DETAILED 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 .
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding claim 14, lines 3-4, “the non-equilateral rectangular reticle” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a non-equilateral rectangular reticle container” but does not recite a reticle to be contained within the container. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will examine the claim as written.
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, 2, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, US 8469408 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a latch mechanism (locking component 60; Fig 1), adapted for a door (covering 56) of a non-equilateral rectangular reticle container (housing 52; Fig 2 depicts 56 to be non-equilateral rectangular shaped; In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, Li teaches the all structural limitations of the claim and is structurally capable without modification of being adapted for a door of a non-equilateral rectangle reticle container), comprising:
a driving member (button 58) disposed at the door (see Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li);
a plurality of driven assemblies (locking component 60; Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li depicts a plurality of 60) respectively abutting against the driving member, wherein, when the driving member rotates, the plurality of driven assemblies are synchronously actuated to undergo reciprocating movement to protrude from or retract into the door (col 1, lines 31-49; col 3, line 65-col 4, line 22), such that at least one of the plurality of driven assemblies is configured to lock or unlock a side of the door of the non-equilateral rectangular reticle container (Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li depicts at least one 60 is configured to lock or unlock a side of 56 of 52).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1, wherein the plurality of driven assemblies (60; Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li depicts a plurality of 60) are configured to lock or unlock long sides of the door of the non-equilateral rectangular reticle container (Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li depicts at least one 60 is configured to lock or unlock long sides of 56 of 52).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1, wherein the plurality of driven assemblies (60; Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li depicts a plurality of 60) are respectively disposed on opposite sides of the door (56) and operably coupled to the driving member (58; see Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li), and each of the plurality of driven assemblies comprises a driven member and a latch member (see Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li), the driven member having a connecting rib, one end of the connecting rib connected to the driving member and the other end of the connecting rib connected to the latch member (see Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li), such that, when the driving member rotates, the driven members are synchronously actuated, allowing the latch members to protrude from or retract into the door (col 1, lines 31-49; col 3, line 65-col 4, line 22).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 3, wherein, when the driving member (58) rotates, the driven members are synchronously actuated, allowing the connecting ribs (col 1, lines 31-49; col 3, line 65-col 4, line 22) to undergo lateral linear movement and push the latch members (col 1, lines 31-49; col 3, line 65-col 4, line 22) to move longitudinally toward the sides of the door, allowing the latch members to protrude from or retract into the door (col 1, lines 31-49; col 3, line 65-col 4, line 22; see movement between Fig 9 and Fig 10).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al, US 6622883 B1 (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a latch mechanism (rotatable cam member 10; two first links 20,20’; two second links 30,30’; Fig 1), adapted for a door (door body 40; door panel 49) of a non-equilateral rectangular reticle container (wafer transport module 90; Fig 2 depicts the opening in 90 to be non-equilateral rectangular shaped; In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, Wu teaches the all structural limitations of the claim and is structurally capable without modification of being adapted for a door of a non-equilateral rectangle reticle container), comprising:
a driving member (10) disposed at the door (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu);
a plurality of driven assemblies (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu depicts the driven assemblies to be 20; 30 and 20’;30’) respectively abutting against the driving member, wherein, when the driving member rotates, the plurality of driven assemblies are synchronously actuated to undergo reciprocating movement to protrude from or retract into the door (col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15; col 3, lines 19-29 discusses and Fig 3 depicts 10 rotating and withdrawing 20 into 40; rotation of 10 in the direction of the depicted arrow would cause 20 to protrude from 40), such that at least one of the plurality of driven assemblies is configured to lock or unlock a side of the door of the non-equilateral rectangular reticle container (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu depicts 20;30 and 20’;30’ configured to lock or unlock a side off 40 of 90).
PNG
media_image2.png
467
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1, wherein the plurality of driven assemblies (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu depicts 20; 30 and 20’;30’) are respectively disposed on opposite sides of the door (40) and operably coupled to the driving member (10; see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu), and each of the plurality of driven assemblies comprises a driven member (20; 20’) and a latch member (tongue 23 of 20; tongue 33 of 30), the driven member having a connecting rib (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu), one end of the connecting rib connected to the driving member (10) and the other end of the connecting rib connected to the latch member (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu and Fig 3), such that, when the driving member rotates, the driven members are synchronously actuated, allowing the latch members to protrude from or retract into the door (col 3, lines 19-29).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the latch mechanism of claim 3, wherein each of the connecting ribs has two opposite inclined surfaces (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu depicts the connecting ribs to have two opposing inclined surfaces thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2a of opposite and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and the latch members (23; 33) are actuated by the connecting ribs to slide along the inclined surfaces respectively, allowing the latch members to protrude from or retract into a lateral side of the door (40; col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15; col 3, lines 19-29).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of driven assemblies (20; 30; 20’; 30’) comprises a connecting rib (20;20’), at least one long-side latch member (tongue 23; Fig 3 depicts 20 comprising 23), and at least one short-side latch member (tongue 33; Fig 3 depicts 30 comprising 33), one end of the connecting rib connected to the driving member (20; see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu), with the long-side latch member disposed on long sides of the door, and with the short-side latch member disposed on short sides of the door (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu and Fig 3), wherein, when the driving member rotates, the plurality of driven assemblies are synchronously actuated to cause the connecting ribs to undergo lateral linear movement to synchronously push the long-side latch member toward the long sides of the door and the short-side latch member toward the short sides of the door, allowing the long-side latch member and the short-side latch member to protrude from or retract into the door simultaneously (col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15 and col 3, lines 19-29 discusses and Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu and Fig 3 depicts 10 rotating and retracting 23 of 20,20’ and 33 of 30;30’ into 40; rotation of 10 in the direction of the depicted arrow would cause them to protrude from 40).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches the latch mechanism of claim 6, wherein each of the connecting ribs has two opposite inclined surfaces corresponding in position to the long-side latch members (23; Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu depicts the connecting ribs to have two opposing inclined surfaces thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 2a of opposite and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term; the inclined surfaces related to 23 thereby meeting the Merriam-Webster definition 1b of corresponding and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term), and ends of the connecting ribs are positioned distal to the driving member and respectively connected to the short-side latch members (Annotated excerpt Fig2-Wu depicts the connecting ribs positioned distal to 10 and connected to 33 of 30), and wherein the connecting ribs actuate the long-side latch members to slide along the inclined surfaces to protrude from or retract into the long sides of the door (col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15; col 3, lines 19-29 discuss the 20;20’ translating to actuate 23 to sliding along with the inclined surfaces), and actuate the short-side latch members to protrude from or retract into the short sides of the door (col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15; col 3, lines 19-29 discuss 20;20’ actuating 33 of 30 to protrude or retract).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 6, wherein ends of the connecting ribs (20; 20’) are positioned distal to the driving member (10) and respectively connected to the short-side latch members (Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu depicts the upper end of 20’ and the lower end of 20 positioned away from 10 and connected to 33 of 30’30’), synchronizing the lateral linear movement of the short-side latch members with the movement of the connecting ribs (col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15 and col 3, lines 19-29 discusses and Fig 3 depicts 10 rotating, 20;20’ translating, resulting in the withdrawing 33 of 30’30’ into 40; rotation of 10 in the direction of the depicted arrow would cause 33 to protrude from 40).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 6, wherein, when the plurality of driven assemblies (20;30;20’;30’) have the plurality of short-side latch members (33 of 30;30’), the short-side latch members are coupled to the connecting rib (20; 20’) through a connection portion (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu), synchronizing movement of the short-side latch members with the connecting ribs (col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15 and col 3, lines 19-29).
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al, CN 113823588 A (hereinafter Li-3588). Cited paragraph numbers are from the attached Espacenet machine translation of CN 113823588 A.
Regarding claim 1, Li-3588 teaches a latch mechanism (Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588 depicts a latch mechanism), adapted for a door (door plate 100) of a non-equilateral rectangular reticle container (door frame 200; Fig 1 depicts the opening in 200 to be non-equilateral rectangular shaped; In re Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, Li-3588 teaches the all structural limitations of the claim and is structurally capable without modification of being adapted for a door of a non-equilateral rectangle reticle container), comprising:
a driving member (driving gear 146) disposed at the door (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588);
a plurality of driven assemblies respectively abutting against the driving member (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588), wherein, when the driving member rotates, the plurality of driven assemblies are synchronously actuated to undergo reciprocating movement to protrude from or retract into the door, such that at least one of the plurality of driven assemblies is configured to lock or unlock a side of the door of the non-equilateral rectangular reticle container([n0120] discusses and Fig 1 and Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588 depict the driven assemblies configured to lock and unlock 100 of 200).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
435
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588
Regarding claim 10, Li-3588 teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of driven assemblies (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588) comprises a driven member (driven gear 147) and at least one latch member (upper locking tongue 111), and wherein the driving member (146) and the driven members are transmission wheels configured to mutually drive each other to transmit power (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588), and wherein, when the driving member rotates, the driven members are synchronously actuated to rotate, allowing the latch member to protrude from or retract into the door [n0120].
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 10, wherein the driving member (146) comprises a first toothed surface, and each of the driven members (147) comprises a second toothed surface, and wherein the first toothed surface and the second toothed surface are arranged in meshing engagement (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588) such that, when the driving member rotates, the driven members are synchronously actuated to rotate [n0120].
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 10, wherein each of the plurality of driven assemblies (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588) comprises two of the driven members (147), and the two driven members are spaced apart and positioned proximate to short sides of the door (Fig 2 and Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588 depict two 147 spaced apart and proximate to the short sides of the door).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al, CN 113823588 A (previously introduced as Li-3588), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. US 6622883 B1 (previously introduced as Wu)
Regarding claim 13, Li-3588 teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of driven assemblies (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588) comprises a driven member (driven gear 147), at least one long-side latch member (upper locking tongue 111), with the long-side latch member disposed on long sides of the door (see Fig 2 and Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588), wherein the driving member (146) and the driven members are transmission wheels configured to mutually drive each other to transmit power (see Annotated excerpt Fig 6-Li-3588), and wherein, when the driving member rotates, the driven members are synchronously actuated to rotate, allowing the long-side latch member to protrude from or retract into the door [n0120].
Li-3588 doesn’t teach at least one short side latch member disposed on short sides of the door to protrude from or retract into the door.
Wu teaches it is known in the art for a latch mechanism to comprise at least one short-side latch member (tongue 33) with the short-side latch member disposed on short sides of the door (see Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu), wherein when a driving member (10) rotates, the short-side latch member driven to protrude from or retract into the door (col 2, line 44-col 3, line 15 and col 3, lines 19-29 discusses and Annotated excerpt Fig 2-Wu and Fig 3 depicts 10 rotating and retracting 23 of 20,20’ and 33 of 30;30’ into 40; rotation of 10 in the direction of the depicted arrow would cause them to protrude from 40).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale C, to modify the latch apparatus of Li-3588 with the short-side latches of Wu. The prior art contains a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” (the latch apparatus of Li-3588) and a “comparable” device that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (the latch apparatus of Wu). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add short-sides latches to improve container door security to reduce accidental opening and subsequent material damage. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” in the same way to the “base” device with a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable, namely a container door with a latch apparatus with both long and short side latches that functions in the same way as Li-3588 and Wu.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US 8469408 B2.
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1, wherein the driving member (58) is disposed in a central region of the door (56; Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li depicts 58 disposed in a central region of 56), with the central region defined by a length and a width respectively equal to 0.9 times a length of the non-equilateral rectangular reticle and 0.9 times a width of the non-equilateral rectangular reticle (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant invention to size material handling containers to the materials being handled (e.g. reticles, electronic devices, semiconductor wafers) in order to more securely hold and transport contents such that Li’s container with a door mounted latch would be so sized, the instant specification does not discuss sizing the container to its contents, claim 14 recites container structure dependent on unclaimed contents; In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the Li’s container which would contain contents similarly to the instant invention), and a center of the central region is aligned with a geometric center of the door (Annotated excerpt Fig 9-Li depicts a center of the central region aligned with the geometric center of 56 in the same manner as the instant invention, Note: the figures of the instant invention or Li are labeled as drawn to scale so this comparison is approximate although still obvious).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, US 8469408 B2, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al., US 11398395 B2 (hereinafter Smith) .
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches the latch mechanism of claim 1.
Li teaches a container (52) but is silent on what it can contain so does not teach a non-equilateral rectangular reticle container.
Smith teaches it is known in the art for containers (substrate container 20) to contain multiple products (raw silicon wafers, processed silicon wafers, flat panels, glass panels, reticles, printed circuit boards; col 3, line 60-col 4, line 22) such that Smith teaches a non-equilateral rectangular reticle container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using KSR Rationale B, to substitute the container of Li with the reticle container taught by Smith. The prior art contains Li’s container with latch assembly which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of the contents of the container (the silent electronics of Li) with another component (the reticles of Smith). Reticle containers are known in the art, as evidenced by Smith’s teachings of a variety of substrates that are routinely contained. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide containers with door latch mechanism in a variety of sizes for a variety of materials in order to better service the material handling markets. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for another with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, namely a container to carry reticles in the same manner as the container disclosed by Li.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art for container latch apparatus.
Williams et al.; US 5482161 A, teaches a mechanical interface wafer container with door latches on both long and short door sides.
Hsu et al., US 20230060148 A1, teaches a wafer transport container with door latches on four sides.
Wang et al., US 8833806 B2, teaches a front opening unified pod with latch structure with cam driven latches.
Venderpool et al., US 6350418 B1, teaches a lid latching mechanism for sterilization container with latches on both long and short door sides.
Chang et al., US 6536592 B1, teaches a transportable container having an indicator with the driving and driven members are geared transmission wheels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN A TULLIA whose telephone number is (571)272-6434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached on (571)272-7376. 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 TULLIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights