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 without traverse of Species 2 (Figures 6-12B) in the reply filed on 8/24/2026 is acknowledged. In the reply, Applicant indicated that claims 1-9 correspond to the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burns et al. (US 7,866,480).
Regarding claim 1, Burns discloses a substrate container (See Figs. 1-6), comprising: a casing (at 20 in Fig. 1); and a tray (at 26 in Figs. 2, 4 and 6) detachably connected to a bottom of the casing (as shown in Figs. 1-3), such that the casing is capable of being placed on a loading interface of a loading apparatus through the tray; wherein the tray has a top (top surface of 26 in Fig. 4), a bottom (bottom surface of 26 in Fig. 4) and a guide hole (See Fig. 6 labeled below), the top of the tray has a guide surface (inward facing surface of the guide hole - See Fig. 6 labeled below) defined proximate to the guide hole and is capable of receiving a restriction mechanism from a loading interface; and wherein the guide surface has a texture (i.e. smooth texture of the tray material) formed thereon and capable of reducing friction between the guide surface and a restriction mechanism.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Burns discloses the guide hole is a rectangular guide hole penetrating the top and the bottom of the tray, with the top having a flange (See Fig. 6 labeled below), the flange extending along four sides of the guide hole and having the guide surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Burns discloses the guide surface has a slope (corner between the guide surface and the rim) adjoining a rim (See Fig. 6 labeled below) of the guide hole.
PNG
media_image2.png
598
968
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Burns discloses the tray further has three positioning slots (slots at “A” or “B” in Fig. 6 labeled below) symmetrically disposed on the bottom of the tray, and the guide hole is disposed between symmetric two of the three positioning slots.
PNG
media_image3.png
598
968
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Burns discloses the texture is capable of reducing a contact area between the restriction mechanism and the guide surface, so as to reducing friction between the guide surface and the restriction mechanism.
Regarding claim 9, Burns discloses the guide surface is inherently formed by mechanical process. Furthermore, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Claims 1, 3-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bores et al. (US 6,520,338).
Regarding claim 1, Bores discloses a substrate container (See Figs. 1 and 3), comprising: a casing (at 14 in Figs. 1-2); and a tray (at 120 in Fig. 3 and at 122 in Fig. 1) detachably connected to a bottom of the casing, such that the casing is capable of being placed on a loading interface of a loading apparatus through the tray; wherein the tray has a top (top surface of 122 in Fig. 1), a bottom (bottom surface of 122 in Fig. 1) and a guide hole (See Fig. 3 labeled below), the top of the tray has a guide surface (inward facing surface of the guide hole - See Fig. 3 labeled below) defined proximate to the guide hole and is capable of receiving a restriction mechanism from a loading interface; and wherein the guide surface has a texture (i.e. smooth texture of the tray material) formed thereon and capable of reducing friction between the guide surface and a restriction mechanism.
PNG
media_image4.png
628
926
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Bores discloses the guide surface has a slope (corner between the guide surface and the rim) adjoining a rim (See Fig. 3 labeled below) of the guide hole.
PNG
media_image5.png
628
926
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bores discloses the tray further has three positioning slots (at 122/122/122 in Fig. 3) symmetrically disposed on the bottom of the tray, and the guide hole is disposed between symmetric two of the three positioning slots.
Regarding claim 8, Bores discloses the texture is capable of reducing a contact area between the restriction mechanism and the guide surface, so as to reducing friction between the guide surface and the restriction mechanism.
Regarding claim 9, Bores discloses the guide surface is inherently formed by mechanical process. Furthermore, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al. (US 7,866,480) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Burns et al. (US 7,422,107). As described above, Burns ‘480 discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the texture of the guide surface. However, Burns ‘107 teaches a connecting plate (at 50) comprising a hole (at 60) having a guide surface (at 40), wherein the guide surface has a texture defined by a plurality of protrusions (at 100 in Fig. 4c), a plurality of streaks (at 110 in Fig. 7) or a plurality of dots (at 110 in Fig. 9) for the purpose of reducing frictional forces generated between the connecting plate and automated processing equipment. 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 provided the guide surface of Burns ‘480 with a texture as taught by Burns ‘107 in order to reduce frictional forces between the guide hole and an external structure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bores et al. (US 6,520,338) as applied to claim 1 above. Bores discloses the guide hole is a generally rectangular guide hole penetrating the top and the bottom of the tray, with the top having a flange (labeled at the “Rim” in Fig. 3 above), the flange extending along four sides of the guide hole and having the guide surface. Bores discloses the claimed invention except for the specific shape of the guide hole. However, 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 guide hole of Bores to be rectangular in order to engage a structural element of a desired shape. Furthermore, to modify the guide hole to be rectangular would entail a mere change in shape of the hole and yield only predictable results. 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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bores et al. (US 6,520,338) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Burns et al. (US 7,422,107). As described above, Bores discloses the claimed invention except for the specifics of the texture of the guide surface. However, Burns ‘107 teaches a connecting plate (at 50) comprising a hole (at 60) having a guide surface (at 40), wherein the guide surface has a texture defined by a plurality of protrusions (at 100 in Fig. 4c), a plurality of streaks (at 110 in Fig. 7) or a plurality of dots (at 110 in Fig. 9) for the purpose of reducing frictional forces generated between the connecting plate and automated processing equipment. 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 provided the guide surface of Bores with a texture as taught by Burns ‘107 in order to reduce frictional forces between the guide hole and an external structure.
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