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 filed 10/17/2025 with respect to the 112 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The original 112 rejections were addressed but, claim 1 was amended to eliminate one 112 issue but added a new one. The support member 660 shown in figures 12-20 is incapable of repositioning the first vehicle, the elevation member and the container. The support member merely supports the container temporarily until the elevation member of the first vehicle supports the container.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 with respect to the 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Horii does not disclose that the support member including a support plate and a support driver configured to move the support plate. Though Horii does not disclose these features, they were rejected in combination with Brain in claims 10-11. Claim 1 is therefor still rejected by Horii in view of Brain and the dependent claim will also be rejected as only relying on the allowability of claim 1.
The objection to the abstract has been overcome by the amendment filed 10/17/2025.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 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.
In claim 1 it is unclear what is meant by “move the support plate to reposition at least one of the first vehicle, the elevation member, or the container in the elevation space” as the support member and its support plate are incapable of repositioning the first vehicle, the elevation member, and the container as the support member merely acts as a temporary support and does not include a mechanism to reposition anything.
Claim(s) 1-3,5 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. US 2018/0105361 in view of Brain US 2016/0233120.
Horii discloses a transferring apparatus for transferring a container in which an article is accommodated, comprising:
(Re claim 1) “a first rail” (12 figure 5). “a second rail located below the first rail” (11 figure 5). “a transfer unit located on a side of the first rail and a side of the second rail to transfer the container between a first vehicle configured to traveling on the first rail and a second vehicle configured to travel on the second rail” (7 figure 5). “wherein the transfer unit comprises a frame having an elevation space therein” (7 figure 4,5) the open shaft area. “an elevation member configured to move between 1) a first position to transfer the container to and from the first vehicle and the elevation member and 2) a second position to transfer the container from the second vehicle and elevation member” (21,33 figure 4,5). “a support member on the frame the support member including a support plate” (25 figure 3).
Horii does not disclose that the support member includes a support driver configured to move the support plate.
Brain teaches a support member including a support plate and a support driver configured to move the support plate (104a-g figure 2, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Horii to include a support member including a support plate and a support driver configured to move the support plate because it allows for a more compact system while retaining the ability to temporarily retain a container in the shaft
(Re claim 2) “the transferring apparatus is disposed above a plurality of semiconductor devices” (CP,DP,FP figure 1,3, ‘suspended’ abstract). “a semiconductor manufacturing line in which the plurality of the semiconductor devices are continuously disposed is formed of at least one floor, and the first rail, the second rail, and the transfer unit are disposed on the same layer of the semiconductor manufacturing line” (11,12 figure 1,3).
(Re claim 3) “the second vehicle is configured to travel on the second rail at a speed lower than that of the first vehicle to transfer at least one of the plurality of semiconductor devices and the container” Horii is silent with regard to the speed of the first and second vehicles, but is fully capable of allowing the second vehicle to travel slower than the first vehicle.
(Re claim 5) “a first transfer unit located on a first side of the first rail” (7 figure 3) left side. “a second transfer unit located on a second side of the first rail facing the first side of the first rail” (7 figure 3) right side.
(Re claim 7) “the first vehicle is configured to travel only on the first rail of the first rail and the second rail” (31, 12 figure 3). “the second is configured to travel only on the second rail of the first rail and the second rail” (31,11 figure 3).
(Re claim 9) “the support member is provided at the first position” (25 figure 3).
(Re claim 10,11) “the support member is provided on the frame” (25 figure 3).
Horii does not disclose that the support member is provided on the frame and slides between a support position capable of supporting the container in the elevation space and a stand-by position which does not interfere with the container elevating in the elevation space nor that the support member does not interfere with the elevation member when the elevation member moves up and down in the elevation space.
Brain teaches that the support member is provided on the frame and slides between a support position capable of supporting the container in the elevation space and a stand-by position which does not interfere with the container elevating in the elevation space and that the support member does not interfere with the elevation member when the elevation member moves up and down in the elevation space (104a-g figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Horii to include teaches that the support member is provided on the frame and slides between a support position capable of supporting the container in the elevation space and a stand-by position which does not interfere with the container elevating in the elevation space and that the support member does not interfere with the elevation member when the elevation member moves up and down in the elevation space because it can speed up transport and help avoid collisions in the elevation space.
(Re claim 12) “each of the first vehicle and the second vehicle comprises a slider configured to change a position of the container laterally with respect to a traveling direction” (33 figure 4).”among side surfaces of the frame, the side surfaces facing the first rail and the second rail are opened, and the slider is configured to move the container to the elevation space through the opened side surfaces” (33, W figure 4).
(Re claim 13) Horii discloses a controller that the controller is configured to control the support member… and the elevation member … seat the container on the support member by moving the slider to the elevation space (H figure 6).
Horii does not disclose that the controller is configured to control the slider, and the elevation member so as to seat the container on the support member …, to elevate the elevation member to the first position so that the elevation member supports the container after the container is seated on the support member, and to slidably move the support member to the stand-by position after the elevation member supports the container.
Brain teaches that the controller is configured to control the slider, and the elevation member so as to seat the container on the support member …, to elevate the elevation member to the first position so that the elevation member supports the container after the container is seated on the support member, and to slidably move the support member to the stand-by position after the elevation member supports the container (104a-g ,108 a-e figure 2,4A-G).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Horii to include that the controller is configured to control the slider, and the elevation member so as to seat the container on the support member …, to elevate the elevation member to the first position so that the elevation member supports the container after the container is seated on the support member, and to slidably move the support member to the stand-by position after the elevation member supports the container because slider must move the support member to allow operation of the system.
(Re claim 14) Horii discloses a controller that the controller is configured to control the support member… and the elevation member … seat the container on the support member by moving the slider to the elevation space (H figure 6).
Hori does not disclose that the controller is configured to control the support member and the elevation member so that the elevation member slidably moves the support member to the stand-by position before elevating the container to the first position when moving the container to the first vehicle in the elevation space, the elevation member elevates the container to the first position when the support member moves to the stand-by position, and the elevation member slidably moves the support member to the support position when the elevation member is located at the first position.
Brain teaches that the controller is configured to control the support member and the elevation member so that the elevation member slidably moves the support member to the stand-by position before elevating the container to the first position when moving the container to the first vehicle in the elevation space, the elevation member elevates the container to the first position when the support member moves to the stand-by position, and the elevation member slidably moves the support member to the support position when the elevation member is located at the first position (104a-g ,108 a-e figure 2,4A-G).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Horii to include that the controller is configured to control the support member and the elevation member so that the elevation member slidably moves the support member to the stand-by position before elevating the container to the first position when moving the container to the first vehicle in the elevation space, the elevation member elevates the container to the first position when the support member moves to the stand-by position, and the elevation member slidably moves the support member to the support position when the elevation member is located at the first position because slider must move the support member to allow operation of the system.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii/Brain in view of Mizutani et al. US 2021/0138911.
Horii/Brain discloses that the first rail and the frame are fixed to a ceiling of the semiconductor manufacturing line (42 figure 1,5).
Horii/Brain does not disclose that the second rail is fixed via the first rail.
Mizutani teaches that the second rail is fixed via the first rail (21,7,23,9 figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Horii/Brain to include that the second rail is fixed via the first rail because it reduces the length of the elements supporting the rail while creating a stiffer structure.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii/Brain in view of Kuwahara et al. US 2020/0098612.
Horii/Brain discloses “the first transfer unit includes a first frame and a first elevation member” (24, 45 figure 5). “wherein the first elevation member comprises an elevation plate for supporting a lower surface of the container” (44 figure 5). “a first driving member provided on a lower wall of the first frame and moving the elevation plate in a vertical direction” the motor located at the bottom of member 46. “the second transfer unit includes a second frame and a second elevation member” (24, 45 figure). “wherein the second elevation member comprises … a second driving member provided on an upper wall of the second frame and moving the grip member in a vertical direction” the motor located at the top of member 46. Horii does disclose that the vehicles comprising a grip member for gripping a flange formed at an upper portion of the container (34 figure 4).
Horii/Brain does not disclose a grip member for gripping a flange formed at an upper portion of the container. Horii does disclose that the
Kuwahara teaches a transfer unit with a grip member for gripping a flange formed at an upper portion of the container (69, 65B figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Horii/Brain to include that the second transfer unit has a grip member for gripping a flange formed at an upper portion of the container because it holds the container more securely.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. US 2018/0105361
Horii discloses a transferring apparatus for transferring a container in which an article is accommodated, comprising:
(Re claim 21) “a first rail” (12 figure 5). “a second rail located below the first rail” (11 figure 5). “a transfer unit located on a side of the first rail and a side of the second rail to transfer the container between a first vehicle configured to travel on the first rail and a second vehicle configured to travel on the second rail” (7,33 figure 4,5). “wherein the transfer unit comprises a frame having an elevation space therein” (7 figure 4,5). “an elevation member being placed in the frame; wherein the elevation member comprises, an elevation plate configured to support a lower surface of the container” (44,45 figure 5). “a driving member configured to move the elevation plate between a first position and a second position in a vertical direction” (‘electric motor … cable and pulley mechanism and/or gear mechanism’ para 0049). “the first vehicle is configured to directly place the container onto the elevation plate or directly lift the container from the elevation plate when the elevation plate is located in the first position” The first vehicle 31 in figure 4 is fully capable of placing the container on the elevation plate when the elevation plate is in the first position as shown in figure 5. “the second vehicle is configured to directly place the container onto the elevation plate or directly lift the container from the elevation plate when the elevation plate is located in the second position.” The second vehicle 31 in figure 4 is fully capable of placing the container on the elevation plate when the elevation plate is in the second position as shown in figure 5. Elimination of a step, in this case placing the container onto a support member, is obvious if the function of the step is not desired Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031.
(Re claim 22) “the elevation plate is configured to move only vertically” Horii teaches that the elevation platform can move vertically. Elimination of an element, in this the ability to store containers and move in other directions, is obvious if the function of the element is not desired Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031.
Horii discloses a transferring apparatus for transferring a container in which an article is accommodated, comprising:
(Re claim 23) “a first rail” (12 figure 5). “a second rail located below the first rail” (11 figure 5). “a transfer unit located on a side of the first rail and a side of the second rail to transfer the container between a first vehicle configured to travel on the first rail and a second vehicle configured to travel on the second rail” (7,33 figure 4,5). “wherein the transfer unit comprises a frame having an elevation space therein” (7 figure 4,5). “an elevation member being placed in the frame” (45 figure 4,5). “a support member in the elevation space” (25 figure 4,5). “wherein the elevation member comprises an elevation plate configured to support a lower surface of the container” (44 figure 5). “a driving member configured to move the elevation plate between a first position and a second position in a vertical direction (45,46 figure 5, para 0049).
Horii does not disclose that the support member comprises a pair of support plates positioned at a height corresponding to the first position; and a support driver configured to move the pair of support plates between a stand-by position and a support position, wherein the pair of support plates are positioned such that the container placed on the elevation plate can pass through a space between the pair of support plates in a standby position, and the container placed on the elevation plate does not
pass through the space between the pair of support plates in the support position.
Brain teaches that the support member comprises a pair of support plates positioned at a height corresponding to the first position; and a support driver configured to move the pair of support plates between a stand-by position and a support position, wherein the pair of support plates are positioned such that the container placed on the elevation plate can pass through a space between the pair of support plates in a standby position, and the container placed on the elevation plate does not
pass through the space between the pair of support plates in the support position (104a-g ,108 a-e figure 2,4A-G).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of Torii to include that the support member comprises a pair of support plates positioned at a height corresponding to the first position; and a support driver configured to move the pair of support plates between a stand-by position and a support position, wherein the pair of support plates are positioned such that the container placed on the elevation plate can pass through a space between the pair of support plates in a standby position, and the container placed on the elevation plate does not pass through the space between the pair of support plates in the support position because it can speed up transport, help avoid collisions in the elevation space and reduce the size of the transfer system.
(Re claim 24) “ that the pair of support plates are positioned such that the elevation plate can pass through the space between the pair of support plates in the support position” (25, 44 figure 3-5). Support plates 25 include a space which allows the elevation plate 44 to move between them to lift the container.
(Re claim 25) “the elevation plate is configured to move only vertically” Horii teaches that the elevation platform can move vertically. Elimination of an element, in this the ability to store containers and move in other directions, is obvious if the function of the element is not desired Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031.
(Re claim 26) “the first vehicle is configured to directly place the container onto the pair of support plates or directly lift the container from the pair of support plates when the pair of support plates is located in the support position” (33,22b,25 figure 4,5). “the second vehicle is configured to directly place the container onto the elevation plate or directly lift the container from the elevation plate when the elevation plate is located in the second position” The second vehicle 31 in figure 4 is fully capable of placing or lifting the container to or from the elevation plate when the elevation plate is in the second position as shown in figure 5. Elimination of a step, in this case placing the container onto a support member, is obvious if the function of the step is not desired Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031.
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 TIMOTHY R WAGGONER whose telephone number is (571)272-8204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 5am-330pm.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
TIMOTHY R. WAGGONER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655 B
/TIMOTHY R WAGGONER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights