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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 2/20/2026, wherein claims 1, 6-8, 14 and 16 were amended; claims 2-3 and 15 were canceled; and claim 20 was added. Claims 1, 4-14 and 16-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 19, “a method according to any claim 16” should be “a method according to claim 16”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-7, 11, 13, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Puerto et al. (US 2006/0087639).
Regarding claim 1, Puerto discloses a stocker pod (device shown in Figs. 2-3) capable of storing a semiconductor fabrication article, the stocker pod comprising at least two components (components 7 and 2 – See Fig. 3) with at least one fixator (at 9), integrally formed with at least one (component 7) of the at least two components of the stocker pod, the fixator being configured to immobilize the two or more components of the stocker pod relative to one another (as shown in Fig. 3),wherein the at least one fixator is biased towards a closed position (by spring 10) and is configured to be moved into an open position (open position of 9 shown in Fig. 1); wherein the at least two components are configured to be attachable to one another to form the stocker pod when the at least one fixator is in the open position, and wherein the at least one fixator is configured to immobilize the at least two components relative to one another, when it is in the closed position (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the at least one component (component 7) with which the at least one fixator is integrally formed, includes a locking feature (at 11) configured to be engageable with the at least one fixator in the open position (as shown in Fig. 1), the at least one fixator is configured to be lockable in the open position, such as to overcome the bias towards the closed position, when it is engaged with the locking feature (See [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Puerto discloses the at least one fixator comprises a latch (9) on one of the at least two components (7) and an engagement member (8) engageable with the latch provided on another one (2) of the at least two components.
Regarding claim 5, Puerto discloses the at least two components form a gap (gap between upstanding positioning feature 5a and the side surface of 2 in Fig. 3) between one another when immobilized relative to one another.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
1234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Puerto discloses the gap extends over a portion of at least one side surface of the stocker pod comprising an area in the range of 2% to 50% of an area of the at least one side surface of the stocker pod.
Regarding claim 7, Puerto discloses the gap spans a lateral portion of at least one side surface of the stocker pod amounting to between 20% and 90% or 100% of a width of the at least one side surface.
Regarding claim 11, the pod of Puerto is fully capable of holding a reticle therein.
Regarding claim 13, Puerto discloses a retainer (“Positioning features” as labeled in Fig. 3 above) configured to immobilize the article within the stocker pod, at least when the fixator is in the closed position.
Regarding claim 14, Puerto discloses a stocker pod (device shown in Figs. 2-3) capable of storing a semiconductor fabrication article, the stocker pod comprising at least two components (7 and 2) with at least one fixator (at 9), integrally formed with at least one (component 7) of the at least two components of the stocker pod, the fixator being configured to immobilize the two or more components of the stocker pod relative to one another when the fixator is in a closed position (as shown in Fig. 3), wherein the at least one fixator is configured to be lockable in the an open position by engagement with a locking feature (11) provided in at least one (7) of the at least two components, such as to hold the fixator in the open position (as shown in Fig. 1 – described in [0065]).
Regarding claim 20, Puerto discloses the locking feature (11) is provided on the one component (7), on which the latch (9) is provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 8, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerto et al. (US 2006/0087639) as applied to claims 5 and 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Puerto discloses the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the specific height of the pod and the specific height of the gap. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pod and gap to be any height such as 10mm to 30mm, and 0.5mm to 24mm, respectively, in order to accommodate the desired article and allow for sufficient air flow. To modify height of the pod would entail a mere change in size of the components and yield only predictable results. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 16 is directed to the obvious method of using the device of Puerto as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, comprising the steps of enclosing the article (1) in a stocker pod and storing the stocker pod within a storage position within a semiconductor fabrication stocker (100 shown in Fig. 1), particularly a reticle stocker, wherein the stocker pod comprises as least two components (at 7 and 2) with at least one fixator (at 9), integrally formed with at least one (at 7) of the at least two components of the stocker pod, the fixator being configured to immobilize the two or more components of the stocker pod relative to one another (as shown in Fig. 3).
Claim 18 is directed to the obvious method of using the device of Puerto, comprising moving the fixator into the open position (as shown in Fig. 1), opening the stocker pod, placing the article (at 1) into the stocker pod, closing the stocker pod and releasing the fixator.
Claim 19, Puerto discloses holding a number of stocker pods within storage positions in the stocker (See Fig. 17).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerto et al. (US 2006/0087639) as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Chuang et al. (US 2020/0335371).
Regarding claims 9-10, Puerto discloses the claimed invention except the tortuous path. However, Chuang teaches a pod (at 100 in Figs. 1-2) comprising two components (base 1 and lid 2), wherein a tortuous path (at 3/33 in Fig. 2, which is between elements 32 and 31), including an obstruction (at 32) is provided between the two components (1 and 2) in at least one portion of at least one side surface of the pod (100), for the purpose of lengthening the gas flow path into the interior of the pod to reduce the likelihood that particles carried by the gas will reach the article held therein (See [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pod of Puerto with a tortuous path as taught by Chuang in order to reduce the likelihood that particles carried by the gas will reach the article held therein.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puerto et al. (US 2006/0087639) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chuang et al. (US 2021/0116821).
Regarding claim 12, Puerto discloses the claimed invention except the specific material of the pod. However, Chuang teaches it is well known in the art for a substrate retaining system (See Fig. 10a) to be formed entirely from metallic materials (silver, copper, gold, or aluminum) for the purpose of dissipating electrostatic ([0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the pod of Puerto entirely from a metallic material as taught by Chuang in order to dissipating electrostatic. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights