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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character both reference numbers “66” and “76” identify an auxiliary groove. Similarly, reference numbers 661, 662, 761 and 762 are each identified as “groove forming surfaces”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The claims and written description have a number of issues.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “a protruding wall (60) having an outer surface (605) that faces and protrudes toward the container body opening (21) and an inner surface (606) that is opposite the outer surface and concave toward the container body opening…”
However, as shown below, the outer surface is convex and the inner surface (606) is concave and faces away from the container body opening (21). The internal surface (606) faces the back wall (22) of the container.
PNG
media_image1.png
926
1571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 11 recite “…the auxiliary grooves (66/76?) are each formed of groove forming surfaces (661, 662 or 761/762?) that are opposite to each other and the edge portions of the plurality of substrates are inserted into the auxiliary grooves on a one-to-one basis at least when the container body opening is closed by the lid…”
While this language is repeated in the Specification such as Paragraph 0108 of Published Application US 2026/0082855, it is unclear what the meaning of the term “one-to-one basis”. This is not standard terminology, nor is it clearly identified that each substrate is received into a single auxiliary groove. Nor does the language specify whether the grooves are located on the lid, retainer, or the other retainer means shown on the inner walls of the container.
It is further unclear how the “non-contact state” is achieved between the substrate edges and a space is formed between the edge portion and the groove forming surfaces (possibly 661 and 662). It is unclear from the drawings and specification if the rib (68) is in contact with the substrate or if there is some other means to prevent contact between the substrate or if merely the substrate is configured to rest on a lower inclined face (632) and not on the outer groove forming surfaces (661, 662).
PNG
media_image2.png
895
1185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Claims 5 and 11 recite “the groove forming surfaces (believed to be 661, 662) of each auxiliary groove (believed to be 66) are located BETWEEN the V-shaped grooves (64) of the back-side substrate supports adjacent to each other in an upward/downward direction (D2 – the vertical axis).
However, as shown above, it is V-shaped groove (64) which is between the groove forming surfaces 661 and 662, as the V-shaped groove is located within and between these outer surfaces.
Regarding Claims 6 and 12, the claim identifies the vertical rib (believed to be 68) is provided on a laterally inner side of a groove forming surface located UNDER an auxiliary groove (66?) in the state in which the container body opening faces sideways. The relative positioning of the rib relative to auxiliary groove is not understood or properly described, as it appears that the rib (68) comprises three parts (681, 682, 683) each of which are adjacent to the surfaces 661 and 662 of the auxiliary groove and within the V-shaped groove (64).
PNG
media_image3.png
909
1344
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore the relative construction of the auxiliary groove, the V-shaped groove, and the rib are not properly enabled, as it is unclear from the language of the claims and written description how such components are configured and how they are arranged relative to a substrate.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As discussed above, a number of issues exist in the description of the protruding wall recited in Claims 1 and 7, the “one-to-one basis” and “non-contact state”, the construction of the auxiliary groove relative to the V-shaped groove, and other claimed components. Therefore, the claims are also indefinite.
Similarly, the claims identify “in the state in which the container body opening faces sideways” which appears to attempt to indicate the relative positioning of the substrate storing container. However, it is confusingly written and can also mean the relative condition of the container. In other words, the rib may NOT be positioned upwards when the container body opening faces upwards. The language appears to indicate the positioning is a consequence of the direction and not a statement of relative static positioning.
Claim 7 has a preamble which identifies “A rear retainer (6) for use in a substrate storing container (1)” However, the claim repeats limitations about the substrate storage container. It is unclear if the elements of the substrate storage container (such as the lid and the container body) recited in the preamble (before the transition phrase ‘comprising’) are unrelated to the retainer and are being positively claimed.
For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that Claims 1 and 7 are generally directed to the back-side substrate supports (63) as including a protruding wall (60) having an external surface (605) and an internal surface (606), wherein an internal cavity defined by the internal surface (606) faces the closed back end (22) of the container body and includes flow holes (67) configured to allow liquid to be drained from the internal cavity.
Claims 5 and 11 will be interpreted as the auxiliary grooves (66) are configured to have the substrates inserted therein, but will not contact the upper and lower faces, as the substrate will rest on the rib (68).
All dependent claims are rejected as dependent on a rejected independent claim.
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.
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) with reference made to the included translation.
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 (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 opening 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 in the reproduction of Figure 13, Mushel does not disclose these are flow holes configured to allow liquid to be drained from the internal cavity.
PNG
media_image4.png
936
1354
media_image4.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 of Mushel with the flow holes of 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.
PNG
media_image5.png
1034
1220
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 8, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the flow holes in Lee would be positioned so as to ensure the proper drainage of water from the retainer when the container is flipped so that the container opening is facing downward in order to allow fluid to drain due to gravity.
Regarding Claim 3 and 9, Lee discloses there is a gap between the retainer (130) and the retainer base (140). Similarly, there is a rib as shown in Mushel analogous to Applicant element 621 as shown below which creates the gap G6.
PNG
media_image6.png
657
1431
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 insertion of substrates which are configured to rest on the retainer slots. Similarly, the support portions of Lee would ensure that the substrate would rest on the support portions and not on the planar faces of the side wall portions.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, please note Kanai (US 11735450) which discusses openings (422) that functions to facilitate the removal of a cleaning liquid (Col. 5 Lines 5-13).
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
Prosecution Insights