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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/1/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that, neither Smith nor Glavan disclose a collar "connected to an inner side of the open end of the at least one porous tube".
The purge port connector 440 is not a collar located at the inner side of the open end of the purge diffuser core 420. Rather, the purge port connector 440 is a separate connector element disposed at the bottom end of the purge diffuser core 420 that interfaces externally with the purge port of the container.
The Examiner has considered the above argument and respectfully disagrees.
The Smith et al. reference defines a collar at the upper portion of connector (440) and, when assembled, is connected to an inner side of the open end of porous tube (Fig. 4) by tabs (442; see Annotated Fig. 6A). Therefore, the Smith et al. collar is connected to an inner side of the open end.
The Applicant argues further argues that collar (206) doesn’t meet the claim limitation of at least one collar connect to an inner side of the open end of the at least on porous tube. The Examiner has considered this argument and respectfully disagrees.
The Glavan et al. reference defines a collar (142) that connects, when assembled, to an inner side of open end (198) and collar (206).
Both Smith et al. and Glavan et al., when the components are connected or fully assembled, define the limitation as claimed.
If Applicant intends to structurally define a collar within the open end of the porous tube, a separate inner collar attached by means of sintering or bonding and made of thermal resistant material, etc… should be defined within the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Smith et al. (11610795).
Regarding claim 1, the Smith et al. reference discloses a gas diffusion device
(Figure 1), comprising: at least one porous tube (Fig. 4), having a longitudinal space
(length of tube), the longitudinal space having a closed end (top of tube) and an open
end (Fig. 6A, 6B); and at least one collar (see Annotated Figure 6A, connector 440, seal 444 and tabs 442), connected to an inner side of the open end, configured to buffer a corresponding coupling structure on a bottom portion of a wafer container (190) to which the porous tube is assembled so as to prevent breaking of the open end (See column 10, lines 53 - 60). The collar is defined at the upper portion of connector (440) and is connected to an inner side by tabs (442; see Annotated Fig. 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein a shape of a horizontal cross section of the porous
tube is a circle having a diameter. See Figures 6A and 6B.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the coupling structure at the bottom portion defines
a through channel which allows a gas to enter the longitudinal space. Gas enters at the
bottom portion of the coupling structure. See column 2, lines 29 - 40.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the through channel has a center axis which is located within the longitudinal space. The through channel center axis is located within the longitudinal space.
Regarding claim 6, wherein when the porous tube is assembled in the wafer container (190), one side surface of the porous tube faces a plurality of wafers (82) in the wafer container, the side surface has a plurality of recesses (11) formed thereon, and a level of each of the recesses is between those of two adjacent wafers in the wafer container. See Figure 1.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the porous tube is formed by assembling a top cover, a tower and the open end that are detachable. Forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising a first collar arranged at the open end of the porous tube and a second collar located between the first collar and the coupling structure when the porous tube is coupled to the corresponding coupling structure (see Figures 6A and 6B).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the porous tube and the coupling structure are
coaxial. See annotated Figure 6A, above.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12-14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Glavan et al. (10672637).
Regarding claim 1, the Glavan et al. reference discloses a gas diffusion device
(Figure 1), comprising: at least one porous tube (see Figs. 2 and 3), having a
longitudinal space (length of tube), the longitudinal space having a closed end (top of
tube) and an open end (198); and at least one collar (142, 206), connected to an inner side of the open end (see Figure 3 and Figure 7, below), configured to buffer a corresponding coupling structure on a bottom portion of a wafer container (30) to which the porous tube (186) is assembled so as to prevent breaking of the open end.
Collar (142) connects to an inner side of open end (198) and collar (206). See column 7, lines 1 – 5.
Regarding claim 2, wherein a shape of a horizontal cross section of the porous tube is a circle having a diameter. See col. 6, lines 62 - 63.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the coupling structure at the bottom portion defines a through channel which allows a gas to enter the longitudinal space (inherent).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the through channel has a center axis (162) which is located within the longitudinal space. The through channel center axis is located within the longitudinal space.
Regarding claim 6, wherein when the porous tube (186) is assembled in the wafer container (30), one side surface of the porous tube faces a plurality of wafers (32) in the wafer container, the side surface has a plurality of recesses formed thereon, and a level of each of the recesses is between those of two adjacent wafers in the wafer container (Inherent; see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the porous tube is formed by assembling a top cover, a tower and the open end that are detachable. Forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 9, further comprising a first collar (206) arranged at the open end of the porous tube and a second collar (142) located between the first collar and the coupling structure when the porous tube is coupled to the corresponding coupling structure (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, further comprising an airflow guiding member (94; see Fig. 5), arranged adjacent to one side of the porous tube (186).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the air flow guiding member is a baffle plate formed by a backplate (100) and two flanks (166).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the air flow guiding member is an arc baffle plate. See annotated Figure 5.
Regarding claim 17, see offset (130) of the porous tube and coupling structure,
below. Also, see Figure 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
618
614
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Smith et al. and Glavan et al. in view of Burns et al. (7900776).
Regarding claim 4, the Smith et al. and Glavan et al. references disclose the invention (discussed supra), but don't disclose wherein the porous tube or the collar is made of a thermal resistant material which is one or a combination of at least two selected from a group consisting of PEEK, HTPC, FKM, PPS, PPO, chlorinated polyether, POB, TORLON, EP, PF, PEI, PI and LCP. The Burns et al. reference discloses another gas diffusion device (Figure 8) having various components made of desirable PEEK thermoplastics that are well known in the art (col. 5, lines 11 - 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the Smith et al. and Glavan et al. devices to have various components made of PEEK as, for example, taught by the Burns et al., since thermal resistant materials are well known in the art, conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al.
Regarding claim 10, the Smith et al. reference discloses the invention
(discussed supra), including a unitary article of integral construction being bonded by
welds, friction fit, adhesives, fasteners, etc… (see col. 2, lines 29 - 56), but doesn't
explicitly disclose wherein the first collar is attached by means of sintering or bonding to
the open end of the porous tube. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date to further apply one of the bonding techniques, above, to the first collar as
well-known and conventional and would be obvious to try without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, the Smith et al. reference discloses the invention
(discussed supra) including being made of numerous different polymers (see col. 5, line
53 - col. 6, line 3), but doesn't disclose wherein the materials of the first collar and the
second collar are softer than the material of the porous tube. However, it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to make the first and second collars of a material softer than the porous tube, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 TIMOTHY LEWIS MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-4891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7am - 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/TIMOTHY L MAUST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights