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 2-5 and 7-8 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.
In claim 2, the phrase “a plurality of blocking plates” is unclear whether “a plurality of blocking plates” in claim 2 includes “a blocking plate” of claim 1. In claim 3, the phrase “at least one blocking plate” is a double recitation and is inaccurate and indefinite because claim 1 recites “a blocking plate”. In claim 3, “a blocking plate” (two places) is a double recitation of claim 1. In claim 4, the phrase “thereby allowing individual fume removal and humidity control … regions” is vague, confusing and indefinite there are insufficient structures in claim to support such phrase. In claim 5, the phrase “the shelves and the blocking plate are repeatedly disposed in the vertical direction” is inaccurate and indefinite because claim 1 only recite a single blocking plate. So the phrase “repeatedly disposed” is inaccurate. In claim 7, the phrase “… so that the defect rate of the wafers can be reduced” is vague and indefinite because there are insufficient structures in the combination of claims 1 and 7 to support such phrase. In claim 8, the phrase “since the plurality of purging region is individually purged, … the wafers that have purged” is confusing and indefinite because there are insufficient structures in the combination of claims 1 and 8 to support “since …”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Woo (2023/0286742) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Woo.
As to claim 1, Woo discloses a wafer storage container (1”’; Figs. 8-10) comprising a storage chamber (10) configured to store a plurality of wafers therein through a front opening (110); a plurality of shelves (120) provided in a vertical direction inside the storage chamber to support the wafers; at least one blocking plate (30”’; 310”’; 320”’) disposed in the vertical direction inside the storage chamber and configured to block a vertical flow (Fig. 10) of the purge gas inside the storage chamber; and a plurality of purging regions (130) that are individually divided in the vertical direction inside the storage chamber by the blocking plate (specification).
As to claim 2, to the extent that the Examiner can determine the scope of the claim, Woo discloses the at least one blocking plate comprises a plurality of blocking plates (310”’, 320”’) are disposed in the vertical direction inside the storage chamber, each positioned between adjacent shelves to define individual purging regions (Fig. 9).
As to claim 3, Woo discloses the at least one blocking plate divides the inside of the storage chamber in the vertical direction to form a plurality of purging regions (Figs. 8-10), and the uppermost purging region is enclosed by an upper plate at the upper side (a top plate as shown in Fig. 9) and a blocking plate at the lower side (310”’) while the lowermost purging region is enclosed by a blocking plate (320”’) at the upper side and a lower plate (a bottom plate as shown in Fig. 9).
As to claim 4, the blocking plate of Woo is inherently capable to prevent the vertical flow of the purge gas and fumes inside the storage chamber (Fig. 10). The wafer storage chamber of Woo is capable for allowing individual fume removal and humidity control for each wafer located in a respective purging region among the plurality of purging regions.
As to claim 5, to the extent that Woo fails to disclose that inside the storage chamber, the shelves and the blocking plate are repeatedly disposed in the vertical direction as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wafer storage container of Woo so the storage chamber is constructed with the shelves and the blocking plate are repeatedly disposed in the vertical direction for better protecting the wafers disposed within the storage chamber and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 6, Woo discloses the plurality of purging regions (Fig. 3) is formed by dividing the inside of the storage chamber in the vertical direction by an upper plate, a lower plate, and the blocking plate (Fig. 10).
As to claim 7, to the extent that the Examiner can determine the scope of the claim, Woo discloses the vertical flow of the purge gas and fumes is blocked by the blocking plate (Fig. 10) such that when a large amount of fumes exists on one of the plurality of wafers, the wafers in other purging regions are not affected, so that the defect rate of the wafers can be reduces.
As to claim 8, the wafer storage container of Woo is inherently capable to provide storage chamber with the plurality of purging regions is individually purged, the same purging time can be set for the plurality of wafers, such that all the wafers can be purged for the same period of time by individually stopping purging of the wafers that have purged.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAN K BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4552. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F, 7-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531 or orlando.aviles-bosques@uspto.gov. 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.
/LUAN K BUI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736