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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
187
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being Anticipated by Gordon et al. (US 5897108 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Gordon discloses:
An apparatus for storing an article, the apparatus comprising:
an article storage rack (10 & 12) including a space for storing a first article (PCB) or a second article (PCB) (Fig. 1) [Column 6 Lines 27-39]; and
a variable alignment device (34 & 54) installed on the article storage rack (Fig. 3a),
wherein the variable alignment device includes at least one first alignment protrusion (54) protrudes outward at a first height to align the first article when the first article is seated [Column 5 Lines 58-67 & Column 6 Lines 1-39], and
wherein the first alignment protrusion is accommodated inward to a second height lower than the first height so that the first alignment protrusion does not interfere with the second article when the second article is seated [Column 5 Lines 65-67 & Column 6 Lines 1-39].
Regarding Claim 2, Gordon discloses:
the variable alignment device further includes:
a base plate (44) formed on a top surface thereof with at least one second alignment protrusion (34 & 82) to align the second article, and including a reception part (18 & 46);
a movable plate (1000) installed in the reception part so as to be freely lifted and lowered, and formed thereon with the at least one first alignment protrusion (Fig. 3); and
at least one elastic spring (22) having a restoring force acting in a direction in which the movable plate is lifted [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67].
Regarding Claim 3, Gordon discloses:
the variable alignment device further include:
three second alignment protrusions that are triangularly arranged to correspond to three alignment grooves formed in a bottom surface of the second article and that are formed on the top surface of the base plate at a periphery of the reception part (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Gordon discloses:
the at least one elastic spring is configured such that a sum of restoring forces is greater than a first weight of the first article and less than a second weight of the second article [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67].
Regarding Claim 10, Gordon discloses:
the variable alignment device further includes:
a fixing plate (14) installed to the base plate while being spaced apart from the base plate by a clearance distance so as to support the at least one elastic spring and allow the movable plate to be lifted and lowered in a separation space (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Gordon discloses:
the first article includes a reticle pod for storing a reticle [as the rack is capable of storing a reticle pod without any structural changes it meets the limitations per MPEP 2114], and
the second article includes a front opening unified pod (FOUP) for storing a plurality of wafers [as the rack is capable of storing a front opening unified pod without any structural changes it meets the limitations per MPEP 2114].
Regarding Claim 12, Gordon discloses:
the second article has a second weight that is greater than a first weight of the first article [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67].
Regarding Claim 13, Gordon discloses:
the article storage rack includes an under track buffer (UTB) (80) or a side track buffer (STB) (58).
Regarding Claim 15, Gordon discloses:
the variable alignment device includes:
a cylinder part (18) formed on the article storage rack, in which the first alignment protrusion including a stopper (1000) is formed on one side of the cylinder part so as to be lifted and lowered [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67]; and
an elastic member (22) installed in the cylinder part (Fig. 3), and having a restoring force formed in a direction in which the first alignment protrusion protrudes [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67].
Regarding Claim 17, Gordon discloses:
A method for storing an article, the method comprising:
(a) seating a first article (PCB) in a space of an article storage rack (10 & 12) by an article transfer device (Fig. 1) [Abstract & Column 2 Lines 62-67 & Column 6 Lines 27-39];
(b) maintaining a state in which at least one first alignment protrusion (54) protrudes outward to align the first article at a first height [Column 5 Lines 58-67 & Column 6 Lines 1-39] by using a variable alignment device (34 & 54) installed in the article storage rack (Fig. 3) [Column 5 Lines 58-67 & Column 6 Lines 1-39];
(c) transferring the first article to another place, and seating a second article in the space of the article storage rack by the article transfer device [Abstract & Column 2 Lines 62-67 & Column 6 Lines 27-39]; and
(d) aligning the second article to at least one second alignment protrusion (34 & 82) by using the variable alignment device installed in the article storage rack (Fig. 1 & Fig. 3), and accommodating the first alignment protrusion inward to a second height lower than the first height so that the first alignment protrusion does not interfere with the second article [Column 5 Lines 65-67 & Column 6 Lines 1-39].
Regarding Claim 18, Gordon discloses:
(e) allowing the at least one first alignment protrusion to protrude outward by the variable alignment device when the second article is transferred to another place [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67].
Regarding Claim 19, Gordon discloses:
in the step (b), at least one elastic spring (22) having a restoring force that is greater than a weight of the first article is used to maintain the state in which the first alignment protrusion protrudes outward [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67], and,
in the step (d), the at least one elastic spring having a restoring force that is less than a weight of the second article is used to accommodate the first alignment protrusion inward so that the first alignment protrusion does not interfere with the second article [Column 4 Lines 53-67 & Column 5 Lines 1-67].
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 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 of this title, 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.
PNG
media_image2.png
212
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190206709 A1) in view of Dolker et al. (US 20020011209 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Gordon teaches:
the apparatus is installed in a semiconductor manufacturing factory [Abstract].
Gordon does not explicitly teach:
the article storage rack includes:
a frame installed on at least one of a ceiling, a wall, and a floor of a manufacturing factory in which the apparatus is installed; and
at least one shelf support installed on the frame to support the first article or the second article.
Dolker teaches:
An apparatus for storing an article, the apparatus comprising:
an article storage rack (5) including a space for storing a first article (3a) or a second article (3b) (Fig. 4) [0044 & 0045 & 0046 & 0047 & 0048 & 0049 & 0050]; and
a variable alignment device (9) installed on the article storage rack (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5),
wherein the variable alignment device includes at least one first alignment protrusion (9) protrudes outward at a first height to align the first article when the first article is seated [0037 & 0042 & 0043 & 0044 & 0045 & 0046 & 0047 & 0048 & 0049], and
wherein the first alignment protrusion is accommodated inward to a second height lower than the first height (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7) [0041 & 0042];
the article storage rack includes:
a frame (2000) installed on at least one of a ceiling, a wall, and a floor of a manufacturing factory in which the apparatus is installed (Fig. 1) [0036 & 0037 & 0038 & 0039 & 0041 & 0042]; and
at least one shelf support installed on the frame to support the first article or the second article (Fig. 1) [0036 & 0037 & 0038 & 0039 & 0041 & 0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article storage apparatus taught by Gordon with the article storage apparatus having a storage rack including a frame installed on at least one of a ceiling, a wall, and a floor of a manufacturing factory in which the apparatus is installed, and at least one shelf support installed on the frame to support the first article or the second article taught by Dolker in order to provide a support with a means of providing a support which stabilizes the apparatus thereby preventing movement of the apparatus in a manner which could dislodge the article.
Regarding Claim 16, Gordon does not teach:
in operation detection device for detecting an operation state of the variable alignment device, and applying a detection signal to a control unit.
Dolker teaches:
An apparatus for storing an article, the apparatus comprising:
an article storage rack (5) including a space for storing a first article (3a) or a second article (3b) (Fig. 4) [0044 & 0045 & 0046 & 0047 & 0048 & 0049 & 0050]; and
a variable alignment device (9) installed on the article storage rack (Fig. 4 & Fig. 5),
wherein the variable alignment device includes at least one first alignment protrusion (9) protrudes outward at a first height to align the first article when the first article is seated [0037 & 0042 & 0043 & 0044 & 0045 & 0046 & 0047 & 0048 & 0049], and
wherein the first alignment protrusion is accommodated inward to a second height lower than the first height (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7) [0041 & 0042];
in operation detection device for detecting an operation state of the variable alignment device, and applying a detection signal to a control unit [0016 & 0018 & 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article storage apparatus taught by Gordon with the article storage apparatus having a detection device for detecting an operation state of the variable alignment device, and applying a detection signal to a control unit taught by Dolker in order to provide a means for sensing the state of the alignment device in order to prevent improper operation of the device and preventing damage to the article.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “An apparatus for storing an article, the apparatus comprising: an article storage rack including a space for storing a first article or a second article; and a variable alignment device installed on the article storage rack, wherein the variable alignment device includes at least one first alignment protrusion protrudes outward at a first height to align the first article when the first article is seated, and wherein the first alignment protrusion is accommodated inward to a second height lower than the first height so that the first alignment protrusion does not interfere with the second article when the second article is seated, wherein the variable alignment device further includes: a base plate formed on a top surface thereof with at least one second alignment protrusion to align the second article, and including a reception part; a movable plate installed in the reception part so as to be freely lifted and lowered, and formed thereon with the at least one first alignment protrusion; and at least one elastic spring having a restoring force acting in a direction in which the movable plate is lifted, wherein the movable plate includes: a movable plate body substantially having a flat plate shape; three first alignment protrusions formed on a top surface of the movable plate body, and triangularly arranged to correspond to three alignment grooves formed in a bottom surface of the first article; and a stopper formed on one side surface of the movable plate body, and protruding in a lateral direction to prevent the movable plate body from being separated from the reception part.”, as recited in Claim 4 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the article storage rack, first article, second article, variable alignment device, first alignment protrusions, base plate, second alignment protrusion, reception part, movable plate, elastic spring, movable plate body, alignment grooves, and stopper. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the article storage rack, first article, second article, variable alignment device, first alignment protrusions, base plate, second alignment protrusion, reception part, movable plate, elastic spring, movable plate body, alignment grooves, and stopper.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The art of record fails to render obvious the claimed combination of: “An apparatus for storing an article, the apparatus comprising: an article storage rack including a space for storing a first article or a second article; and a variable alignment device installed on the article storage rack, in which at least one first alignment protrusion protrudes outward at a first height to align the first article when the first article is seated, and the first alignment protrusion is accommodated inward to a second height lower than the first height so that the first alignment protrusion does not interfere with the second article when the second article is seated, wherein the variable alignment device includes: a base plate formed on a top surface thereof with at least one second alignment protrusion to align the second article, and including a reception part; a movable plate installed in the reception part so as to be freely lifted and lowered, and formed thereon with the at least one first alignment protrusion; at least one elastic spring having a restoring force acting in a direction in which the movable plate is lifted; and a fixing plate installed to the base plate while being spaced apart from the base plate by a clearance distance so as to support the at least one elastic spring and allow the movable plate to be lifted and lowered in a separation space, and the movable plate includes: a movable plate body substantially having a flat plate shape; three first alignment protrusions formed on a top surface of the movable plate body, and triangularly arranged to correspond to three alignment grooves formed in a bottom surface of the first article; a stopper formed on one side surface of the movable plate body, and protruding in a lateral direction to prevent the movable plate body from being separated from the reception part; and a guide formed on the top surface of the movable plate body, and having a top surface higher than a top surface of the first alignment protrusion to protect the first alignment protrusion.”, as recited in Claim 20 specifically:
the structural and operative relationship between the article storage rack, first article, second article, variable alignment device, first alignment protrusions, base plate, second alignment protrusion, reception part, movable plate, elastic spring, movable plate body, alignment grooves, stopper, and guide. Especially as it relates to the relationship between the article storage rack, first article, second article, variable alignment device, first alignment protrusions, base plate, second alignment protrusion, reception part, movable plate, elastic spring, movable plate body, alignment grooves, stopper, and guide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652