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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In para 0043, it is stated that there are “four protrusions 2331 and four depression 2333”. However, it seems to show that there are two depressions for every protrusion. Fig. 4A seems to show four protrusions and eight depressions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5-11 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.
Regarding claim 5, “the edge” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, “the abutting convex portion” lacks proper antecedent basis. The specification para 044 discloses that the abutting convex portion is also known as anti-self-rotation feature. Claim 6, from which claim 10 depends, recites “anti-self-rotation feature” but does not recite “abutting convex portion”.
The remaining claims, not specifically mentioned, are rejected for incorporating the defects from the base claim by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (Chuang) (2021/0116821) in view of Miyajima et al. (Miyajima) (2007/0080096).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses a reticle pod (Fig. 1), adapted for a dual pod, comprising an outer pod (150) and an inner pod (110) received therein (Fig. 1, para 0032), the inner pod comprising: a baseplate (120) and at least one support mechanism (121, 621, 921, Fig. 1, 6 and 9, para 0034, 0050, 0052) disposed on the baseplate, the support mechanism comprising: a supporting assembly (121, 621, 921) connected to an installation interface of the baseplate (Fig. 1, 6) and comprising a base (Fig. 9), at least one position-limiting post (9213, para 0052), an installation hole penetrating the base (Chuang discloses fastening element 624 for fastening the support assembly to the baseplate Fig. 6, para 0050 and that fastening elements are screws which would require holes in the base, para 0038), the at least one position-limiting post being connected to the base (Fig. 9, para 0052) and a supporting component (9211, 9212, Fig. 9, para 0052). However, Chuang does not disclose the installation hole is not round in shape, and the supporting component having a matching structure adapted to match the installation hole and allow the supporting component to be detachably received in the installation hole. Miyajima discloses coupling of a clean box (2) holding substrates and port door 3 (Fig. 1A, 2, 3 and 4, para 0083). Miyajima discloses an installation hole (41, Fig. 2-4) and a matching structure (45a, Fig. 3B, 4B) adapted to match the installation hole (para 0086, 0088, 0089). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the matching structure on the supporting component that can be inserted into the installation hole to be detachably received in the installation hole instead of using screws since quarter turn mechanism of Miyajima provides a simple, fast and reliable fastening mechanism at the center of the supporting mechanism and assembly where the supporting component is located.
Regarding claim 12, although Chuang does not disclose wherein the supporting component is made of a material with a glass transition temperature equal to or greater than 200° C, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed material since 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Regarding claim 2, none of the prior art of record teaches or discloses wherein the matching structure has at least one anti-self-rotation feature for abutting against an edge defining the installation hole when the supporting component is disposed at the installation hole in combination with the rest of the limitations.
The matching structure 45a of Miyajima does not disclose any anti-self-rotation feature or an abutting convex portion for abutting against an edge defining the installation hole.
Claims 5-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, Miyajima does not disclose the matching structure comprising a neck portion and a bottom portion, the bottom portion having at least one protrusion protruding outward therefrom, at least one notch is formed in the installation hole, corresponding in shape to the at least one protrusion, and extending outward from the edge defining the installation hole
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gregerson et al. (7,607,543) discloses a reticle pod, adapted for a dual pod (Fig. 2) comprising an outer pod and an inner pod (Fig. 2).
Gregerson et al. does not disclose a supporting assembly with an installation hole penetrating the base and not being round in shape and a supporting component having a matching structure adapted to match the installation hole. Gregerson et al. discloses an installation hole penetrating the outer pod (20) and the installation hole is shown round.
Del Puerto et al. (2003/0218728) discloses a reticle pod (Fig. 1). Del Puerto discloses a supporting assembly (2). Del Puerto does not disclose a dual pod and does not disclose the supporting assembly with an installation hole penetrating the base and not being round in shape and a supporting component having a matching structure adapted to match the installation hole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER B KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/PETER B KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 September 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights