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 § 112
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 1-6 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.
The claims are indefinite because it is not clear from claim 1 whether or not the wafer storage container, the body, the door are the parts of the claimed apparatus.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the recitation of the intended functioning provided by the “wherein” clause of claim 1.
The claims are further indefinite and incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural relationships between the stage and the gas supply.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the recitation of the function of the stage provided by the referenced claim.
Claim 2 is further indefinite because it is not clear what is referenced as “a detachable function”. How a “function” can be detachable? Further, it is not clear from what the referenced function is “detachable”. As a result, it is not clear what structure is required.
Claims 3, 5-6 are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 3 whether or not “a box” is a part of the part of the claimed apparatus.
The claims are further indefinite because it is not clear from claim 3 what structure is required by “configured to collect” in claim 3.
The claims are further indefinite and incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural relationships between the stage, the gas supply, the gas collector, and the box.
The claims are further indefinite and incomplete because claim 3 fails to recite any structure to provide “a gap between the body and the door”.
Claim 4 is further indefinite and incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural relationships between the stage and the gas supply and the cleaning section.
Claim 4 is further indefinite because it appears that this claim contradicts to the parent claim 1 which recites that the door is attached to the body.
Claim 4 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the “wherein” clause of the claim.
Claim 5 is further indefinite because it is not clear what structure is required by the recitation of the functioning of the gas collector.
Claim 6 is further indefinite because it recites a flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of the gas leaking from the gap, but fails to recite any structure to provide a flow of the referenced gas.
The claim is further indefinite because the term “the control unit” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The is further indefinite and incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural relationships between the flow meter and the other parts of the apparatus and the structural relationships between the control unit and the other parts of the apparatus.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al (US 2021/0215752).
Ito et al teach an apparatus as claimed.
The apparatus 1 comprises:
A stage 21 having a disposition surface on which the wafer storage container 4 is disposed;
A gas supply (readable on one or more purge nozzles 9) configured to supply inert gas to the wafer storage container 4 through one or more ports 40 provide on the surface of the container that that intersects the surface of the body of the container having an opening, which is covered by a door 43.
See at least Figures 1-3 and 8 and the related description.
The container 4 is disclosed as disposed with the door 43 attached to the body (at least Figure 8).
As to claim 2:
The stage is disclosed as having “a detachable function” since it is disclosed as functioning to detach the door from the container and is provided with a locking/unlocking structure. See at least Figures 4-7, which show the locking/unlocking structure, and Figure 9, which shows the door 43 detached from the container, and the related description.
As to claim 3:
The claimed gas collector is readable at least on one or more exhaust nozzles 9.
The claimed gauge is inherent from the disclosure of Ito et al at [0092], [0105] and [0131].
The claimed controller is readable on the system C, 2C, 3C, MC of Ito et al. See at least Figures 1-2, 11A, 14-17, 21 and the description at [0076], [0089], [0097-124], [0141-179] describing the details of the system.
The recited functioning of the controller is inherent form the disclosure at [0092] and Figures 18 and 22 and the related description.
As to claim 5:
The gas collector (one or more exhaust nozzles 9) is disclosed as collecting the gas from one or more ports 40 (at least [0085], [0092]).
The gage measuring oxygen/humidity concentration is inherent at least from the disclosure at [0092].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al (US 2021/0215752).
Ito et al as applied above teach an apparatus as claimed except for the specific recitation of the cleaning station.
However, Ito et al teach that the containers are periodically cleaned by hot water and reused (at least [0006]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to provide cleaning station in the apparatus of Ito et al in order to enable the apparatus of Ito et al to perform the disclosed conventional process and to maintain the containers for the reuse.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ito et al (US 2021/0215752).
Analysis of the teaching of Ito et al provided above is incorporated here.
The claim is indefinite and could not be properly understood for the reasons provided above.
However, since Ito et al teach the use of sensors to determine if the container is leaking (at least [0017], [0044], [0085], [0088], [0099], it is reasonably believed that the claim is either anticipated by or obvious over the teaching of Ito et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to the apparatuses for processing wafer storage containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711