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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (Figures 2-4B) in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicates that claims 1-5, 7-8 and 12 correspond to elected species 1. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species 1 (Figures 2-4B), Species 2 (Figures 5-6B), and Species 3 (Figures 7-8B) are not patentably distinct species, but rather obvious variants of one another. These species share common structural elements and operate under the same technical principle, differing in the specific configuration of the supporting mechanism. Accordingly, the species election requirement is improper at least with respect to Species 1, 2, and 3. Therefore, claims 6, 9, and 10 directed to Species 2 and 3 should be examined. Since Species 1, 2, and 3 share common structural elements and fall within the same field of search, a search directed to Species 1 would substantially overlap with the search for Species 2 and 3. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that examining Claims 1-10 and 12 together would not impose a serious additional burden. This is not found persuasive because Species 1-3 are independent due to having different structural features such as species 1 including four mounting structures for alignment with expansion holes, species 2 includes a single anti-detachment element within a groove on the pin portion, and species 3 includes an insulating separator in the form of a ring corresponding to a groove in the mounting portion. There is a serious search burden for the patentably distinct species because the species require a different field of search (e.g., employing different search queries for the different structural features (e.g. different support elements, etc.) of the distinct species). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 6 and 9-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the apparatus arm [claim 12] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-5, 7-8 and 12 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.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by “a base, arranged on the inner pod base” since it is unclear if the inner pod base is being positively recited or not, due to the “adapted for an inner pod base” language earlier in the claim. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the inner pod base as not being positively recited in combination with the supporting mechanism.
Claim 1 is further rendered indefinite by the limitation “whereby causing the support able to come into contact with the inner pod base to establish an electrostatic discharge conduction path, or keeping a gap between the support and the inner pod base to disconnect the electrostatic discharge conduction path” due to the phrase “or” used in the limitation. It is unclear if the limitation is defining both “causing the support able to come into contact with the inner pod base to establish an electrostatic discharge conduction path” and “keeping a gap between the support and the inner pod base to disconnect the electrostatic discharge conduction path” or of the phase “or” is defining either one of the two. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets the insulating separator as one of “causing the support able to come into contact with the inner pod base to establish an electrostatic discharge conduction path” or “keeping a gap between the support and the inner pod base to disconnect the electrostatic discharge conduction path”.
Claim 5 is rendered indefinite by the phrase “the mounting structure” in line 3, since it is unclear if the mounting structure is the same as the “at least one mounting structure” defined in line 2 of claim 5 or a different mounting structure. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “the mounting structure” as “the at least one mounting structure”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the ground" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsueh et al. (US 9,958,772) in view of Chiu et al. (US 7,469,788).
Regarding claim 1, Hsueh discloses a switchable supporting mechanism (shown in Figs. 2-4) adapted for an inner pod base (at 1 in Fig. 1) of a dual pod, the switchable supporting mechanism comprising: a base (at 5, which includes upward extending portion 34 – as shown in Fig. 2), arranged on the inner pod base (as shown in Fig. 1); a support (at 32) inserting through the base (as shown in Figs. 2 and 4) to get close to the inner pod base; and an insulating separator (at 31), selectively separating a contact between the base and the support to cause the support to reciprocate relative to the base, whereby keeping a gap between the support and the inner pod base to disconnect the electrostatic discharge conduction path (as shown in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
1164
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hsueh discloses the claimed invention except for the support having an electrostatic discharge material. However, Chiu teaches it is well known in the art for elements of a substrate container to be formed from electrostatic dissipative materials for the purpose of providing a safe storage environment and preventing formation of crystals on the surface of the stored items (column 7, lines 26-39 and lines 59-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the support of Hsueh to be formed from electrostatic dissipative materials as taught by Chiu in order to better protect the contents.
Regarding claim 3, Hsueh discloses the base comprises a mounting portion (See Fig. 3 labeled above) and a mounting hole (See Fig. 3 labeled above) penetrating the mounting portion and the base, and the insulating separator comprises an abutting portion (See Fig. 4 labeled below) and a connecting portion (See Fig. 4 labeled below); the abutting portion abuts against an upper surface of the mounting portion, and the connecting portion fixes the insulating separator to the mounting portion via the mounting hole.
PNG
media_image2.png
548
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Hsueh discloses the insulating separator is made of an elastic material, and when an external force is applied to or released from the support, the insulating separator is accordingly elastically compressed and deformed or elastically released and reset to cause the support to reciprocate.
Regarding claim 8, Hsueh discloses an insulating anti-detachment element (widened bottom portion of 32), arranged between the base and the support to prevent the support from departing from between the base and the insulating separator.
Regarding claim 12, Hsueh discloses the support and the inner pod base establish a electrostatic discharge conduction path, which is capable of being connected to an apparatus arm to release electrostatic charge to the ground via the apparatus arm.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 and 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights