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 .
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 2/4/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. US 5,836,736 in view of Shimada US 7,077,913 B2.
With regards to claim 1, Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) discloses a carrier 51, comprising: a frame defining an interior space 34 having a top opening and a bottom opening, the frame having a first sidewall 36, a second sidewall 36, a first connecting wall 37, and a second connecting wall 37, wherein the first and second connecting walls extend between the first sidewall and the second sidewall; and a holder 60 disposed across the bottom opening and laterally between the first and the second sidewall, wherein a through hole 70 is formed in the holder, and an axis through the through hole passes through the top and the bottom openings.
Thompson recites in Col 4:63-67, the longitudinal axis 80 shown in Fig. 4, is perpendicular to the center point of groove arcs 79 which correlates to through hole 70, therefore, an axis through the through hole passes through the top and the bottom openings.
Thompson recites holding articles such as semiconductor wafers, data disks semiconductor substrates and similar articles, therefore it is capable of carrying cassettes, simply by laying the cassette on top of the surface of the tray, depending on the type of cassette to be held.
Thompson disclose the holder but it does not specifically disclose the holder has a rounded top surface curving outward.
However, Shimada teaches that it was known in the art to have a holder 1 have a rounded top surface 2 curving outward. (shown in Fig. 1A and 2A)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top surface in Thompson by having it curve outward as taught by Shimada for the purposes of minimizing the surface area touching the fragile article.
With regards to claim 2, Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) discloses the holder 60 has vertical side surfaces. (shown in Fig. 2)
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) in view of Shimada discloses the holder 60 has one or more slanted top surfaces. (at 67; shown in Fig. 4) (also taught with Shimada Fig. 3C)
With regards to claim 4, Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) discloses the holder 60 has a contact portion (at 79) and a noncontact portion (at 66), and the noncontact portion has an inclined top surface that slopes upwards to interface the contact portion, wherein the contact portion is configured to directly contact a semiconductor component, depending on the semiconductor component to be held. (shown in Fig. 2 and 4 described in Col 36-53)
With regards to claim 5, Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) discloses the contact portion (at 79) further includes a protruding portion and a non-protruding portion, the protruding portion having a vertical side surface, wherein the non-protruding portion has an inclined top surface that slopes upwards to interface the vertical side surface of the protruding portion. (shown in Fig. 2 and 4 described in Col 36-53)
With regards to claim 6, Thompson discloses a protruding portion configured to directly contact some semiconductor component but it does not specifically disclose the protruding portion has the rounded top surface.
To modify protruding portion with rounded top surface as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the protruding portion and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the top surface of the protruding portion to be rounded since it was known in the art that doing so would protect the semiconductor component from getting damaged or scratched.
With regards to claim 7, Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) discloses the through hole 70 penetrates through both a portion of the contact portion and a portion of the noncontact portion.
With regards to claim 8, Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) discloses further comprising a semiconductor component 50 placed on the holder and disposed directly above the through hole. (Abstract and Claim 1)
With regards to claim 10, Thompson (Fig. 2-5, Col 4:30-53 and 5:54-62) discloses the semiconductor component 50 is a semiconductor wafer. (Abstract and throughout reference)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. US 5,836,736 in view of Shimada US 7,077,913 B2 and further in view of Nakahara US 2004/0017556 A1.
With regards to claim 9, Thompson discloses a semiconductor component but it does not specifically disclose it is an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) pellicle having a membrane and a perimeter frame, and the perimeter frame lands on the holder.
However, Nakahara teaches that it was known in the art to have a carrier hold a semiconductor component that is an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) pellicle having a membrane and a perimeter frame, and the perimeter frame lands on the holder. (Para. 0088 and 0175)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the semiconductor component in Thompson by providing an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) pellicle as taught by Nakahara for the purposes of providing an alternative type of semiconductor component to be held.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. US 5,370,142.
With regards to claim 13, Nishi (shown in Fig. 26 and 28) discloses a holder 19 for supporting a semiconductor component, the holder comprising: a contact portion (at 79) extending lengthwise along a first direction, the contact portion has a protruding portion and a non-protruding portion, the protruding portion is adjacent the non-protruding portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the protruding portion has a top surface configured to physically support some semiconductor component, and the non-protruding portion has an inclined top surface that slopes upwards to interface a vertical side surface of the protruding portion; and a noncontact portion (at 66) extending lengthwise along the first direction, the noncontact portion is adjacent the contact portion along the second direction, the noncontact portion having an inclined top surface that slopes upwards to interface the contact portion. (Col 4:45-65 and Fig. 4 and 25-28)
Nishi discloses a protruding portion configured to directly contact some semiconductor component but it does not specifically disclose the protruding portion has a rounded top surface.
To modify protruding portion with rounded top surface as claimed would entail a mere change in shape of the protruding portion and yield only predictable results. "[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person's skill." KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1396 (2007). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the top surface of the protruding portion to be rounded since it was known in the art that doing so would protect the semiconductor component from getting damaged or scratched.
With regards to claim 14, Nishi (shown in Fig. 26 and 28) discloses further comprising one or more through holes 20 that penetrate vertically through the holder 19, wherein a portion of the contact portion is separated from a portion of the noncontact portion by the one or more through holes.
With regards to claim 15, Nishi discloses the claimed invention (through holes) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose each of the one or more through holes spans a length greater than 600 µm along the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the one or more through holes span a length greater than 600 µm along the first direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the one or more through holes span a length greater than 600 µm along the first direction since it was known in the art that doing so would allow more solution to contact the articles.
With regards to claim 16, Nishi discloses the claimed invention (through holes) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose along the second direction, each of the one or more through holes spans a width greater than 0.05 times a total width of the holder but less than 0.95 times the total width of the holder.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have along the second direction, each of the one or more through holes spans a width greater than 0.05 times a total width of the holder but less than 0.95 times the total width of the holder, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have along the second direction, each of the one or more through holes spans a width greater than 0.05 times a total width of the holder but less than 0.95 times the total width of the holder, since it was known in the art that doing so would allow more solution to contact the articles.
With regards to claim 17, Nishi discloses the claimed invention (contact portion 79) as stated above but it does not specifically disclose the contact portion spans a width greater than 0.05 times a total width of the holder but less than 0.95 times the total width of the holder.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the contact portion spans a width greater than 0.05 times a total width of the holder but less than 0.95 times the total width of the holder, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to have the contact portion span a width greater than 0.05 times a total width of the holder but less than 0.95 times the total width of the holder, since it was known in the art that doing so would allow the holder to conform to the articles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Claims 18-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The specific limitations of “…a pair of holders disposed across the bottom opening and laterally between the first and the second sidewall, wherein the contact portion is configured to directly contact a semiconductor component, wherein one or more through holes are formed through each holder of the pair of holders.” are not anticipated or made obvious by the prior art or record in the examiner’s opinion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection. However, in regards to Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/2026, in reference to claims 13-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues Thompson does not disclose “the contact portion further includes a protruding portion and a non-protruding portion”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assessment. In the annotated figure below, Thompson discloses contact portion with a protruding portion (shown below) and a non-protruding portion (shown below) depending on the structure to be held.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, Monday-Thursday.
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 E. Avilés 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
