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 .
Response to Amendment
In the amended claims of July 17, 2026, Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1, 4-7 and 10-12 are amended.
Drawings
The amended claims and arguments of July 17, 2026 overcome the previously identified drawing objections, rendering the originally filed drawings of December 23, 2025 as accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mushel (US 10217655) in view of Lee (KR 2011-0002268).
Regarding Claims 1 and 7, Mushel discloses a container (20) and a rear retainer (82) wherein the container body includes a tubular wall (30) that has one end at which a container body opening (33) is formed and another end closed (57). The container body has a substrate storing space defined by an inner surface of the tubular wall, the substrate storing space being capable of storing a plurality of substrates and communicating with the container body opening. Mushel discloses a lid (32) detachably attachable to the container body opening and capable of closing the container body opening with lid-side substrate supports (88) disposed on a portion of the lid, the portion facing the substrate storing space when the container body opening is closed by the lid, the lid-side substrate supports being capable of supporting edge portions of the plurality of substrates when the container body opening is closed by the lid.
Mushel discloses the retainer (82, 84, 210) comprises back-side substrate supports disposed in the substrate storing space so as to form counterparts to the lid-side substrate supports and capable of supporting edge portions of the plurality of substrates. The back-side substrate supports are configured to support the plurality of substrates in collaboration with the lid-side substrate supports such that the edge portions of the plurality of substrates are arranged in parallel with each other when the container body opening is closed by the lid. Mushel discloses a protruding wall having an outer surface that faces and protrudes toward the container body and an inner surface that is opposite the outer surface and concave toward the container body opening, wherein the back-side substrate supports are provided on a protruding side of the protruding wall as shown in Figures 12 and 13.
While Mushel discloses openings as shown below, Mushel does not disclose these are flow holes configured to allow liquid to be drained from the internal cavity when the protruding side of the protruding wall faces downward.
PNG
media_image1.png
936
1354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses a similar wafer storage container and retainer (130) which comprises flow holes (135) configured to discharge liquid. Mushel and Lee are analogous inventions in the art of storage containers for stacked silicon wafers.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rear retainer holes of Mushel to operate as drainage flow holes as taught in Lee in order to drain accumulated cleaning liquid from the retainer and provide means for gas or hot air to circulate during the drying process.
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, Mushel discloses the holes extend in an upward/downward direction to penetrate the back-side substrate supports in a state in which the protruding side of the protruding wall faces downward. These holes would operate as flow holes as taught in Lee.
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Mushel discloses the rear retainer is fixed to the container body with a gap defined by a rib analogous to Applicant Element 621 between the rear retainer and a back wall of the tubular wall of the container body which creates the gap G6.
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, both Mushel and Lee disclose V-shaped grooves having a lower inclined face and an upper inclined face. Lee discloses a rib (supporting portion 133) that protrudes upwards and extends towards the open end of the container and is provided on lateral sides of the side wall portions (132).
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Mushel discloses the rear retainer further includes auxiliary grooves which are disposed on a portion that faces the substrate storing space when the container body opening is closed by the lid, the auxiliary grooves each having an opening that is greater than a thickness of an edge portion of a substrate to allow insertion of the edge portion of the substrate, each auxiliary groove is formed by a pair of groove-forming surfaces that face each other, and an edge portion of each substrate is inserted into a corresponding one of the auxiliary grooves such that one substrate corresponds to one auxiliary groove, at least when the container body opening is closed by the lid, the edge portion of each substrate is supported in a non-contact state with respect to a pair of groove forming surfaces by resting on the rib with a space formed between the edge portion and each of the groove forming surfaces, and each of the groove forming surfaces of each auxiliary groove is located between a pair of V-shaped grooves of the back-side substrate supports, the pair of V-shaped grooves being adjacent to each other in an upward/downward direction.
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, the supporting portion (133) of Lee are analogously positioned to the rib (68) of Applicant. However, please also note Nyseth (US 6776289) which discusses the use of ribs (230, 330) in wafer carrier supports to ensure minimal contact with the wafer substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 8-9 of the Arguments and Remarks, Applicant correctly notes that Lee discloses a through hole (135) of the slot portion (131) wherein cleaning liquid is discharged through the hole. Applicant then notes the differences in the positioning of the slot portion in Lee from what is presently claimed and argues that Lee does not disclose similar positioning.
The Applicant is correct that Lee positions such through holes in a different manner.
However, it is the positioning of the holes in the primary reference of Mushel that is identical to structure claimed. It would have been an obvious matter as taught by Lee to utilize the structural holes in Mushel to be used as discharge openings for cleaning fluid.
In other words, the claimed structure including a rear retainer with holes is entirely found in the prior art of Mushel. It is an obvious matter of usage to utilize such holes as drainage holes as taught in Lee. Please also note the discussion in Kanai (US 11735450) Col. 5 Lines 5-13 wherein holes (422) function to facilitate the removal of a cleaning liquid.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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 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 GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM EST.
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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
