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 . 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.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Regarding claim 24, lines 2-3, the phrase “the two second tracks” lacks antecedent basis in parent claim 13 and intervening claim 14.
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) 13, 14, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoori (US 2019/0006217 A1) (“Motoori ‘217”) in view of Rice et al. (US 2004/0193300 A1).
Referring to Claim 13: Motoori ‘217 teaches a conveyance system comprising:
a plurality of ceiling conveyance vehicles (20) configured to convey conveyed objects and transfer the conveyed objects (Para. [0004]);
a first track (10A) on which a first ceiling conveyance vehicle (20A) among the ceiling conveyance vehicles travels (Para. [0039]) (Fig. 1);
a second track (10B) on which a second ceiling conveyance vehicle (20B) among the ceiling conveyance vehicles travels, the second track being disposed in parallel in an up-down direction or side by side in a right-left direction with the first track (Fig. 1); and
a control device (50) configured to control operations of the ceiling conveyance vehicles (Para. [0059]), wherein
each of the first ceiling conveyance vehicle (20A) and the second ceiling conveyance vehicle (20B) is able to transfer conveyed objects (90) to a same transfer destination (Para. [0055]),
the control device (50) includes a first control unit (52A) configured to control operation of the first ceiling conveyance vehicle and a second control unit (52B) configured to control operation of the second ceiling conveyance vehicle (Para. [0059]), and
Motoori ‘217 does not specifically teach that when one of the first control unit and the second control unit is inoperable, another of the first control unit and the second control unit is operable. However, Rice teaches systems and methods for transferring small lot size substrate carriers between processing tools, wherein when one of the first control unit and the second control unit is inoperable (“e.g., when an automated transport system fails”), another of the first control unit and the second control unit (“additional control system computers”) is operable (Para. [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Motoori ‘217 to configure redundant control systems to act in a backup manner if the adjacent automated transport system fails, as taught by Rice, in order to “provide sufficient substrate buffering to allow continued factory output until the non-operational tool becomes operational” (Para. [0032]), with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 14: Motoori ‘217 teaches the conveyance system as claimed in claim 13, comprising a storage section (40) temporarily storing the conveyed objects, wherein each of the first ceiling conveyance vehicle (20A) and the second ceiling conveyance vehicle (20B) is able to transfer the conveyed objects to the storage section (Para. [0051]) (Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to Claim 17: Motoori ‘217 further teaches the conveyance system according to claim 13, wherein the first control unit (52A) includes a first communication device (12A, 24A) configured to send a conveyance command to the first ceiling conveyance vehicle (20A), the second control unit (52B) includes a second communication device (12B, 24B) configured to send a conveyance command to the second ceiling conveyance vehicle (Para. [0058-0059]) (Fig. 3), and when one of the first communication device and the second communication device is inoperable, the other of the first communication device and the second communication device is operable (Para. [0071-0072]) (Figs. 16 and 17).
Referring to Claim 18: Motoori ‘217 further teaches the conveyance system according to claim 17, wherein each of the first communication device (12A, 24A) and the second communication device (12B, 24B) has a plurality of communication units, and when one communication unit of the communication units is inoperable, another communication unit is operable (Para. [0071-0072]) (Figs. 16 and 17).
Referring to Claim 19: Motoori ‘217 further teaches the conveyance system according to claim 18, wherein each of the first control unit (52A) and the second control unit (52B) has a plurality of controllers (Para. [0059]), and each of the controllers is able to control each of the communication units (Para. [0058]).
Referring to Claim 20: Motoori ‘217 further teaches the conveyance system according to claim 13, comprising a plurality of intrabay routes (14A, 14B) along a plurality of the transfer destinations and an interbay route (13A, 13B) connecting the intrabay routes (Fig. 1), wherein the first track (10A) is disposed in the intrabay routes (14A) and the interbay route (13A) (Fig. 1), and the second track (10B) is disposed in part of the intrabay routes (14B) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0042]).
Examiner notes that the second track being disposed in part of the intrabay routes may be satisfied by (13B) extending along what appears to be the entire intrabay route because the entire route inherently includes “part”, i.e., the claim language does not exclude being disposed along the entire intrabay route.
Referring to Claim 21: Motoori ‘217 further teaches the conveyance system according to claim 20, wherein each of the first track (10A) and the second track (10B) is disposed throughout the interbay route (13A, 13B) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0042]).
Referring to Claim 22: Motoori ‘217 further teaches the conveyance system according to claim 13, wherein the first track (11A) and the second track (11B) are disposed in parallel with each other in the up-down direction (Para. [0043]) (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoori ‘217 in view of Rice and Li et al. (US 2020/0006106 A1).
Referring to Claim 15: Motoori ‘217 does not specifically teach a first power feeding device configured to supply power to the first ceiling conveyance vehicle and a second power feeding device configured to supply power to the second ceiling conveyance vehicle, wherein when one of the first power feeding device and the second power feeding device is inoperable, the other of the first power feeding device and the second power feeding device is operable. However, Li teaches a transport system of a semiconductor fabrication facility, associated movable container and method, comprising power feeding devices configured to supply power to the ceiling conveyance vehicles (Fig. 2A) (Para. [0023]), wherein when the power source is inadequate a back-up power mechanism is activated (608) (Fig. 6) (Para. [0054-0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Motoori ‘217 to provide power feeding devices for the first and second tracks, as taught by Li, and to operate the power feed devices in a back-up manner to provide a constant power source used to drive vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 16: Motoori ‘217 does not specifically teach that each of the first power feeding device and the second power feeding device has a plurality of power feeder panels, and when one power feeder panel among the power feeder panels is inoperable, another power feeder panels is operable. However, Li teaches a transport system of a semiconductor fabrication facility, associated movable container and method, comprising power feeder panels (140) configured to supply power to the ceiling conveyance vehicles (Fig. 1) (Para. [0022]), wherein when the power source is inadequate a back-up power mechanism is activated (608) (Fig. 6) (Para. [0054-0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Motoori ‘217 to provide power feeding panels for the first and second tracks, as taught by Li, and to operate the power feed panels in a back-up manner to provide a constant power source used to drive vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 16: Motoori ‘217 does not specifically However, Ogawa teaches an article transport facility, wherein power feeding devices (24) supply power to the ceiling conveyance vehicles (2) traveling on the first and second tracks (3, 4) (Fig. 3) (Para. [0171]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Motoori ‘217 to provide first and second power feeding devices for the first and second tracks, as taught by Ogawa, and to operate the power feed devices in a redundant manner to provide a constant power source used to drive vehicles with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoori ‘217 in view of Rice and Motoori (US 2018/0229936 A1) (“Motoori ‘936”)
Referring to Claim 23: Motoori ‘217 does not teach that the first track (11A) and the second track (11B) are disposed side by side in the right-left direction. Rather, Motoori ‘217 teaches that the tracks are parallel in the up-down direction (Para. [0043]) (Fig. 2). However, Motoori ‘936 teaches a conveyor car system, wherein several modified track orientations are taught, including an orientation where the first track (220) and the second track (230) are disposed side by side in the right-left direction (Fig. 8) (Para. [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Motoori ‘217 to use side by side orientation, as taught by Motoori ‘936, in order to optimize the orientation of the tracks and thereby improve efficiency. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Referring to Claim 23: Motoori ‘217 does not teach that the two second tracks are disposed above the first track, the two second tracks are disposed side by side in the right-left direction, one of the two second tracks is disposed such that the transfer destination is positioned therebelow, and the other of the two second tracks is disposed such that the storage section is positioned therebelow. Rather, Motoori ‘217 teaches that the tracks are parallel in the up-down direction (Para. [0043]) (Fig. 2). However, Motoori ‘936 teaches a conveyor car system, wherein several modified track orientations are taught, including an orientation where the two second tracks (120) are disposed above the first track (130), the two second tracks (120) are disposed side by side in the right-left direction (Fig. 7), one of the two second tracks is disposed such that the transfer destination is positioned therebelow (13), and the other of the two second tracks is disposed such that the storage section (15) is positioned therebelow (Para. [0072]) (Fig. 7) (also see Figs. 3-5 depicting various track orientations). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Motoori ‘217 to use a side by side orientation of second tracks located above the first track, with storage and/or transfer sections disposed below the second tracks, as taught by Motoori ‘936, in order to optimize the orientation of the tracks and thereby improve efficiency. Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617