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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention II and Species 2 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the position of the office is incorrect. This is not found persuasive because no specific rebuttal and/or arguments have been provided regarding the propriety of the restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/3/2023 and 1/11/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Kim was disclosed in the IDS.
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.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim (KR 10-2021-0153835) in view of Kim hereinafter as Kim ‘23 (2023/0409042 A1).
In regards to Claim 7, Kim discloses a power supply structure (Fig.1-5, #10 which includes #20) comprising: a buried space (Fig.2-3 having a groove structure or a hole structure (Fig.2-3, the FAB has a hole structure), formed in a facility (Fig.2-3, #10 is placed within a facility); a power supply body (Fig.1, #10) buried in the buried space such that a front portion is disposed on an exposed surface of the buried space (Fig.2, #10 is disposed in the buried space such that the front portion (#11) is exposed out of said buried space), and supplying power (Fig.1-3, #20 supplies/delivery power via #31/#32 conduits); and a heat dissipation portion formed on the front side of the power supply body (Fig.5, #11b and 11c discloses a heat dissipation portion formed on the front side of #11 of #10).
Kim fails to disclose: Formed in a fabrication facility.
However, Kim ‘23 discloses: A power supply formed in a fabrication facilities (Fig.1 and paragraph [0004 & 0069], which discloses a power supply disposed within a fabrication facility, as such the office notes that with the combination of Kim in view of Kim, the power supply body buried within a wall of a facility (as taught by Kim ‘23) would be modified to be placed in a fabrication facility (as taught by Kim) to supply power to a overhead hoist transport (OHT)).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the power supply body buried within a wall of a facility (as taught by Kim) to be placed in a fabrication facility (as taught by Kim ‘23) to supply power to an overhead hoist transport (OHT). By placing the body within a buried space with a fabrication facility would increase the amount of space available and furthermore, discreetly provide power to the OHT.
In regards to Claim 8, Kim in view of Kim ‘23 discloses the power supply structure of claim 7, wherein the heat dissipation portion comprises an inlet (Fig.4, #11b) through which air is suctioned into the power supply body by a heat dissipation fan (Fig.6, #26) installed in the power supply body, and an outlet (Fig.4, #11c) through which air is discharged from the power supply body externally by the heat dissipation fan (Fig.6, #26 is used to exhaust heated air within #10), Wherein the inlet is formed in a lower portion of the front portion, and the outlet is formed in an upper portion of the front portion (Fig.3, inlet #10b is at the bottom portion of #11 and outlet #11c is at the upper portion of #11).
In regards to Claim 9, Kim in view of Kim ‘23 discloses the power supply structure of claim 7, further comprising a cable connection portion formed on the power supply body (Kim, Fig.4, #10 provides a cable connection portion #32/#31) and to which an electric cable (Kim, Fig.4, #31/32 and Kim ’23 paragraph [0069], which disclose a cable supplying power to OHT via a cable) to which the power is applied is connected, wherein the cable connection portion is formed independently on an upper surface portion and a lower surface portion of the power supply body, respectively (Kim, Fig.4, power applied at #31 at an upper portion of #10 and cable connection portion for #32 is located at a lower portion of #10)
In regards to Claim 10, Kim in view of Kim ‘23 discloses the power supply structure of claim 7, wherein the buried space is formed in a wall of the FAB to be exposed to a semiconductor manufacturing space of the FAB (Kim ’23 in view of Kim, Fig.2-3, #10 is placed within a buried space in a wall which is exposed to empty space of the fabrication facility).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim hereinafter as Kim ‘23 (2023/0409042 A1) in view of Kim (KR 10-2021-0153835).
In regards to Claim 14, Kim ’23 discloses a facility for transporting a substrate (paragraph [0004]), comprising: an overhead hoist transport (OHT) vehicle (Fig.1-3, #10) moving along a rail (Fig.1, #20) installed on a ceiling in a fabrication facility (FAB) (Fig.1-3); an electric cable (Paragraph [0069]) installed on the rail; and the electric cable is connected to the OHT vehicle and supplies power to the OHT vehicle through the electric cable (Fig.1 and paragraph [0069], which discloses a power supply using an electrical cable via rail #20 to power OHT #10).
Kim ’23 fails to disclose: A power supply body buried in a buried space having a groove structure or a hole structure, formed in a wall of the FAB, such that a front portion is disposed on an exposed surface of the buried space and a heat dissipation portion formed in the front portion of the power supply body, to be exposed in a direction, other than a direction facing the buried space.
However, Kim discloses: a power supply structure (Fig.1-5, #10 which includes #20) comprising: a buried space (Fig.2-3 having a groove structure or a hole structure (Fig.2-3, the FAB has a hole structure), formed in a facility (Fig.2-3, #10 is placed within a facility); a power supply body (Fig.1, #10) buried in the buried space such that a front portion is disposed on an exposed surface of the buried space (Fig.2, #10 is disposed in the buried space such that the front portion (#11) is exposed out of said buried space); and a heat dissipation portion formed on the front side of the power supply body (Fig.5, #11b and 11c discloses a heat dissipation portion formed on the front side of #11 of #10).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the power supply within the fabrication facility (as taught by Kim ‘23) to be replaced with a power supply body buried in a space within the facility (as taught by Kim ) to supply power to an overhead hoist transport (OHT). By placing the body within a buried space with a fabrication facility would increase the amount of space available and furthermore, discreetly provide power to the OHT.
In regards to Claim 15, Kim ‘23 in view of Kim discloses the facility of claim 14, wherein the heat dissipation portion comprises an inlet (Kim Fig.4, #11b) through which air is suctioned into the power supply body by a heat dissipation fan (Kim Fig.6, #26) installed in the power supply body, and an outlet (Kim Fig.4, #11c) through which air is discharged from the power supply body externally by the heat dissipation fan (Kim Fig.6, #26 is used to exhaust heated air within #10), Wherein the inlet is formed in a lower portion of the front portion, and the outlet is formed in an upper portion of the front portion (Kim Fig.3, inlet #10b is at the bottom portion of #11 and outlet #11c is at the upper portion of #11).
In regards to Claim 16, Kim ‘23 in view of Kim discloses the facility of claim 14, further comprising a cable connection portion formed on the power supply body (Kim, Fig.4, #10 provides a cable connection portion #32/#31) and to which an electric cable (Kim, Fig.4, #31/32 and Kim ’23 paragraph [0069], which disclose a cable supplying power to OHT via a cable) to which the power is applied is connected, wherein the cable connection portion is formed independently on an upper surface portion and a lower surface portion of the power supply body, respectively (Kim, Fig.4, power applied at #31 at an upper portion of #10 and cable connection portion for #32 is located at a lower portion of #10)
In regards to Claim 17, Kim ‘23 in view of Kim the facility of claim 14, wherein the buried space is formed in a wall of the FAB to be exposed to a semiconductor manufacturing space of the FAB (Kim ’23 in view of Kim, Fig.2-3, #10 is placed within a buried space in a wall which is exposed to empty space of the fabrication facility).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim (KR 10-2021-0153835) in view of Kim hereinafter as Kim ‘23 (2023/0409042 A1) and further, in view of Nakamoto (JP 2004173721 A).
In regards to Claim 21, Kim in view of Kim ’23 disclose the power supply structure of claim 7.
Kim in view of Kim ’23 fail to disclose: Further comprising a main anchor fixing the power supply body to a bottom surface facing the power supply body in the buried space, wherein the main anchor includes: a connection portion installed laterally on a lower surface of the power supply body and extending in a downward direction; and a fixing portion extending from the connection portion toward a center of the lower surface of the power supply body so as not to protrude from the power supply body in a lateral direction, and supported by and fixed to the bottom surface facing the power supply body.
However, Nakamoto discloses: Further comprising a main anchor (Fig.1-5, #11 in conjunction with #13 and #12 make up the main anchor) fixing the power supply body (Fig.3, #2) to a bottom surface facing the power supply body in the buried space (Fig.1-5), wherein the main anchor includes: a connection portion (Fig.1, #13) installed laterally on a lower surface of the power supply body (Fig.1, #13 is placed laterally via #11 on the lower surface of #2) and extending in a downward direction (Fig.1, #13 is extending downwards); and a fixing portion (Fig.1, #12) extending from the connection portion toward a center of the lower surface of the power supply body (Fig.1, #12 is extending towards the center of #2) so as not to protrude from the power supply body in a lateral direction (Fig.2, #12 is beneath #2 and not protruding from #2), and supported by and fixed to the bottom surface facing the power supply body (Fig.1, #12 is fixed to the bottom surface of #2 and secured via #15, as such the office notes that with the combination of Kim in view of Kim ’23 and Nakamoto, the power supply structure placed within a buried spaced in a FAB (as taught by Kim in view of Kim ’23) would be modified to include a main anchor (as taught by Nakamoto) to secure said body to the floor of the FAB).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the power supply structure placed within a buried spaced in a FAB (as taught by Kim in view of Kim ’23) to additionally include a main anchor (as taught by Nakamoto) to secure said body to the floor of the FAB. By including an main anchor to the power supply structure, would help prevent said body from shifting and/or tipping over during an earth quake or the like.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim (KR 10-2021-0153835) in view of Kim hereinafter as Kim ‘23 (2023/0409042 A1), Nakamoto (JP 2004173721 A), and further, in view of Jang (KR 20110137904 A).
In regards to Claim 22, Kim in view of Kim ’23 and Nakamoto disclose the power supply structure of claim 21.
Kim in view of Kim ’23 and Nakamoto fail to disclose: further comprising an upper anchor fixing an upper portion of the power supply body to a rear wall surface facing the power supply body in the buried space, wherein the upper anchor is rear installed on the upper surface of the power supply body, extends in an upward direction, and is supported by and fixed to the rear wall surface facing the power supply body.
However, Jang discloses: further comprising an anchor (Fig.3, #100) fixing a portion of the power supply body to a rear wall surface facing the power supply body in the buried space, wherein the anchor is rear installed on the surface of the power supply body, extends in an upward direction, and is supported by and fixed to the wall surface facing the power supply body (Fig.3, #100 is fixed to the rear securing the body to the wall of the facility. Jang further discloses that placement are not limited too, such that the office notes that one of ordinary skilled in the art would be able to place the rear anchors #100 on the top of the cabinet body to secure said body to the rear wall (see “in Figure 3 as shown, located in the front lower portion and the lower portion of the rear cabinet flow device, and a function to prevent the device from being conductive in case of earthquake. Such a function for preventing conductive plate 10 is provided with the bolt hole 11 is formed through the cabinet fastening devices and fastening means through which flow respectively in the lower surface of the bolt hole equipment’s may realize the seismic augment One preferred that the two pairs formed, but are not necessarily limited to this.”
Therefore, MPEP 2143.02 (I) notes that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have combined and/or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, by a top anchor to secure the power supply body to a rear wall would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed as Jang discloses securing a body to a wall to prevent falling. By including an additionally top anchor securing the power supply body would further secure said body from falling and/or injuring personal (See MPEP 2143.02, citing, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
In regards to Claim 23, Kim in view of Kim ’23 and Nakamoto disclose the power supply structure of claim 21.
Kim in view of Kim ’23 and Nakamoto fail to disclose: Further comprising a rear anchor fixing a rear portion of the power supply body to a portion of the bottom surface facing the rear portion of the power supply body in the buried space, wherein the rear anchor is installed on a lower portion of a rear surface of the power supply body, extends in a downward direction, and is supported by and fixed to the portion of the bottom surface facing the rear portion of the power supply body.
However, Jang discloses: Further comprising a rear anchor (Fig.3, #100) fixing a rear portion of the power supply body to a portion of the bottom surface facing the rear portion of the power supply body in the buried space (Fig.3, #100 is fixed to a rear portion of the body) , wherein the rear anchor is installed on a lower portion of a rear surface of the power supply body (Fig.3, #100), extends in a downward direction (Fig.3, #100 extends in a downward direction), and is supported by and fixed to the portion of the bottom surface facing the rear portion of the power supply body (Fig.3, #100 as such the office notes that with the combination of Kim in view of Kim ’23, Nakamoto, and Jang, the power supply body secured within a buried space in a FAB (Kim in view of Kim ’23 and Nakamoto) would be modified to include an additional rear anchor (as taught by Jang) to secure said body from the rear surface).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the power supply structure placed within a buried spaced in a FAB comprising a main anchor (as taught by Kim in view of Kim ’23 and Nakamoto) to include an additional rear anchor (as taught by Jang) to secure said body from the rear surface. By including multiple anchor points on the power supply body, would ensure said body will not move and/or fall down due to an earthquake or the like).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 18-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 11, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein, in the FAB, a duct chamber in which an air duct is disposed is formed outside the wall, wherein the buried space is formed to be exposed to the duct chamber or to both a semiconductor manufacturing space and the duct chamber in the FAB”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regards to claim 12, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the FAB comprises a main FAB and a sub-FAB below the main FAB, wherein the buried space is formed in a wall of the main FAB”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regards to claim 13, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the FAB comprises a main FAB and a sub-FAB below the main FAB, wherein the buried space is formed in a ceiling of the main FAB or in a slab between the main FAB and the sub-FAB”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regards to claim 18, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the FAB has a duct chamber in which an air duct is disposed outside the wall, and the buried space is formed to be exposed to the duct chamber or to both a semiconductor manufacturing space and the duct chamber in the FAB, wherein the front portion of the power supply body in which the heat dissipation portion is formed is disposed to face the duct chamber, and the electric cable is disposed from the power supply body to face the semiconductor manufacturing space through the duct chamber”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regards to claim 19, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the FAB comprises a main FAB and a sub-FAB below the main FAB, wherein the buried space is formed in a wall of the main FAB”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
In regards to claim 20, no prior art fairly suggests or discloses “wherein the FAB comprises a main FAB and a sub-FAB below the main FAB, wherein the buried space is formed in a ceiling of the main FAB or in a slab between the main FAB and the sub-FAB”, in conjunction with the remaining elements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 5712723740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835