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 .
The amendment filed on July 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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, 2, 5-10, 13-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over del Puerto et al. [US 20030227605 A1, hereafter del Puerto] in view of Gregerson et al. [US 20060244942 A1, hereafter Gregerson].
As per Claims 1 and 9, del Puerto teaches an article, comprising an inner pod of a reticle pod 1250 (See fig. 12), the inner pod comprising a cover 1264 and a baseplate 1258, wherein at least one of the cover and the baseplate include a volume adjustment surface 1304 (See fig. 13, Para 121-124).
del Puerto further disclosed an example of a filtered passage 1304 can be a hole through a wall of the dome 1264 covered with a membrane gas filter, or the like (Para 121).
del Puerto does not explicitly disclose a volume adjustment surface configured to
be deflected into an internal space defined by the inner pod by a maximum deflection of
at least 0.5 mm when the cover and the baseplate are separated, and wherein the volume adjustment surface is retained in an opening in the at least one of the cover and the baseplate by a retainer in the opening.
Gregerson teaches a flexible diaphragm cap 460 is slidably received and circumjacently positioned about outer circumferential wall 452 so as to extend over vent 444, and wherein the volume adjustment surface is retained in an opening in the at least one of the cover and the baseplate by a retainer in the opening (See fig. 5B, Para 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a flexible diaphragm as disclosed by Gregerson
in the reticle pod of del Puerto in order to effectively control the inside pressure of the reticle pod to a desired amount.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claims 2 and 10, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches the article of claim 1, wherein the deflectable surface is a filter (del Puerto Para 121).
As per Claims 5, 7, 13 and 15, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches the
article of claim 2.
Gregerson further disclosed a filter support configured to be deflected when the cover and the baseplate are separated (Para 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a flexible diaphragm as disclosed by Gregerson in the reticle pod of del Puerto in order to effectively control the inside pressure of the reticle pod to a desired amount.
As per Claims 6 and 14, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches the article of claim 2.
Gregerson further disclosed wherein the filter is secured over a filten opening by
a retainer, and the filter is in tension when the retainer secures the filter (Para 44,
wherein a flexible diaphragm cap 460 is slidably received and circumjacently positioned
about outer circumferential wall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time
the invention was made to incorporate a flexible diaphragm as disclosed by Gregerson
in the reticle pod of del Puerto in order to effectively control the inside pressure of the
reticle pod to a desired amount.
As per Claim 8, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches a reticle pod
comprising an outer pod 1256 including a pod dome and a pod door, and the article of
claim 1 (See del Puerto fig. 12 and Gregerson fig. 11).
As per Claim 16, del Puerto teaches an article, comprising a reticle pod, the
reticle pod having a cover and a baseplate forming an internal space in the reticle pod
1250 (See fig. 12), wherein at least one of the cover 1264 and the baseplate 1258
include a volume adjustment filter 1304 (See fig. 13, Para 121-124).
del Puerto further disclosed an example of a filtered passage 1304 can be a hole
through a wall of the dome 1264 covered with a membrane gas filter, or the like (Para
121).
del Puerto does not explicitly disclose a volume adjustment surface capable of
deforming during separation of the cover and the base plate such that a peak pressure
differential in the internal space during separation of the cover and the baseplate is reduced by between 15% and 55% in comparison to a reticle pod without the volume
adjustment filter.
Gregerson teaches a flexible diaphragm cap 460 is slidably received and
circumjacently positioned about outer circumferential wall 452 so as to extend over vent
444, and wherein the volume adjustment surface is retained in an opening in the at least one of the cover and the baseplate by a retainer in the opening (See fig. 5B, Para 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a flexible diaphragm as disclosed by Gregerson in the reticle pod of del Puerto in order to effectively control the inside pressure of the reticle pod to a desired amount.
As per Claim 17, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches the article of claim 16.
Gregerson further disclosed wherein the reticle pod further comprises a pod
dome and a pod door (See fig. 11, Para 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a flexible diaphragm as disclosed by Gregerson
in the reticle pod of del Puerto in order to effectively control the inside pressure of the
reticle pod to a desired amount.
As per Claim 19, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches the article of claim 16.
Gregerson further disclosed wherein the volume adjustment filter comprises a
filter support, the filter support configured to be deflected during separation of the cover
and the baseplate (Para 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a flexible diaphragm as disclosed by Gregerson in the reticle pod of del Puerto in order to effectively control the inside pressure of the
reticle pod to a desired amount.
As per Claim 20, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches the article of claim 16.
Gregerson further disclosed wherein the opening is a filter opening, and the volume adjustment filter is secured over a filter opening by a retainer, and the volume adjustment filter is in tension when the retainer secures the volume adjustment filter (Para 44 and 47, wherein a flexible diaphragm cap 460 is slidably received and circumjacently positioned about outer circumferential wall).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a flexible diaphragm as disclosed by Gregerson
in the reticle pod of del Puerto in order to effectively control the inside pressure of the
reticle pod to a desired amount.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over del Puerto in view of Gregerson as applied above, further in view of Kozeki [US 20130095417 A1].
As per Claims 3, 4, 11, 12 and 18, del Puerto in view of Gregerson teaches the
article of claim 2.
del Puerto further disclosed an example of a filtered passage 1304 can be a hole
through a wall of the dome 1264 covered with a membrane gas filter, or the like (Para 121).
del Puerto in view of Gregerson do not explicitly teach wherein the filter includes
expanded polytetrafluoroethylene or scrim material.
Kozeki teaches the solution thus obtained was filtrated through a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane filter (pore size: 500 nm) to afford a filtrate
deprived of foreign material (Para 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a membrane filter material as claimed in order to
effectively control the inside pressure of the reticle pod to a desired amount.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark section, with regard to claims 1, 2, 5-10, 13-17, 19 and 20, Applicant argued that the combination of del Puerto and Gregerson does not teach or suggest a volume adjustment surface retained in an opening in at least one of the cover and the baseplate by a retainer in the opening, where that surface is configured to be deflected into the internal space defined by the inner pod when the cover and the baseplate are separated. Applicant further argued that Del Puerto also does not disclose or suggest that the membrane gas filter deflects.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art to Gregerson, as shown in the figure above, disclosed a volume adjustment surface retained in an opening in at least one of the cover and the baseplate by a retainer in the opening, where that surface is configured to be deflected into the internal space defined by the inner pod when the cover and the baseplate are separated. Furthermore, Gregerson [0047] disclosed an example of a diaphragm may be a membrane gas filter, or the like, and from the combination of del Puerto and Gregerson, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have suggest deflectable filter to be accommodated in the membrane.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights