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 .
The amendment filed 18 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior 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: container transport unit, semiconductor fabrication plant (Claims 1, 4, and 6-19), semiconductor fabrication equipment (Claims 1, 4, and 6-19), container relay unit (Claims 18-19), storage module (Claims 1, 4, and 6-19), and control unit (Claims 16-17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In Claim 1, the phrase, “wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling without the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is not movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling” is new matter. In multiple instances in the orig. spec., the rails 330a/330b are disclosed to be installed and/or fixed to ceiling 320 (orig. para. 37, 47-49, 53-55). Relay unit 120 is disclosed in orig. spec. para. 33-35. Further the drawings with both relay unit 120 and the line for the ceiling are shown in multiple figures (FIG. 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18). In neither the orig. spec. nor in the drawings is it disclosed that “wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling without the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is not movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling.” Instead, it appears that the wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling with the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is [ ] movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling. There is no evidence to show that the claimed limitation above is disclosed in the orig. spec.
In Claim 18, the phrase, “wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling without the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is not movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling” is new matter. In multiple instances in the orig. spec., the rails 330a/330b are disclosed to be installed and/or fixed to ceiling 320 (orig. para. 37, 47-49, 53-55). Relay unit 120 is disclosed in orig. spec. para. 33-35. Further the drawings with both relay unit 120 and the line for the ceiling are shown in multiple figures (FIG. 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18). In neither the orig. spec. nor in the drawings is it disclosed that “wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling without the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is not movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling.” Instead, it appears that the wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling with the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is [ ] movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling. There is no evidence to show that the claimed limitation above is disclosed in the orig. spec.
In Claim 19, the phrase, “wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling without the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is not movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling” is new matter. In multiple instances in the orig. spec., the rails 330a/330b are disclosed to be installed and/or fixed to ceiling 320 (orig. para. 37, 47-49, 53-55). Relay unit 120 is disclosed in orig. spec. para. 33-35. Further the drawings with both relay unit 120 and the line for the ceiling are shown in multiple figures (FIG. 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18). In neither the orig. spec. nor in the drawings is it disclosed that “wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling without the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is not movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling.” Instead, it appears that the wherein the container relay unit is configured to be mounted onto a portion the ceiling with the rails in a fixed manner such that the container relay unit is [ ] movable in a horizontal direction along a surface of the ceiling. There is no evidence to show that the claimed limitation above is disclosed in the orig. spec.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-12, filed 18 May 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of the previous Office action have been withdrawn.
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 Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights