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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. 8,376,822.
In Re Claim 1, Smith et al. teach a system for semiconductor device processing, comprising: a mini-environment; (cold room, Column 1, Lines 16-32) and an air flow optimizer device (10) adjacent an opening to the mini-environment, wherein the air flow optimizer device has an inlet opening (12a) at a top surface and an outlet opening (18a) at a sidewall surface, wherein a channel extends between the inlet opening and the outlet opening, wherein the channel has a first width at the inlet opening and a second width, less than the first width, at the outlet opening. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 3, Smith et al. teach wherein the air flow optimizer device is disposed on a wall of the mini-environment. (Column 2, Lines 63-66)
In Re Claim 7, Smith et al. teach wherein the second width is approximately 10% to 90% less than the first width. (Fig. 1, Fig. 16, Fig. 18a)
In Re Claim 16, Smith et al. teach a method of semiconductor device fabrication, comprising: an air flow optimization device (10) having a first opening (top of 12a, Fig. 1) and a first outlet (18a), the air flow optimization device disposed in a mini-environment (Cold storage plus vestibule, Column 1, Lines 16-21); providing a gas in the mini-environment to the first opening of the air flow optimization device, wherein the gas is provided in a first flow direction; (See Fig. 1) and modifying a directional flow of the gas using the air flow optimization device, wherein the gas is provided in a second direction flow direction exiting the first outlet into the mini- environment. (See Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 17, Smith et al. teach wherein the gas flows from the first opening through a channel (interior of 12a) to the first outlet (18a) of the air flow optimization device, wherein the channel reduces in width providing an increase in flow rate of the gas. (Fig. 1, 13-15)
In Re Claim 18, Smith et al. teach wherein the first flow direction is substantially vertical within the mini-environment and the second flow direction is substantially oblique to the first flow direction. (Fig. 1, 13-15)
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Guirl et al. 3,270,655.
In Re Claim 10, Guirl et al. teach a system, comprising: an air flow modification device (Fig. 1), wherein the air flow modification device includes: a first extension plate; (22) a modification device, (20) wherein the modification device has an inlet opening (Opening below 26, Fig. 1) at a top surface and an outlet opening (42) at a sidewall surface, wherein a channel (Inside of 20, Fig. 2) extends between the inlet opening and the outlet opening, wherein the channel has a first width at the inlet opening and a second width, less than the first width at the outlet opening; (See fig. 1, Fig. 2) and a second extension plate, (23) wherein the modification device extends between the first extension plate and the second extension plate. (Fig. 1)
In Re Claim 15, Guirl et al. teach wherein the channel is disposed at approximately 45 degrees at the outlet opening. (Fig. 4)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and in view of Guirl et al. 3,270,655.
In Re Claim 2, Smith et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Smith et al. do not teach wherein the air flow optimizer device further includes at least one extension plate extending downward from the outlet opening.
However, Guirl et al. teach wherein the air flow optimizer device (Fig. 1) further includes at least one extension plate (22, 23) extending downward from the outlet opening (42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an extension plate in the system of Smith et al. as taught by Guirl et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to create a more stable system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and in view of Forbert et al. 6,626,971.
In Re Claim 4, Smith et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Smith et al. do not teach wherein the channel is defined by a partition of the air flow optimizer device.
However, Forbert et al. teach wherein the channel (channel above 13, Fig. 5) is defined by a partition (partition in channel above 13, Fig. 5) of the air flow optimizer device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a partition in the system of Smith et al. as taught by Forbert et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a large volume of air while maintaining speed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and in view of Ming et al. 2021/0197236.
In Re Claim 6, Smith et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Smith et al. do not teach wherein the air flow optimizer device is comprised of aluminum, copper, polymer or a ceramic.
However, Ming et al. teach wherein the air flow optimizer device is comprised of aluminum, copper, polymer or a ceramic. (Paragraph 40)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a partition in the system of Smith et al. as taught by Ming et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase durability, electrical and thermal insulation and longevity of the system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and in view of Lin 2020/0234988.
In Re Claim 8, Smith et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Smith et al. do not teach wherein the air flow optimizer device is attached above the opening of the mini-environment of a Front Opening Universal Pod (FOUP).
However, Lin teaches wherein the air flow optimizer device (3, Fig. 10) is attached above the opening of the mini-environment of a Front Opening Universal Pod (FOUP) (8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to place the airflow optimizer device above the opening of the mini-environment of a FOUP in the system of Smith et al. as taught by Lin with a reasonable expectation for success in order make it easier for the curtain to cover the entire opening.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and in view of Taniyama 2015/0024671.
In Re Claim 9, Smith et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Smith et al. do not teach wherein the air flow optimizer device is attached above the opening of the mini-environment of an equipment front end module (EFEM).
However, Taniyama et al. teach wherein the air flow optimizer device (6) is attached above the opening of the mini-environment of an equipment front end module (EFEM) (1, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to place the airflow optimizer device above the opening of the mini-environment of an EFEM in the system of Smith et al. as taught by Taniyama et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to make it easier for the curtain to cover the entire opening.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guirl et al. and in view of Forbert et al. 6,626,971.
In Re Claim 11, Guirl et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Guirl et al. do not teach wherein the channel is defined by a partition of the air flow optimizer device.
However, Forbert et al. teach wherein the channel (channel above 13, Fig. 5) is defined by a partition (partition in channel above 13, Fig. 5) of the air flow optimizer device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a partition in the system of Guirl et al. as taught by Forbert et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a large volume of air while maintaining speed.
In Re Claim 12, Guirl et al. teach wherein the outlet opening (42) extends from adjacent the first extension plate to adjacent the second extension plate. (Fig. 1)
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and in view of Guirl et al. 3,270,655.
In Re Claims 19, Smith et al. teach the system of Claim 16 as discussed above.
Smith et al. do not teach controlling the gas exiting in the second direction by providing extension plates adjacent the first outlet.
However, Guirl et al. teach controlling the gas exiting in the second direction by providing extension plates (22, 23) adjacent the first outlet (42);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to extension plates to the method of Smith et al. as taught by Guirl et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to create a more stable system.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. and in view of Taniyama 2015/0024671.
In Re Claim 20, Smith et al. teach the system of Claim 16 as discussed above.
Smith et al. do not teach wherein the providing the gas in the first direction is performed by a fan filter unit.
However, Taniyama teaches wherein the providing the gas in the first direction is performed by a fan filter unit (33, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a fan filter unit in the method of Smith et al. as taught by Taniyama et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide clean dry air.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zumbiel, Sirchet al., and Oh et al. teach a mini environment and an airflow optimizer device comprising an inlet opening and outlet opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights