (shown in Fig. 19), the module body defining one or more passages (521.7, 524) from the cavity; a filter (see annotated Figure 19); a filter retainer (520), the filter retainer and the module body being configured to contain the filter (see contained filter in annotated Fig. 19); and a diffuser retainer (522) configured to support a diffuser (526), the diffuser retainer including a diffuser inlet (534); wherein the filter retainer and the diffuser retainer are configured such that a first portion of a flow of gas through the filter enters the diffuser inlet and a second portion of the flow of gas through the filter passes through one or more apertures defined by one or both of the filter retainer and the diffuser retainer (first and second portions of gas flow through the filter retainer and diffuser retainer).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, further comprising the diffuser (526).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, wherein the diffuser (526) is entirely within a perimeter of the module body (506) in plan view. See annotated Fig. 19.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the module body (506) includes a projection extending from a surface (see annotated Fig. 19), the surface including an end of at least one of the one or more passages (521.7).
Regarding claim 5, wherein a portion of the cavity is defined by the projection, and a portion of the check valve (518) extends into said portion of the cavity. As best understood, Smith et al. defines the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the module body (506) includes a groove provided on an outer surface of the module body, and the purge module (502) further comprises a circular sealing member disposed in said groove. See labeled “groove” and “sealing member” in annotated Fig. 19.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising a module retainer (see labeled “module retainer” in annotated Fig. 19), the module retainer configured to engage with one or more features of a substrate container (inherent).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the purge module (502) contacts the diffuser (526) such that the diffuser is retained in an aperture provided in the housing. See annotated Fig. 19.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the purge module further includes a diffuser retainer (522) further configured to support the diffuser (526). See annotated Fig. 19
Regarding claim 19, wherein the purge module (502) further includes the diffuser (526), wherein the diffuser extends through the housing and into an internal space of the substrate container (inherent).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the Smith et al. reference discloses the invention (discussed supra) but doesn’t disclose the filter including an opening defined by an inner perimeter, the opening configured to receive a projection. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a filter as defined above in the Smith et al. device, since applicant has not disclosed that the defined filter and projection solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (i.e., the critical nature of the structure is not defined in the disclosure) and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the Smith et al. filter configuration.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Eggum et al. (11551957).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, the Smith et al. reference discloses the invention (discussed supra), including the module body (506) and the filter retainer being configured to be joined by friction fit and the filter being clamped at its perimeter as defined (see annotated Fig. 19), but doesn’t disclose the components being joined by a snap-fit. However, the Eggum et al. reference discloses another substrate container having a module body, grommet, check valve and filter (see Figure 7), which components are “snap fit” or “friction fit” together (see col. 10, lines 9 – 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Smith et al. device to have “snap fit” components as, for example, taught by the Eggum et al. reference since mechanical snap fit and friction components are well known in the art and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Sumi et al. reference (7455180) discloses another substrate container having a module body, grommet, filter and projections (see Figures 3 – 11).
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
