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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks”, filed May 20th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and claim(s) 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jinho (KR 20200066540 A) in view of Newbold (WO 2022128963 A1).
Jinho discloses a gripping mechanism having a quadrilateral frame with four grippers on each of the ends.
Jinho fails to disclose wherein at least two adjacent gripper units have a power member respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other.
However, Newbold teaches two adjacent gripper units have a power member respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinho (KR 20200066540 A) in view of Newbold (WO 2022128963 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jinho discloses a gripping mechanism for inspection of a reticle inner pod, comprising: a quadrilateral frame having four border strips (see annotated Fig. 3 below); and four gripper units respectively disposed at the four border strips (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the four gripper units being opposite in pairs (see fig. 3), each of the gripper unit having a body (see Fig. 5), a first gripping portion and a second gripping portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below); the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion respectively located on different positions of the body (see Fig. 5), the respective first gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a first gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 5 below), and the respective second gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a second gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
320
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jinho fails to disclose wherein at least two adjacent gripper units have a power member respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other.
However, Newbold teaches a gripping device wherein at least two adjacent gripper units (152; see Fig. 12) have a power member (161; see Fig. 13) respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other (see Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce at least two adjacent gripper units have a power member respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other on the gripping mechanism of Jinho, as taught by Newbold, in order to drive the grippers between gripping and release positions (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Jinho, in view of Newbold, discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion are grooves parallel to the border strips (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jinho, in view of Newbold, discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first gripping plane is parallel to the second gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
320
385
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Newbold further teaches wherein the gripper units further comprise a packing element, which is connected to the body and packs against the body (biasing member; see Page 13, Para. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce wherein the gripper units further comprise a packing element, which is connected to the body and packs against the body on the gripping mechanism of Jinho, as taught by Newbold, to help maintain tension during lowering or raising of the gripping device (see Page 12, Para. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Jinho discloses a gripping mechanism for inspection of a reticle inner pod, comprising: a quadrilateral frame having four border strips (see annotated Fig. 3 below); and four gripper units respectively disposed at the four border strips (see annotated Fig. 3 below), the four gripper units being opposite in pairs (see fig. 3), each of the gripper unit having a body (see Fig. 5), a first gripping portion and a second gripping portion (see annotated Fig. 5 below); the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion respectively located on different positions of the body (see Fig. 5), the respective first gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a first gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 5 below), and the respective second gripping portions of the four gripper units forming a second gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
320
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jinho fails to disclose wherein at least two adjacent gripper units have a power member respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other.
However, Newbold teaches a gripping device wherein at least two adjacent gripper units (152; see Fig. 12) have a power member (161; see Fig. 13) respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other (see Abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce at least two adjacent gripper units have a power member respectively, which is in power connection with the bodies so as to adjust a distance between the two bodies opposite to each other on the gripping mechanism of Jinho, as taught by Newbold, in order to drive the grippers between gripping and release positions (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Jinho, in view of Newbold, discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion are grooves parallel to the border strips (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
320
420
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Jinho, in view of Newbold, discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first gripping plane is parallel to the second gripping plane (see annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
320
385
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinho (KR 20200066540 A) in view of Newbold (WO 2022128963 A1) further in view of Morita (JP 2021172921 A).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 9, Jinho, in view of Newbold, discloses the gripping mechanism as claimed in claim(s) 1 and 6, respectively.
Jinho, as modified by Newbold, fails to disclose wherein the gripper units further comprise a plurality of adhesive tapes respectively disposed on positions near the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion.
However, Morita teaches wherein the gripper units further comprise a plurality of adhesive
tapes (20) respectively disposed on positions near the first gripping portion (H1) and the second gripping
portion (H2) (see Page 3, Para. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to introduce comprise a plurality of adhesive tapes respectively disposed
on positions near the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion on the gripping mechanism
of Jinho, as modified by Newbold, as taught by Morita in order to appropriately grip and convey the work (see Page 4, Para. 4).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHMAN A QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-6262. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-5:00pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
/REHMAN A QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights