19DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 14 belongs to Group I. This is not found persuasive because in the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process such as one that does not include an outer retainer contact or an inner reticle pod cover.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the outer retainer contact" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the inner reticle pod cover" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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, 5-6 and 15 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al. (US 2012/0037522) which in figure 2 and figure 11 below discloses the following claimed invention:
In re claim 1: A pod (Fig.2) comprising a door 20 and a dome 10 and adapted to contain an inner reticle pod 30/40, the pod (Fig.2) comprising: a door 20 adapted to support an inner reticle pod 30/40, a dome 20 adapted to cover the door 20 to enclose an inner reticle pod 30/40 supported by the door 20, the dome 10 comprising a dome clamp 15/16 connected to the dome interior (Fig.11), the dome clamp 15/16 comprising: a connector C that connects the dome clamp 15/16 to the dome interior (Fig.11), a first leg 1L extending from the connector C to a first leg end that comprises a reticle clamp RC, and a second leg 2L extending from the connector C to a second leg end that comprises a cover clamp CC (See figures 2 and 11 of Chiu et al.).
In re claim 5: the dome 10 comprises a dome plate 15 at the dome interior and the connector 16 is connected to the dome plate 15 (See figures 2 and 11 of Chiu et al.).
In re claim 6: the dome plate 15 comprises a plate member 15 and the dome clamp 15/16 integrally formed with the plate member 15 (See figures 2 and 11 of Chiu et al.).
In re claim 15: the pod is rectangular 10/20, the inner reticle pod 30/40 is rectangular, and the reticle R is rectangular (See figure 2 of Chiu et al.).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. (US 2012/0037522) in view of Wu (US 7,850,009). Chiu et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation as taught Wu:
In re claim 2: the first leg 52 and the second leg 53 are adapted to flex about the connector (see col., ll.40-63 and Col.4, ll.3-32 of Wu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the connector and legs of Chiu et al. with an elastic material as taught by Wu in order to prevent damage when in use (see col., ll.40-63 and Col.4, ll.3-32 of Wu).
Chiu et al. in view of Wu further teach:
In re claim 3: the first leg 52 and the second leg 53 are capable of moving in opposite vertical directions about the connector (see col., ll.40-63 and Col.4, ll.3-32 of Wu).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the connector and legs of Chiu et al. with an elastic material as taught by Wu in order to prevent damage when in use (see col., ll.40-63 and Col.4, ll.3-32 of Wu).
In re claim 4: the first leg 52 is flexible and the second leg 53 is flexible such that when pressure is applied to the first leg and the second leg in a direction toward the dome, the first leg will bend toward the dome and the second leg will bend toward the dome.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the connector and legs of Chiu et al. with an elastic material as taught by Wu in order to prevent damage when in use (see col., ll.40-63 and Col.4, ll.3-32 of Wu).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. (US 2012/0037522). Chiu et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above with the exception of the following claimed limitation:
In re claim 7: the reticle clamp is located at a first length (x- direction) from the connector, the cover clamp is located a second length (x-direction) from the connector, and the first length is approximately equal to the second length.
In re claim 8: the reticle clamp is located at a first length (x- direction) from the connector, the cover clamp is located a second length (x-direction) from the connector, and the first length is greater than or less than the second leg length.
In re claim 9: the reticle clamp is located at a first depth (y- direction) from the connector, the cover clamp is located a second depth (y-direction) from the connector, and the first depth is approximately equal to the second depth.
In re claim 10: the reticle clamp is located at a first depth (y- direction) from the connector, the cover clamp is located a second depth (y-direction) from the connector, and the first depth is greater than or less than the second depth.
Chiu et al. discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention except for the express disclosure of the length and depth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to ***, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. 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. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for prior art the teaches and suggests structural limitations of the claimed and disclosed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNESTO A GRANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3927. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30 EST.
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.
/ERNESTO A GRANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
