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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/5/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 (and its dependents) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “gripping means” is not adequately described in the specification as to exactly what it actually is.
Claim 18 (and its dependents) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “locking means” is not adequately described in the specification as to exactly what it actually is.
Claim 20 (and its dependents) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “further gripping means” is not adequately described in the specification as to exactly what it actually is.
Claim 22 (and its dependents) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “means of a further fastening device” is not adequately described in the specification as to exactly what it actually is.
Claim 26 (and its dependents) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed “further gripping means” & “locking means” are not adequately described in the specification as to what it actually is.
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 15 (and thus all claims) 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “a hollow body having a pot-shape”, and the claim also recites “in particular transport containers for semiconductor wafers or for EUV masks” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Removal of “, in particular” from line 1 should cure the issue.
Claim limitation “gripping means” and “locking means” (claim 18), “further gripping means” (claim 20), “means of a further fastening device” (claim 22), and “further gripping means” & “locking means” (claim 26) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no description or insufficient description as to what exactly is meant by these limitation in the specification. Therefore, the claims (and their dependents) are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second gripping section" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
There are numerous 112 issues for which the examiner has discussed some above. Applicant should review all claims for similar issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15-18,21,25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokusai (JPH07297260) in view of Sinfonia (JP2012064828).
Re claim 15, Kokusai teaches a device for handling a hollow body 9 having a pot-shape, in particular transport containers for semiconductor wafers or for EUV lithography masks, the device comprising: a wall (10, see figures) that surrounds an inner space; a [gripping and] moving device 29 arranged in the inner space for moving the hollow body within the inner space; and a wall opening 11 that is formed by the wall, the wall opening being closable by a closure body 16, the inner space is accessible through the wall opening, the closure body being movably supported in the device by means of a fastening unit 14,15 (see figures) and having a reception unit 21,22,etc. by which the hollow body is releasably connectable to the closure body.
Moving device 29 holds by gravity, but more active gripping and moving devices are known such as Sinfonia which has gripping / releasably connecting device (12, figure 9, etc.) for controlling positioning of hollow body K1,K2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kokusai in view of Sinfonia as claimed in order to more actively control positioning of the hollow body.
Re claim 16, Kokusai teaches the fastening unit is formed as a hinge by which the closure body is rotatably fastened to the wall.
Re claim 17, Kokusai teaches the closure body is movable between a first position and a second position, with the closure body closing the wall opening in the first position and in the second position.
Re claim 18, Kokusai teaches the hollow body further includes: a first gripping section; and a second gripping section (section on 29) with the reception unit having locking means 21,22,etc. by which the closure body can cooperate with the hollow body using the first gripping section and the gripping and moving device 29 having gripping means (as already modified above) by which the gripping and moving device can cooperate with the hollow body using the second gripping section.
Re claim 21, Kokusai teaches the hollow body has a base wall and one or more side walls, an opening disposed opposite the base wall but does not mention a cover and cover handling unit.
Sinfonia teaches (see figures) a hollow body K1, K2 has a base wall and one or more side walls, an opening disposed opposite the base wall hollow a cover (not numbered) by which the opening is closable, the device having a cover handling unit 2,3 that is releasably connectable to the cover in order to control access to the hollow body interior. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kokusai as claimed in order to control access to the interior of the hollow body.
Re claim 25, Kokusai teaches (see figures) an inherent method of handling the hollow body using the device in accordance with claim 15, said method comprising the following steps: moving the closure body into a first position in which the closure body releases the wall opening; supplying the hollow body to the reception unit and activating the reception unit to connect the hollow body to the closure body; and moving the closure body into a closed position in which the closure body closes the wall opening.
Claims 19-20,26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokusai (JPH07297260) in view of Sinfonia (JP2012064828) and Daifuku (JP2020065015).
Re claim 19, Kokusai does not appear to mention how the hollow body is supplied / removed from the closure body. Daifuku teaches (figures 1-4) a further gripping and moving device 10 for supplying the hollow body 92 to the closure body 91a and for removing the hollow body from the closure body as well as the hollow body having a gripping section (see figures) for interfacing with further gripping and moving device 10 in order to supply and remove hollow bodies to the closure body & processing device 91,91a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kokusai in view of Daifuku as claimed in order to allow supply and removal of hollow bodies to the closure body & processing device.
Re claim 20, Kokusai as already modified teaches the further gripping and moving device has further gripping means (31 Daifuku) by which the further gripping and moving device can cooperate with the hollow body using a second gripping section.
Re claim 26, Kokusai does not appear to mention how the hollow body is supplied / removed from the closure body. Daifuku teaches (figures 1-4) a further gripping and moving device 10 for supplying the hollow body 92 to the closure body 91a and for removing the hollow body from the closure body as well as the hollow body having a gripping section (see figures) for interfacing with further gripping and moving device 10 in order to supply and remove hollow bodies to the closure body & processing device 91,91a. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kokusai in view of Daifuku as claimed in order to allow supply and removal of hollow bodies to the closure body & processing device.
Kokusai as already modified teaches the further gripping and moving device has further gripping means (31 Daifuku) by which the further gripping and moving device can cooperate with the hollow body using a second gripping section. Thus Kokusai as already modified teaches an inherent method including the further steps: supplying the hollow body to the closure body by means of a further gripping and moving device that has further gripping means by which the further gripping and moving device is connected to the hollow body using the second gripping section; activating locking means of the reception unit for connecting the hollow body to the closure body using the first gripping section; releasing the further gripping and moving device from the second gripping section; moving the closure body into the closed position in which the closure body closes the wall opening; connecting the hollow body to the gripping and moving device using the second gripping section; and releasing the hollow body from the closure body by deactivating the reception unit.
Claims 22-24,27,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokusai (JPH07297260) in view of Sinfonia (JP2012064828) and Park (US 2019/0247900).
Re claim 22,27,28, Kokusai doesn’t teach a handling unit by which the hollow body can be handled, the handling unit having a process space in which the hollow body can be handled, the process space being accessible through a process space opening, the cover handling unit being movably supported in the device by means of a further fastening device between an open position in which the cover handling unit releases the process space opening and a closure position in which the cover handling unit closes the process space opening. However, Park teaches a handling unit 500 by which the hollow body 10 can be handled, the handling unit having a process space in which the hollow body can be handled, the process space being accessible through a process space opening, a cover handling unit 620,621,622,711,720, etc. (see figures) being movably supported in the device by means of a further fastening device (see figures 1,4,10,etc.) between an open position in which the cover handling unit releases the process space opening and a closure position in which the cover handling unit closes the process space opening. It would have been obvious to have modified Kokusai in view of Park as claimed in order to allow (further) processing and handling of the hollow bodies.
Re claim 23, Kokusai as already modified teaches the handling unit is formed as a cleaning device (600 Park) for cleaning the hollow body or the cover.
Re claim 24, Kokusai as already modified teaches the handling unit that formed as an evacuation device (700 Park) for applying a vacuum in the hollow body or at the cover but not a second handling unit. However, duplication of parts is obvious (MPEP2144, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kokusai to have a second handling unit as claimed in order allow multiple types of parallel processing to speed throughput and reduce wear and tear on the individual handling units.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haas (US 2023/0402298) teaches a hollow body handling and cleaning device (figures , page 9).
Halbmaier (US 2002/0046760) teaches a wafer container washing apparatus (figures, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652