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 § 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, 4, 6-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al (10,347,517).
As to claim 1, Smith discloses a gas diffusion apparatus (70), applicable to a semiconductor container (Figure 1, substrate container 30), the gas diffusion apparatus (70) comprising: at least one diffuser body (300, 320, 340, 360) ; a first portion (Figure 13, 306a) disposed on the diffuser body (300) , the first portion having a first airflow rate (316) ; and a second portion disposed on the diffuser body (306b), the second portion having a second airflow rate (316); wherein the first airflow rate is different from the second airflow rate (column 12, lines 20-27).
As to claim 2, Smith further discloses a density of the first portion is less than a density of the second portion (column 13 lines 53-67 teaches the different density of the porosity of the sidewall), and the first airflow rate is greater than the second airflow rate (column 12, lines 20-27 teaches the exit flow velocity profile of 316 delivery higher velocity closest to the bottom portion than at the distal end).
As to claim 4, Smith further discloses the first portion and the second portion are both hollow portions (Figure 14A-14C), a density of the first portion is less than a density of the second portion column 13 lines 53-67 teaches the different density of the porosity of the sidewall), and the first airflow rate is greater than the second airflow rate (column 12, lines 20-27 teaches the exit flow velocity profile of 316 delivery higher velocity closest to the bottom portion than at the distal end).
As to claim 6, Smith further discloses the first portion and the second portion are of the same material (POREX porous polyethylene material).
As to claim 7, Smith further discloses the gas diffusion apparatus further comprises a third portion (306c) having a third airflow rate, wherein the third airflow rate is different from the second airflow rate (as be seen in Figure 13, or Figure 14a-14C).
As to claim 8, Smith further discloses the first portion (306a), the second portion(306b), and the third portion (306c) are sequentially disposed (Figure 13-14C), and the first airflow rate, the second airflow rate, and the third airflow rate are sequentially decreased (column 12, lines 20-27 teaches the exit flow velocity profile of 316 delivery higher velocity closest to the bottom portion than at the distal end).
As to claim 9, Smith further discloses the first portion occupies a first proportion of the diffuser body, and the second portion occupies a second proportion of the diffuser body (Figures 13-14C).
As to claim 12, Smith discloses a semiconductor container (Figure 1, substrate 30), comprising: a container body having an accommodating space (Figure 1, container 30 with a body portion ) ; a support member (66) disposed in the accommodating space and adapted to support a substrate (32); and a gas diffusion apparatus (70) comprising: at least one diffuser body (300, 320, 340, 360) ; a first portion (Figure 13, 306a) disposed on the diffuser body (300) , the first portion having a first airflow rate (316) ; and a second portion disposed on the diffuser body (306b), the second portion having a second airflow rate (316); wherein the first airflow rate is different from the second airflow rate (column 12, lines 20-27).
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 3, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (10,347,517).
As to claim 3 and 5, Smith further discloses the first portion and the second portion are hollow portion and the second portion are more solid than the first portion (as shown in Figure 14B which the second portion being the upper most portion have greater solid area in comparison the lower portion) and the first portion and the second portion are made of same material, but does not disclose the second portion is a solid portion, a density of the hollow portion is less than a density of the solid portion, and the first portion and the second portion are of different materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify gas diffusion apparatus of Smith with the second portion is form a completely solid portion, with the density of the hollow portion is less than a density of the solid portion, and the first portion and the second portion are of different materials because the selection of the specific material such as the distance as disclosed by Smith or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well and inasmuch as applicant's specification does not state that using these specific distance as claimed solves any particular problem or yields any unexpected results.
As to claims 10-11, Smith does not specifically disclose a ratio of the first proportion to the second proportion is variable and the first proportion to the second proportion is 1:3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas diffusion apparatus of Smith so the a ratio of the first proportion to the second proportion is variable and the first proportion to the second proportion is 1:3 because the selection of the specific ratio and proportion such as disclosed by Smith or as claimed would have been an obvious matter of design choice inasmuch as the resultant structures will work equally well .
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN HOI CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Orlando E Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/CHUN HOI CHEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights