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 .
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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamatsukuri 12,557,598 and in view of Ebihara 2008/0236997.
In Re Claim 1, Tamatsukuri teaches a load port (8) for loading and unloading substrates (W) between a transport chamber (EFEM 7) and a storage container (30) in a state where the load port is disposed adjacent to the transport chamber, the load port comprising: a plate-like portion (19) constituting a portion of a wall surface of the transport chamber (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) and including an opening (26) in communication with an interior of the transport chamber; a stage (21) configured to mount the storage container on the stage such that a lid (2) configured to open and close the storage container faces a door (28) configured to open and close the opening; and a controller (17) configured to control a driving device (23) configured to move the stage on which the storage container is mounted forward and rearward with respect to the plate-like portion.
Tamatsukuri does not teach wherein the controller is further configured to control, when moving the stage toward the plate-like portion, the driving device to: apply a first thrust, which is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage until immediately before the stage reaches a predetermined position; and apply a second thrust, which is greater than the first thrust and is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage after the stage reaches the predetermined position.
However, Ebihara teaches wherein the controller (20) is further configured to control, when moving the stage (RST) toward the plate-like portion, the driving device to: apply a first thrust (thrust from first drive mechanism, Claim 4), which is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage until immediately before the stage reaches a predetermined position; and apply a second thrust (thrust from Fine motion mechanism, Claim 4), which is greater than the first thrust and is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage after the stage reaches the predetermined position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a second thrust in the load port of Tamatsukuri as taught by Ebihara with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce wear on the first motor.
In Re Claim 8, Tamatsukuri teaches wherein the stage is provided with a lock unit, and wherein the lock unit comprises: a first locker (37) which is engaged with a first recess (45) provided in a bottom surface of the storage container to fix the storage container to the stage at least in an up-down direction; and a second locker (12) which is engaged with a second recess (11) provided in the bottom surface of the storage container to restrict a movement of the storage container with respect to the stage at least in a horizontal direction.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamatsukuri/Ebihara and in view of Vijverberg et al. 2015/0321356.
In Re Claim 6, Tamatsukuri/Ebihara teach the load port of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Tamatsukuri/Ebihara does not teach a shock absorber configured to reduce a speed of the stage before the stage reaches the predetermined position.
However, Vijverberg et al. teach a shock absorber (33) configured to reduce a speed of the stage (3) before the stage reaches the predetermined position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a shock absorber to the load port of Tamatsukuri/Ebihara as taught by Vijverberg et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to protect the load port from damage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamatsukuri 12,557,598 and in view of Ebihara 2008/0236997.
In Re Claim 9, Tamatsukuri teaches a method of moving a stage (21) of a load port (8), wherein the load port is configured to load and unload substrates (W) between a transport chamber (EFEM 7) and a storage container (30) in a state where the load port is disposed adjacent to the transport chamber, wherein an opening (26) is formed in a plate-like portion (19) constituting a portion of a wall surface of the transport chamber, (Fig. 1 and 2) and wherein the stage on which the storage container is mounted is moved toward the plate-like portion such that a lid configured to open and close the storage container faces a door configured to open and close the opening, (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 10a)
Tamatsukuri does not teach the method comprising: applying a first thrust, which is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage until immediately before the stage reaches a predetermined position; and applying a second thrust, which is greater than the first thrust and is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage after the stage reaches the predetermined position.
However, Ebihara teaches a method comprising: applying a first thrust (thrust from first drive mechanism, Claim 4), which is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage (RST) until immediately before the stage reaches a predetermined position; and applying a second thrust (thrust from Fine motion mechanism, Claim 4), which is greater than the first thrust and is directed toward the plate-like portion, to the stage after the stage reaches the predetermined position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a second thrust in the method of Tamatsukuri as taught by Ebihara with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce wear on the first motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 7 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Iwamoto, Igarashi et al., Weaver and Nakashima et al. teach a load port comprising a stage movable toward an opening using a thrust.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 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 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652