DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-26 are pending in this application. Claim 26 was amended by preliminary amendment.
Specification and Objection
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs [0025] and [0026] recite that structures 29’ and 39’, respectively, are groove shapes. However, per figs. 2 and 4, the shape of structures 29’ and 39’ is a block or a double block. The fine horizontal line bisecting 29’ and 39’ may or may not be a groove, but this is plainly not the shape of the structure. Structures 29’ and 39’ are disclosed in claim 25 to join with structures 29 and 39 through insertion of a block shape into a groove shape. However, while structures 29’ and 39’ are plausibly the block shapes of the claim, structures 29 and 39 are also plainly not groove shapes themselves, though they are depicted in such low detail as to make their actual forms unclear. As far as can be determined through examination, however, they appear to be circular pegs, and so it is also unclear how one of these forms can be inserted into another per claim 25. See objection to the drawings below and also the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings and Drawing Objection
6. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “groove shape” structure of claim 25 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
See objections to the specification above and the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below. As can be determined from the figures, the “groove shape” structures 29’ and 39’ of figs. 2 and 4 are not groove shapes but rather are block shapes. The “cover shape” structures 29 and 39 in figs. 2 and 4 are rendered in such low detail as to make their nature unclear. They appear to be circular pegs, however, and so they too are not groove shapes; the problem does not appear to be a simple issue of transposition of reference characters.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
7. Claims 1-5, 8, 12, 16-19, and 22-25 recite the term “containing plate”. As seen in applicant’s fig. 1 and described in the instant specification paragraph [0002] these open rings (ref. chars. 20 and 30) are not conventionally plate-shaped. However, applicant’s containing plates do partake of the usual meaning of the word “plate” in comprising flat surfaces, and so we interpret the term “containing plate” in this office action to mean “any shape with flat surfaces capable of carrying the claimed substrates”.
Claims 1, 8, 18-19, 22, and 24 recite the term “stretchable” with respect to a plurality of elements arranged on various containing plates. According to our reading of the instant specification, these elements are individually rigid and not stretchable according to the usual definition of the word, “elastic”. Rather, as jointed assemblies applicant’s “stretchable elements” are extensible and retractable. We therefore interpret “stretchable” in this office action to mean either “elastic” or “extensible and retractable”.
Claims 8 and 15 recite the term “resisting” in the context of a structural element “resisting” a substrate. Based on the context of the claims and the specification (applicant’s invention is intended to carry substrates securely) we interpret this term as “bearing” or “carrying”.
Claims 24-25 recite the term “fasten member” which we interpret as any structure with a fastening function.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “…and being arranged interval with the first containing plates….” It appears the ungrammatical form “arranged interval with” might perhaps be intended to be “arranged at intervals with”.
Moreover, claim 2 has multiple errors of number with respect to the word “hole”. In some cases the word “hole” should be “holes”, and it appears in particular that the claimed first accommodating hole and second accommodating hole should be explicitly plural, perhaps using terms such as “one or more” or “a plurality of”. Not only does the claim itself describe multiple members entering the holes but also applicant’s figures depict multiple such holes.
As well, claim 2 recites, “each of the seconds upper positioning members”; the word “seconds” should presumably be “second”.
Furthermore, claim 23 recites “…the protruding member cover on another protruding member…”; this phrase is ungrammatical. Possibly applicant intended “…the protruding member covers another protruding member….”
Additionally, claim 26 recites “wherein the substrate is semiconductor wafer or display substrate”; it is missing the article “a” before “semiconductor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
9. Claims 4-5 are 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. The claims disclose respectively that “the horizontal position” of the top or bottom edge of a positioning member is either lower than or higher than the horizontal position of a top or bottom edge of another member. Horizontal positions cannot, by the plain meaning of the words as well as by their ordinary usage in the art (as X coordinates, for example), be higher or lower than other things. The examiner’s inability to understand the term in the context of the claim is a point of indefiniteness. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, the examiner interprets these terms as null, so that it is the top and bottom edges whose relative heights are being compared and not their horizontal positions.
Moreover, claim 23 is rejected as indefinite because the examiner does not understand what a “cover shape” is. The examiner deems this term to be too vague to have definite structural meaning. Any physical object may have a “covering” function based on its position relative to another object, and objects described or named as covers vary dramatically in form from case to case. Since the instant specification does not lexicographically define “cover shape” and no invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is indicated, applicant’s specification and drawings cannot be used to fix the term in the claim to a particular form or even to a broad category of forms and therefore the claim is indefinite. As we cannot determine what a “cover shape” may be, we provide no interpretation of the term in this office action.
10. Claims 8-18 are 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “bump” in claims 8-13 is used by the claim to mean “connector with complex geometry,” while the accepted meaning is “rounded protrusion.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Applicant’s “bump” is depicted as 281 in fig. 8. This structure, a flanged connector with a beveled edge and an overhanging corner, is not a bump according to the usual meaning of the word. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider the claimed bumps to constitute any sort of protrusions whatsoever that can fit into holes or apertures.
Additional grounds for the indefiniteness of claim 8 follow.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the first resisting element" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, another ground for indefiniteness of claim 8 is that the “bumps” of this claim are first disclosed to be comprised by “holding side walls” and later are disclosed to be comprised by “resisting elements”. Even if the resisting elements had antecedent basis, this contradiction would also result in indefiniteness.
For all these reasons, claim 8 is indefinite and claims 9-18 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 8.
11. Moreover, claims 20-21 are also rejected due to lack of lexicographic redefinition of a standard term. The term “plug-in” in claims 20-21 is used by the claim to mean “tab,” while the accepted meaning is “software component” (for the term “plug-in”) and either “obstruction” or “a device for making an electrical connection“ (for the term “plug”). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we consider a “plug-in” to be any sort of extended structural element intended to fit into a slot, hole, or other aperture because applicant’s “plug-in” is depicted as a tab 51 in fig. 12, which fits into slot 52.
12. Furthermore, claim 25 is also rejected due to lack of lexicographic redefinition of a standard term. The term “groove shape” in claim 25 is (apparently) used by the claim to mean “block,” while the accepted meaning is “having the shape of a groove”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In fact, we are not certain as to the correct interpretation of “groove shape”, only that “groove shape” is an improper usage because the structures 29’ and 39’ in applicant’s figs. 2 and 4 are plainly not groove-shaped as disclosed in [0025]-[0026] of the instant specification, and moreover there is no obvious groove-shaped structure visible in the figures to which some mistaken assignment of reference characters might have been made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
13. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huegler, Klaus, DE 10232469 (hereinafter Huegler).
14. Regarding claim 1,
Huegler discloses:
An adjustable carrying device for carrying a plurality of substrates, Huegler discloses the carrying device as the subject of their invention in the abstract.
comprising: at least two first containing plates (unnumbered: figs. 1,12) respectively carrying a first substrate, each of the first containing plates comprising a first top surface, a first bottom surface, at least one first upper positioning member protruding upward from the first top surface (7,8: figs. 12-17), and at least one first lower positioning member protruding downward from the first bottom surface (7,8: figs. 12-17)Huegler’s containing plates are the unnumbered upper and lower sides of the cassette-like carriers of the invention which can be seen stacked in figs. 1 and 12. The positioning members are the S-shaped support elements 8 that make up the chain 7. As can be seen in figures 14-17, one S link protrudes upward from the top of the upper surface and one link protrudes downward from the bottom of the lower surface in each plate.
at least two second containing plates (unnumbered: figs. 1,12) respectively carrying a second substrate and being arranged interval with the first containing plates, each of the second containing plates comprising a second top surface, a second bottom surface, at least one second upper positioning member protruding upward from the second top surface (7,8: figs. 12-17), and at least one second lower positioning member protruding downward from the second bottom surface (7,8: figs. 12-17);All Huegler’s plurality of plates are similar, and so it discloses the same features of “second containing plates” as it does for the first containing plates described above.
and a plurality of stretchable elements (chains 7: figs. 1,12 and support members 8: figs. 14-17) being arranged on the first containing plate and the second containing plate, wherein the plurality of stretchable elements being capable of increasing the distance between the first containing plate and the second containing plate to form an extension state, or decreasing the distance to form a compression state.Huegler’s S-shaped support members 8 that compose the chains 7 in [0021]-[0023] are both positioning members and stretchable (extensible elements). Fig. 1 depicts the system in a “compression state” in which the layered substrates are packed closely together, and fig. 12 depicts the “extension state” in which the substrates are further apart, while figs. 14-17 depict varying positions of the individual S-shaped links.
15. Regarding claim 4,
Huegler discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein when the first containing plate and the second containing plate are in an extension state, the horizontal position of the bottom edge of each of the first lower positioning members is lower than the horizontal position of the top edge of each of the second upper positioning members.As seen in figs. 14-17, Huegler’s S-shaped links always overlap vertically regardless of extension state of its device and thus are in the claimed relation.
16. Regarding claim 5,
Huegler discloses the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein when the first containing plate and the second containing plate are in an extension state, the horizontal position of the top edge of each of the first upper positioning members is higher than the horizontal position of the bottom edge of each of the second lower positioning members.We note first that neither the relative nor the absolute positions of the first and second containing plates and their associated members are specified in this claim or in parent claim 1. The “arranged interval” of claim 1 could mean an interval above or below. Regardless, it is plain from Huegler’s figures that the top edge of the upper positioning members (S-shaped links 8 in figs. 14-17) of the first upper positioning members will always be above the bottom edge of the second lower positioning members if the second lower members are associated with a lower containing plate and/or substrate than the first members.
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.
17. Claims 2, 6-8, 16, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huegler in view of Torazawa, et al., WO 2021044791 (hereinafter Torazawa). Note that for convenience of citation, we refer to paragraphs in US 2022/0289483, a child application of WO 2021044791.
18. Regarding claim 2,
Huegler discloses the limitations of claim 1, but not:
the first containing plate further comprising a first accommodating hole, the second containing plate further comprising a second accommodating hole, wherein when the first containing plate and the second containing plate are in a compression state, each of the first lower positioning members extends into the second accommodating holes located below the corresponding position, each of the first upper positioning members extends into the second accommodating hole located above the corresponding position, each of the seconds upper positioning members extends into the first accommodating holes located above the corresponding position, and each of the second lower positioning members extends into the first accommodating hole located below the corresponding position.Huegler doesn’t disclose the claimed holes.
Torazawa, an invention in the same field as Huegler, teaches the limitation:
the first containing plate further comprising a first accommodating hole (15: fig. 3B), the second containing plate further comprising a second accommodating hole (25: fig. 3B), wherein when the first containing plate and the second containing plate are in a compression state, each of the first lower positioning members (14: fig. 3A) extends into the second accommodating holes located below the corresponding position, each of the first upper positioning members (24: fig. 3B) extends into the second accommodating hole located above the corresponding position, each of the seconds upper positioning members (24: fig. 3B) extends into the first accommodating holes located above the corresponding position, and each of the second lower positioning members (14: fig. 3A) extends into the first accommodating hole located below the corresponding position.Torazawa teaches the claimed arrangements of members and holes in figs. 3A-B and in [0060]. The various holes and members interconnect to secure the containing plates together.
19. Regarding claim 6,
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 2, and also:
wherein each of the first accommodating holes passes through both the first top surface and the first bottom surface, and each of the second accommodating holes passes through both the second top surface and the second bottom surfaceTorazawa teaches this arrangement in figs. 3A-B.
20. Regarding claim 7,
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 6, and also:
wherein the first accommodating hole is recessed in the first upper positioning member or first lower positioning member (Torazawa, 12: fig. 3A), and the second accommodating hole is recessed in the second upper positioning member or second lower positioning member (Torazawa, 22: fig. 3B).In view of Torazawa’s teaching in combination with Huegler, we consider the first positioning members to be the first supported elements 12 disclosed in fig. 3A and [0054] and the second positioning members to be the second supported elements 22 disclosed in fig. 3B and [0058]. As seen in figs. 3A and 3B the holes 15 and 25 are inset (“recessed”) in these supported elements or positioning members.
21. Regarding claim 8,
Huegler discloses:
An adjustable carrying device for carrying a plurality of substrates,Huegler discloses the carrying device as the subject of their invention in the abstract.
and a plurality of stretchable elements (chains 7: figs. 1,12 and support members 8: figs. 14-17) for connecting the first containing plate and the second containing plate, and being retractable to change the distance between the containing plates;Huegler’s S-shaped support members 8 that compose the chains 7 in [0021]-[0023] are the claimed stretchable (extensible elements). Fig. 1 depicts the system in a “compression state” in which the layered substrates are packed closely together, and fig. 12 depicts the “extension state” in which the substrates are further apart, while figs. 14-17 depict varying positions of the individual S-shaped links.
However, Huegler doesn’t disclose all aspects of the limitations:
comprising: at least two first containing plates respectively carrying a first substrate, each of the first containing plates comprises a first top surface, a first bottom surface, and a first holding element for resisting a second substrate carried by a second containing plate, wherein the first holding element comprises a first holding side wall, a first embedding opening, and a first bump;
at least two second containing plates respectively carrying a second substrate and being arranged interval with the first containing plates, each of the second containing plates comprises a second top surface, a second bottom surface, and a second holding element for resisting a first substrate carried by another adjacent first containing plate, wherein the second holding element comprises a second holding side wall, a second embedding opening, and a second bump;
wherein when the plurality of the stretchable elements shrink to reduce the distance between the containing plates, and the first bump of the first resisting element being embedded in the second embedding opening, the second holding side wall is pushed toward the second substrate, and the first resisting element resists against the second substrate through the second holding side wall.We continue to cite Huegler for the “plurality of stretchable elements” of this limitation, but the relation to the holding elements and bumps is taught by a second reference.
Torazawa an invention in the same field as Huegler, teaches the limitations:
comprising: at least two first containing plates (10: figs. 2, 3A) respectively carrying a first substrate, each of the first containing plates comprises a first top surface, a first bottom surface, and a first holding element (11: fig. 3A) for resisting a second substrate carried by a second containing plate (20: figs. 2, 3B), wherein the first holding element comprises a first holding side wall (unnumbered interior arcs, fig. 3A), a first embedding opening (25: fig. 3B), and a first bump (14: fig. 3A);Referring to figs. 2, Torazawa’s alternating “containing plate” structures 10 and 20 respectively contain substrates above them and below them. Considering 10 in isolation as a first containing plate, this plate is a complex structure per fig. 3A, but it is plain it has a top surface and a bottom surface. Outer ring frame 11 is the claimed holding element that “resists” substrates above and/or below them. Structure 14 is an engagement protrusion (“bump”) that engages with engagement hole (“embedding opening”) 25 in fig. 3B in the alternating containment plate 20 above or below plate 10. The two symmetric unnumbered inner ring arcs that are part of ring frame 11 are the first holding side walls of the claim.
at least two second containing plates respectively carrying a second substrate and being arranged interval with the first containing plates, each of the second containing plates comprises a second top surface, a second bottom surface, and a second holding element for resisting a first substrate carried by another adjacent first containing plate, wherein the second holding element comprises a second holding side wall, a second embedding opening, and a second bump;Torazawa’s second containing plate 20 comprises the same structures as plate 10 but in reversed symmetry maps to applicant’s second containing plates. Plates 10 and 20 alternate in a stack.
wherein when the plurality of the stretchable elements shrink to reduce the distance between the containing plates, and the first bump of the first resisting element being embedded in the second embedding opening, the second holding side wall is pushed toward the second substrate, and the first resisting element resists against the second substrate through the second holding side wall.As seen in Torazawa’s figs. 3A-B, the engagement protrusion (“bump”) in plate 10 engages with the engagement hole (“embedding opening”) in alternating plate 20 and vice versa. In combination with Huegler, which provides the “stretchable elements” and plate expansion and contraction features, when Huegler’s links compress the containment plate structure of Torazawa, the engagement protrusions (“bumps”) will fully engage with the engagement holes (“embedding openings”) and the holding side walls will be pushed against the substrates on either side to “resist against” the substrates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler, with at least two first containing plates respectively carrying a first substrate, each of the first containing plates comprises a first top surface, a first bottom surface, and a first holding element for resisting a second substrate carried by a second containing plate, wherein the first holding element comprises a first holding side wall, a first embedding opening, and a first bump; at least two second containing plates respectively carrying a second substrate and being arranged interval with the first containing plates, each of the second containing plates comprises a second top surface, a second bottom surface, and a second holding element for resisting a first substrate carried by another adjacent first containing plate, wherein the second holding element comprises a second holding side wall, a second embedding opening, and a second bump; wherein when the plurality of the stretchable elements shrink to reduce the distance between the containing plates, and the first bump of the first resisting element being embedded in the second embedding opening, the second holding side wall is pushed toward the second substrate, and the first resisting element resists against the second substrate through the second holding side wall, as taught by Torazawa, because these complex limitations amount to establishing a fully-compressed interlock state in which all the substrates and their containing plates are secured for transportation (as opposed to being expanded or unlocked for individual access). As applicant’s invention is a substrate carrier, a person of ordinary skill in the art would see the value of securely locking the substrate carriage elements together so that the substrates can be conveyed without suffering damage due to jostling or vibration.
22. Regarding claim 16,
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 8 and also:
the first containing plate further comprises a first carrying portion adjacent to the first top surface for carrying the first substrate, and wherein the first holding element is arranged on the first top surface.Torazawa teaches in fig. 3A that its containing plate 10 comprises an unnumbered carrying portion, this portion being the inner ring arcs adjacent to the top surface of 10. The overall holding element 11 is seen to be arranged on the top surface of 10. Moreover, the structures 13a in fig. 3A could also be considered to be the claimed carrying portions as they too carry the substrate.
23. Regarding claim 19,
Huegler discloses:
An adjustable carrying device for carrying a plurality of substrates,Huegler discloses the carrying device as the subject of their invention in the abstract.
comprising: at least two containing plates (unnumbered: figs. 1,12) respectively carrying a substrate, each of the containing plates comprises a first carrying portion for carrying the substrate, Huegler’s containing plates are the unnumbered upper and lower sides of the cassette-like substrate carriers of the invention which can be seen stacked in figs. 1 and 12. The carrying portion of the containing plates is the upper surface of the lower plate.
and a plurality of stretchable elements (chains 7: figs. 1,12 and support members 8: figs. 14-17) being arranged on the containing plates; wherein the plurality of stretchable elements being capable of increasing the distance between the containing plate to form an extension state, or decreasing the distance to form a compression state.Huegler’s S-shaped support members 8 that compose the chains 7 in [0021]-[0023] are the claimed stretchable (extensible elements). Fig. 1 depicts the system in a “compression state” in which the layered substrates are packed closely together, and fig. 12 depicts the “extension state” in which the substrates are further apart, while figs. 14-17 depict varying positions of the individual S-shaped links.
However, Huegler does not disclose:
and a bracing element, wherein when the first substrate is placed on the containing plate, a part of the bracing element abut against the bottom surface of the first substrate;Huegler does not disclose the bracing element.
Torazawa, an invention in the same field as Huegler teaches the limitation:
and a bracing element (12: fig. 3A), wherein when the first substrate is placed on the containing plate, a part of the bracing element abut against the bottom surface of the first substrate;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler with a bracing element, wherein when the first substrate is placed on the containing plate, a part of the bracing element abut against the bottom surface of the first substrate, as taught by Torazawa, because the addition of a bracing element helps stabilize a substrate during carriage and prevent damage due to unwanted movement, a universal goal of substrate carriers in the art.
24. Regarding claim 20,
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 19 and also:
wherein the bracing element comprises at least one plug-in (14: fig. 3A), the first carrying portion comprises at least one insertion hole (25: fig. 3B) at a position corresponding to the plug-in and accommodates each plug-in for engaging the bracing element.Torazawa’s supporting member 12 comprises a “plug-in” in the form of engagement protrusion 14, which fits into the engagement hole 25.
25. Regarding claim 21,
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 19 and also:
wherein the bracing element comprises at least one insertion hole (15: fig. 3B), the first carrying portion comprises at least one plug-in (24: fig. 3A) at a position corresponding to the insertion hole and extends to each insertion hole for engaging the bracing element.Torazawa’s supporting member 12 comprises an insertion hole in the form of engagement hole 15, which into which the engagement protrusion 24 extends and engages.
26. Regarding claim 22,
Huegler discloses:
An adjustable carrying device for carrying a plurality of substrates,Huegler discloses the carrying device as the subject of their invention in the abstract.
comprising: at least two containing plates (unnumbered: figs. 1,12) respectively carrying a substrate; Huegler’s containing plates are the unnumbered upper and lower sides of the cassette-like carriers of the invention which can be seen stacked in figs. 1 and 12.
and a plurality of stretchable elements (chains 7: figs. 1,12 and support members 8: figs. 14-17) being arranged on the containing plates, wherein the plurality of stretchable elements being capable of increasing the distance between the containing plate to form an extension state, or decreasing the distance to form a compression state;
However, Huegler does not disclose:
wherein each of the containing plates comprises at least one protruding member, when the containing plates are in a compression state, the protruding member and the other protruding member on the adjacent containing plate to be joined together.Huegler does not disclose the protruding members.
Torazawa, an invention in the same field as Huegler teaches the limitation:
wherein each of the containing plates comprises at least one protruding member (14: fig. 3A, 24: fig. 3B), when the containing plates are in a compression state, the protruding member and the other protruding member on the adjacent containing plate to be joined together.Torazawa’s engagement protrusions 14 and 24 join alternating containing plates 10 and 20 together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler with wherein each of the containing plates comprises at least one protruding member, when the containing plates are in a compression state, the protruding member and the other protruding member on the adjacent containing plate to be joined together, as taught by Torazawa, because the joining of the protruding members on opposite plates interlocks the plates in a stable configuration that prevents unwanted movement from a substrate during carriage and thus helps prevent damage to the substrate, a universal goal in the art.
27. Regarding claim 23,
This claim was rejected above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the indefiniteness of the key term of the claim, “cover shape”. As the meaning of this essential term could not be ascertained, no prior art rejection for anticipation or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 could be contemplated for the claim.
28. Regarding claim 24,
Huegler discloses:
An adjustable carrying device for carrying a plurality of substrates,Huegler discloses the carrying device as the subject of their invention in the abstract.
comprising: at least one first containing plate (unnumbered: figs. 1,12) respectively carrying a first substrate;
at least one second containing plates (unnumbered: figs. 1,12) respectively carrying a second substrate and being arranged interval with the first containing plates;Huegler’s containing plates are the unnumbered upper and lower sides of the cassette-like carriers of the invention which can be seen stacked (“arranged interval”) in figs. 1 and 12.
and a plurality of stretchable elements (chains 7: figs. 1,12 and support members 8: figs. 14-17) being arranged on the first containing plate and the second containing plate, wherein the plurality of stretchable elements being capable of increasing the distance between the first containing plate and the second containing plate to form an extension state, or decreasing the distance to form a compression state;
However, Huegler does not disclose:
wherein each of the first containing plates further comprises at least one first fasten member, each of the second containing plates further comprises at least one second fasten member, when the containing plates are in a compression state, the first fasten member and the second fasten member are mutually connected.Huegler does not disclose the claimed fasten elements.
Torazawa, an invention in the same field as Huegler teaches the limitation:
wherein each of the first containing plates further comprises at least one first fasten member (14: fig. 3A), each of the second containing plates further comprises at least one second fasten member (25: fig. 3B), when the containing plates are in a compression state, the first fasten member and the second fasten member are mutually connected.Torazawa’s supporting elements 12 and 22, are interconnected by engagement protrusions 14 and 24 that interpenetrate engagement holes 15 and 25 to join the elements together along with their respective containing plates 10 and 20. We consider the engagement protrusions and engagement holes to be the “fasten members” of the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler with wherein each of the first containing plates further comprises at least one first fasten member, each of the second containing plates further comprises at least one second fasten member, when the containing plates are in a compression state, the first fasten member and the second fasten member are mutually connected as taught by Torazawa, because the joining of the fasten members on opposite plates interlocks the plates in a stable configuration that prevents unwanted movement from a substrate during carriage and thus helps prevent damage to the substrate, a universal goal in the art.
29. Claims 3 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huegler in view of Bunod, et al., US 2008/0273959 (hereinafter Bunod).
30. Regarding claim 3,
Huegler discloses the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein each of the first lower positioning members and each of the second upper positioning members are not overlapped in the vertical direction, and each of the first upper positioning members and each of the second lower positioning members are not overlapped in the vertical direction.Huegler’s positioning members overlap in the vertical direction.
Bunod, an invention in the same field as Huegler, teaches:
wherein each of the first lower positioning members (7a: fig. 3C) and each of the second upper positioning members (7a: fig. 3C) are not overlapped in the vertical direction, and each of the first upper positioning members (7a: fig. 3C) and each of the second lower positioning members (7a: fig. 3C) are not overlapped in the vertical direction.Bunod teaches pairs of hinged positioning members 7a that extend above the top surface and below the bottom of each of its trays 9 (containing plates). As seen in the figure, these members can expand and contract the arrangement of trays carrying substrates but never overlap regardless of their state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler, wherein each of the first lower positioning members and each of the second upper positioning members are not overlapped in the vertical direction, and each of the first upper positioning members and each of the second lower positioning members are not overlapped in the vertical direction, as taught by Bunod, because Bunod’s method of separating its substrates appears to be simpler and mechanically stronger than Huegler’s interlocking chain links, appreciable advantages of its design.
31. Regarding claim 26,
Huegler teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
wherein the substrate is semiconductor wafer or display substrate.While Huegler discloses that its invention carries substrates, it does not disclose their type.
Bunod, an invention in the same field as Huegler, teaches:
wherein the substrate is semiconductor wafer or display substrate.Bunod teaches the carrying of semiconductor substrates in its abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler, wherein the substrate is semiconductor wafer or display substrate, as taught by Bunod, because semiconductor substrates are a common and well-known type of substrate that requires carriage in many fabrication facilities.
32. Claims 9-11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huegler in view of Torazawa and further in view of Wang Fen-Quan, CN 210266163 (hereinafter Wang).
33. Regarding claim 9,
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 8, but not all aspects of:
the first bump further comprising a first bump top surface, a first bump bottom surface, and a first bump side surface located between the first bump top surface and the first bump bottom surface.While it could be argued that Torazawa’s engagement protrusion must have top, bottom and side surfaces, neither Torazawa’s figures nor its specification text makes this explicit.
Wang, an invention in the field of machine presses, teaches the limitation:
the first bump (13: fig. 4) further comprising a first bump top surface, a first bump bottom surface, and a first bump side surface located between the first bump top surface and the first bump bottom surface.Wang teaches a trapezoidal connector block 13 in fig. 4 that maps to applicant’s bump. This connector block plainly has top, bottom, and side surfaces. In combination with Huegler and Torazawa, Wang’s trapezoidal connector block replaces the engagement protrusion of Torazawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler and Torazawa, the first bump further comprising a first bump top surface, a first bump bottom surface, and a first bump side surface located between the first bump top surface and the first bump bottom surface, as taught by Wang, because a trapezoidal “bump” such as Wang’s can be used to apply pressure gradually on translational engagement of two surfaces, as disclosed in applicant’s parent claim 8, and indeed, Wang’s connector block shares many features in common with applicant’s bump 281 of its fig. 10.
34. Regarding claim 10,
Huegler in view of Torazawa and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 9, and also:
wherein the first bump side surface is bevelled surface, or an arc surface.Being trapezoidal in section, Wang’s connector block 13 has a beveled side surface.
35. Regarding claim 11,
Huegler in view of Torazawa and Wang teaches the limitations of claim 9, and also:
wherein the width of the first bump top surface is smaller than the width of the second embedding opening, and the width of the first bump bottom surface is greater than the width of the second embedding opening.Being trapezoidal in section, Wang’s connector block 13 has a top surface smaller than the bottom surface. As taught in [0007], the width of the trapezoidal support surface is greater than the width of the trapezoid hole.
36. Regarding claim 25,
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 24, but not all aspects of:
wherein the first fasten member is made into a block shape, the second fasten member is made into a groove shape, when the containing plates are in a compression state, the first fasten members being inserted into the second fasten member.Torazawa’s fasten members do not have the claimed shapes.
Wang, an invention in the field of machine presses, teaches the limitation:
wherein the first fasten member (13: fig. 4) is made into a block shape, the second fasten member is made into a groove shape (14: fig. 5), when the containing plates are in a compression state, the first fasten members being inserted into the second fasten member.Wang teaches a trapezoidal connector block 13 in fig. 4 that maps to applicant’s first fasten member and is inserted into an elongated hole 14 that maps to applicant’s second member made into a groove shape. In combination with Huegler and Torazawa, Wang’s trapezoidal connector block 13 replaces the engagement protrusion of Torazawa and its elongated hole 14 replaces the engagement hole of Torazawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler and Torazawa, wherein the first fasten member is made into a block shape, the second fasten member is made into a groove shape, when the containing plates are in a compression state, the first fasten members being inserted into the second fasten member, as taught by Wang, because the claim discloses another means of interlocking container plates in order to securely transport substrates with a reduced risk of damage to the substrates due to unwanted motion.
37. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huegler in view of Torazawa and further in view of Sheng, et al., US 2013/0068656 (hereinafter Sheng).
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 16 but not:
wherein the first containing plate is made by one-piece injection molding process.Neither references teaches the mode of manufacture of their containing plates.
Sheng, an invention in the same field as Huegler and Torazawa, teaches the limitation:
wherein the first containing plate is made by one-piece injection molding process.Sheng teaches in [0005] that FOUPs (substrate carriers) are usually made by one-piece injection-molding.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler and Torazawa, wherein the first containing plate is made by one-piece injection molding process, because as Sheng teaches in [0005], the use of one-piece injection molding to make parts for substrate carriers is widespread and commonplace in the art.
38. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huegler in view of Torazawa and further in view of Nakanishi, et al., JP 2013014368 (hereinafter Nakanishi).
Huegler in view of Torazawa teaches the limitations of claim 8 but not:
the first bottom surface further comprises a locating member, when the plurality of the stretchable elements shrink to reduce the distance between the containing plates, the locating member abuts against the second substrate carried by the second containing plate, and locates the second substrate on the central portion of the second containing plate.The two references fix the location of their substrates using the top surfaces of their containing plates, not the bottom surfaces.
Nakanishi, an invention in the same field as Huegler and Torazawa, teaches the limitation:
the first bottom surface further comprises a locating member (6: figs. 2,13), when the plurality of the stretchable elements shrink to reduce the distance between the containing plates, the locating member abuts against the second substrate carried by the second containing plate, and locates the second substrate on the central portion of the second containing plate.Nakanishi teaches in figs. 2 and 13 and [0019] the use of a “protrusion” 6 which is part of the bottom surface of its substrate holding member 4 and which is used to limit the motion of (i.e., “locate”) a substrate below member 4
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Huegler and Torazawa, such that the first bottom surface further comprises a locating member, when the plurality of the stretchable elements shrink to reduce the distance between the containing plates, the locating member abuts against the second substrate carried by the second containing plate, and locates the second substrate on the central portion of the second containing plate, as taught by Nakanishi because as Nakanishi explains in [0019] this protrusion prevents the unwanted motion of the substrate. Of course, a universal objective in the carriage and transport of substrates is avoiding damage due to unwanted motion.
Allowable Subject Matter
39. Claims 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject