DETAILED ACTION
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/Amendments
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 11/11/2025. Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1-23 have been amended. Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration.
The interpretation of several elements under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments. Regarding claims 13 and 22, the limitation “an adjustment mechanism” is still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim amendments only appear to further define the location of the adjustment mechanism, but not its structure.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments. Claims 13 and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, because the term “an adjustment mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Applicant argues that this rejection has been overcome because the adjustment mechanism has been amended to avoid the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims recite the placeholder term “mechanism,” its location, and its function (adjusting an inclination of the wafer), but they do not further define the structure of the adjustment mechanism itself.
The rejection of claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umezaki et al. (US 2020/0006092) is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 2-7, 9, 12-14, 16, 18, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combinations of Umezaki et al. (US 2020/0006092), Suzuki et al. (US 6,270,619), Shinozaki et al. (US 2015/0082613), Uemukai et al. (US 2002/0059686), Woods (US 2004/0060580), Randhawa et al. (US 2019/0378729), Nakata et al. (US 2021/0043471), and Tsai et al. (US 2003/0047194) are also withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendments, new/modified ground(s) of rejection are applied below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an adjustment mechanism” in claims 13 and 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “clear” in line 7 has an apparent typographical error and should be “clean.” 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.
Claims 1-23 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.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation "the other side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, claim limitation “an adjustment mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As best as can be determined, the claimed “adjustment mechanism” refers to elements 39 shown in Figures 7 and 9. The figures appear to show elements 39 in schematic form as being objects that are attached to the wafer holding stages, without showing sufficient detail to depict the actual structure of the mechanisms. Additionally, the specification appears to only describe the function of the mechanisms, but does not appear to describe their structures. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant) in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura discloses a wafer treatment device comprising: a front-end-transfer box having one side and the other side (Figure 4: 16); a load port attached to the one side of the front-end transfer box and configured to hold a wafer carrier, the wafer carrier carrying a wafer (30, 31, 33); a cleaning unit attached to the one side of the front-end transfer box and configured to clean the wafer (82); a processing unit attached to the other side of the front-end transfer box and configured to perform a processing on the wafer, the processing including one selected from a group consisting of an etching process, a sputtering process, and a deposition process (13); and a transfer robot configured to transfer the wafer between the load port, the cleaning unit, and the processing unit (32), wherein the cleaning unit includes a wafer holding stage configured to hold the wafer (Figure 6: 101), a cleaning liquid supply nozzle configured to supply cleaning liquid onto the wafer held by the wafer holding stage (102), and the cleaning unit and the load port are arranged on the one side of the front-end transfer box (Figure 4: 16, 30, 31, 33, 82).
Nishimura does not expressly disclose a gas supply nozzle configured to supply gas onto the wafer held by the wafer holding stage.
Kawabuchi discloses a substrate processing apparatus having a substrate liquid processing apparatus (10) including a cleaning liquid discharge nozzle (26), a rinse liquid discharge nozzle (32), a substitution liquid discharge nozzle (36), and inert gas discharge nozzles (39, 40) for performing a dry process.
Because it is known in the art to have a liquid discharge nozzles and gas discharge nozzles, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing the ability to perform cleaning and drying, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gas supply nozzle configured to supply gas onto the wafer held by the wafer holding stage.
Regarding claims 8, 10, 11, 17, 19, and 20, modified Nishimura discloses wherein the cleaning liquid supply nozzle is configured to supply the cleaning liquid to an upper surface of the wafer for a first predetermined period with a relative position between the cleaning liquid supply nozzle and the wafer being fixed (Nishimura: 101, 102, 105); and the gas supply nozzle is configured to supply the gas to the upper surface of the wafer for a second predetermined period with a relative position between the gas supply nozzle and the wafer being fixed (Nishimura: 101, 105; Kawabuchi: 39, 40); the cleaning liquid supply nozzle is configured to supply isopropyl alcohol onto the wafer after the cleaning liquid is supplied onto the wafer (Nishimura: 102; Kawabuchi: 36); wherein the gas includes nitrogen gas (Kawabuchi: paragraph 66). Note that supplying the claimed fluids and operating the apparatus as claimed is intended use capable of being met by modified Nishimura. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, modified Nishimura is relied upon and interpreted as follows: a cleaning unit provided in the front-end transfer box and configured to clean the wafer (walls of 82 are considered to be a part of the loader module 16).
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 6,270,619).
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the front-end transfer box further includes a railway extending in a first direction, the transfer robot includes a base movable on the railway, an extension and contraction arm attached onto the base in a rotatable manner, a protruding amount of the extension and contraction arm from the base in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction being adjustable, and a holding stage provided on a distal end side of the extension and contraction arm, and configured to hold the wafer, the load port is coupled to the front-end transfer box, and assuming that a storage position of the wafer with wafer carrier being attached to the load port is taken as a first storage position, and a storage position of the wafer in a state of being cleaned by the cleaning unit is taken as a second storage position, a distance from the railway to the first storage position in the second direction is equal to a distance from the railway to the second storage position in the second direction.
Suzuki discloses a substrate manufacturing apparatus having a wafer transfer robot (Figures 2-4: 15) including a base (120) movable along a guide groove (122). There is a rotating shaft (125) which is vertically movable and attached to first arm (124) and second arms (126) for moving a hand (128) along the X- and Y-direction or about the Z-axis (Figures 4, 11; col. 8, lines 19-58).
Because it is known in the art to have a wafer transfer robot as taught by Suzuki, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, transporting the wafers using a known robot, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the front-end transfer box further includes a railway extending in a first direction, the transfer robot includes a base movable on the railway, an extension and contraction arm attached onto the base in a rotatable manner, a protruding amount of the extension and contraction arm from the base in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction being adjustable, and a holding stage provided on a distal end side of the extension and contraction arm, and configured to hold the wafer, the load port is coupled to the front-end transfer box, and assuming that a storage position of the wafer with wafer carrier being attached to the load port is taken as a first storage position, and a storage position of the wafer in a state of being cleaned by the cleaning unit is taken as a second storage position, a distance from the railway to the first storage position in the second direction is equal to a distance from the railway to the second storage position in the second direction.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, modified Nishimura is relied upon as above, and further results in: wherein the front-end transfer box includes a plurality of load port connection parts (Nishimura: 33, 106), the load port is connected to at least one of the plurality of load port connection parts (Nishimura: 30, 31, 33), the cleaning unit is connected to at least another of the plurality of load port connection parts (Nishimura: 106), and the transfer robot is configured to transfer the wafer from the load port to the wafer holding stage (Nishimura: 32; Suzuki: 15); wherein an extension amount of the stage in the second direction at a time of storing the wafer in the wafer carrier is equal to an extension amount of the holding stage in the second direction at a time of storing the wafer in the cleaning unit (Suzuki: 124, 126, 128; Nishimura: Figure 4, see positions of 31 and 82).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nishimura is relied upon as above and discloses a plurality of the first storage positions are provided in a third direction orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (Nishimura, see FOUP 31), but does not expressly disclose wherein a position of the second storage position in the third direction is equal to a position of any one of the plurality of the first storage positions in the third direction. However, this limitation is considered to be a mere rearrangement of parts of the cleaning unit (Nishimura: 82) and/or its stage and lifting pins (101, 105). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location/height of the cleaning unit and/or its stage/pins to match the height of the FOUP, yielding wherein a position of the second storage position in the third direction is equal to a position of any one of the plurality of the first storage positions in the third direction, and the results would be predictable. Also see MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C) – Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536), and further in view of Shinozaki et al. (US 2015/0082613).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nishimura is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the cleaning unit is provided such that a relative position between the cleaning unit and the front-end transfer box is adjustable.
Shinozaki discloses a substrate processing apparatus having a lifting device to facilitate a height level adjustment of the substrate processing apparatus relative to an installation surface (abstract; 630).
Because it is known in the art to have a lifting device as taught by Shinozaki, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, adjusting the height of a cleaning unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the cleaning unit is provided such that a relative position between the cleaning unit and the front-end transfer box is adjustable.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536), and further in view of Woods (US 2004/0060580).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, modified Nishimura is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the cleaning unit further includes a plurality of functional components, each functional component includes the cleaning liquid supply nozzle, the gas supply nozzle, and a sucking nozzle configured to suck the cleaning liquid and the gas, and the plurality of functional components are disposed to face the upper surface of the wafer at least during the first predetermined period or the second predetermined period.
Woods discloses a wafer cleaning and drying system (100) including various embodiments of proximity heads arranged to face a wafer (108), wherein at least an embodiment includes a proximity head (Figure 7A, 7B: 106) with plural source inlets (302, 306) and plural source outlets (304). Woods discloses that source inlets may supply deionized water or IPA vapor with nitrogen gas, and source outlets have a vacuum applied (paragraphs 75, 95, 103-105).
Because it is known in the art to clean and dry using a proximity head with plural sets of functional components, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known structure for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the cleaning unit further includes a plurality of functional components, each functional component includes the cleaning liquid supply nozzle, the gas supply nozzle, and a sucking nozzle configured to suck the cleaning liquid and the gas, and the plurality of functional components are disposed to face the upper surface of the wafer at least during the first predetermined period or the second predetermined period. Note that supplying the claimed fluids and operating the apparatus as claimed is intended use capable of being met by modified Nishimura. The claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536), in view of Woods (US 2004/0060580), and further in view of Randhawa et al. (US 2019/0378729).
Regarding claims 12, modified Nishimura is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the cleaning unit further includes a facing member having a first surface that faces an upper surface of the wafer at a time of the wafer being stored in the cleaning unit, the cleaning liquid supply nozzle is configured to supply the cleaning liquid to between the first surface of the facing member and the upper surface of the wafer, and the gas supply nozzle is configured to supply the gas to between the first surface of the facing member and the upper surface of the wafer.
Woods discloses a wafer cleaning and drying system (100) including various embodiments of proximity heads arranged to face a wafer (108), wherein at least an embodiment includes a proximity head (Figure 7A, 7B: 106) with plural source inlets (302, 306) and plural source outlets (604). Woods discloses that source inlets may supply deionized water or IPA vapor with nitrogen gas, and source outlets have a vacuum applied (paragraphs 75, 95, 103-105).
Because it is known in the art to clean and dry using a proximity head, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, providing a known structure for a known purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the cleaning unit further includes a facing member having a first surface that faces an upper surface of the wafer at a time of the wafer being stored in the cleaning unit, the cleaning liquid supply nozzle is configured to supply the cleaning liquid to between the first surface of the facing member and the upper surface of the wafer, and the gas supply nozzle is configured to supply the gas to between the first surface of the facing member and the upper surface of the wafer.
Modified Nishimura is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first surface of the facing member is made of a hydrophobic material.
Randhawa discloses an apparatus for cleaning and drying a substrate and indicates that in various embodiments all interior surfaces of a chamber may be hydrophobic to assist in evacuating liquids from the chamber quickly (abstract; paragraph 42).
Because it is known in the art to use hydrophobic surfaces, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, evacuating liquids from the chamber quickly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the first surface of the facing member is made of a hydrophobic material.
Claim(s) 14 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), in view of Kawabuchi et al. (US 2014/0360536), and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 2003/0047194).
Regarding claims 14 and 23, modified Nishimura is relied upon as above, but does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to be capable of measuring a physical property of the cleaning liquid after being supplied, by the cleaning liquid supply nozzle, onto the wafer.
Tsai discloses an apparatus and method for cleaning wafers including a water-supplying device (30) and a measuring device (40) to measure the electrical properties of the water after cleaning to monitor the cleanliness of the wafer and status of the process (abstract; paragraphs 11, 24, 25).
Because it is known in the art to measure the properties of the water, and the results of the modification would be predictable, namely, improving the cleaning process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor configured to be capable of measuring a physical property of the cleaning liquid after being supplied, by the cleaning liquid supply nozzle, onto the wafer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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 matter: the prior art does not disclose, or render obvious, the wafer treatment device as defined by the combination of claims 1, 2, and 7; or the combination of claims 15 and 16. There is no apparent teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the closest prior art, Nishimura (US 2007/0212816; cited by Applicant), to further include the configuration of the front-end transfer box, cleaning unit, processing unit, and transfer robot as claimed.
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 DAVID G CORMIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571) 272-1414. 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.
DAVID G. CORMIER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/DAVID G CORMIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711