DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 22, 2023, February 17, 2025, September 4, 2025, and September 10, 2025 were considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/703,734 (hereinafter “reference application”).
The application discloses a position determination apparatus for a wafer processing device with an external server, a wafer processing device transmitting integrated management data to the external server, the processing device comprising FOUPs, loadports, processing chambers, equipment front-end module (EFEM) and a controller for transmitting, if the FOUPs are seated onto the loadports, the transfer path data of the end-effector to the external server when the end-effector moves forward or backward toward and from the FOUPs.
The reference application recites an external server, a substrate processing device transmitting integrated management data to the external server, the processing device including FOUPs, load ports detachably coupled to the FOUPs, a processing chamber, EFEM, and a control part configured to transmit movement path data of the end effector to the external server when FOUPs are seated on the load ports.
18/200,201
18/703,734 (reference application)
1. A position determination apparatus for a robot detection laser sensor system in front-opening unified pods (FOUPs), comprising:
1. An Integrated data management system for a substrate processing device, comprising:
an external server (20); and
an external server;
a wafer processing device (10) for performing processing for wafers and transmitting integration management data to the external server (20),
a substrate processing device where substrate processing is conducted and which transmits integrated management data to the external server,
wherein the wafer processing device (10) comprises:
wherein the substrate processing device includes:
the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) configured to accommodate the wafers therein;
FOUPs accommodating multiple substrates;
loadports (100, 100a, and 100b) to which the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) are detachably coupled;
load ports to which the FOUPs are detachably coupled;
processing chambers (400) in which the processing for the wafers are performed;
a processing chamber where the processing of substrates is conducted;
an equipment front end module (EFEM) (200) disposed between the processing chambers (400) and the loadports (100, 100a, and 100b) and having an end-effector (213) adapted to get the wafers out of the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) into the processing chambers (400) or put the wafers finished in processing in the processing chambers (400) into the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b); and
an Equipment Front-End Module (EFEM) provided between the processing chamber and the load ports, equipped with an end effector that gets substrates from the FOUPs to the processing chamber or puts processed substrates from the processing chamber back into the FOUPs; and
a controller (600) for transmitting, if the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) are seated onto the loadports (100, 100a, and 100b), the transfer path data of the end-effector (213) to the external server (20) when the end-effector (213) moves forward or backward toward and from the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b).
a control part that, when the FOUPs are seated on the load ports, transmits the movement path data of the end effector as it enters or exits the FOUPs to the external server.
The difference between the application and the reference application is limited to;
“wafer” verses “substrate”
“controller” verses “control part”
“transfer path data” verses “movement path data”
“forward or backward” verses “enters or exits”
These differences represent semantic variations that do not result in a distinct structure, function, or technical effect. Both claims require, the same system architecture, the same physical components, the same operational conditions, and the same functional result of transmitting end-effector path to an external server.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they merely recite an obvious variation of the same invention. The claims differ only in terminology and nominal phrasing, without reciting any nonobvious structure or functional distinction that would render the claims patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shivanna et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11413767) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 20210252717).
Regarding claim 1, Shivanna discloses a position determination apparatus for a robot detection laser sensor system in front-opening unified pods (FOUPs) (col. 1, lines 8-10, Fig. 2, sensing device 230 on destination chamber which is could be either one of FOUP, load lock, load port), comprising:
a wafer processing device (10) for performing processing for wafers and transmitting integration management data to the external server (20) (col. 4, lines 12-28; Fig. 1, wafer processing device 100),
wherein the wafer processing device (10) comprises: the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) configured to accommodate the wafers therein (col. 4, lines 40-60; Fig. 1; FOUPs 119 docked at load ports);
loadports (100, 100a, and 100b) to which the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) are detachably coupled (col. 4, lines 40-60; Fig. 1; FOUPs 119 docked at load ports);
processing chambers (400) in which the processing for the wafers are performed (col. 4, lines 12-28; Fig. 1, processing chambers 103);
an equipment front end module (EFEM) (200) disposed between the processing chambers (400) and the loadports (100, 100a, and 100b) and having an end-effector (213) adapted to get the wafers out of the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) into the processing chambers (400) or put the wafers finished in processing in the processing chambers (400) into the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) (col. 4, lines 40-60; Fig. 1; EFEM 117 between processing chambers and loadports, end effector 121); and
a controller (Fig. 1, controller 109).
Shivanna does not disclose an external server or a controller for transmitting, if the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) are seated onto the loadports (100, 100a, and 100b), the transfer path data of the end-effector (213) to the external server (20) when the end-effector (213) moves forward or backward toward and from the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b).
Lee discloses an external server (paras. [0066]-[0067]; Fig. 5, controller 200, external server 300) and a controller for transmitting, if the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) are seated onto the loadports (100, 100a, and 100b), the transfer path data of the end-effector (213) to the external server (20) when the end-effector (213) moves forward or backward toward and from the FOUPs (500, 500a, and 500b) (paras. [0066]-[0067]; Fig. 5, controller 200, remote server 300).
Shivanna and Lee are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated wafer handling. 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 controller of Shivanna to incorporate the teachings in Lee of including an external server with the controller transmitting the transfer path data of the end-effector to the external server when the end-effector moves forward or backward toward and from the FOUPs as it would have allowed for automatically sending a repair request signal to a remote person and reduce downtime of equipment thus improving efficiency (para. [0067]-[0069]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is (571)272-0039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, 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.
/TEMESGEN M. MARU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655