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 .
This action is in response to amendment filed 6/16/2026.
Claim 19, stand canceled.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Applicant's remarks in an amendment filed June 16, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant remarks Shimomura fails to disclose “transmitting and receiving, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor” as recited in claim 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim recites apparatus comprising a sensor; “non-contact communication devices that transmit and receive, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor”. Earlier in the claim Osaka discloses semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: non-contact communication devices that transmit and receive, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor (see Figs. 15, 31; col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, lines 3; col. 11, lines 35-48). Osaka however does not expressly disclose transmitting and receiving, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor.
Shimomura relied upon as a secondary art show transmitting and receiving, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor (see para. 0028) as recited per claim 17. Examiner believes Osaka Shimomura combined disclosure reads on the claim limitation expressed above and finds Applicant’s attempt to overcome the rejection not persuasive, maintains rejection.
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.
Claims 17-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Osaka et al (U.S. Pat. 6,368,049) hereinafter Osaka in view of Shimomura et al (US 2024/0017752) hereinafter Shimomura, Shinozaki et al (US 2006/0169208) hereinafter Shinozaki.
Regarding claim 17, Osaka discloses semiconductor manufacturing apparatus comprising: non-contact communication devices that transmit and receive, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor (see Figs. 15, 31; col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, lines 3; col. 11, lines 35-48). Osaka fails to explicitly disclose transmitting and receiving, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor.
Shimomura discloses transmitting and receiving, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor (see [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to transmit and receive, in a non-contact manner, information obtained by the sensor as taught by Osaka in order to performs transmission and reception of various signals between the power supply unit 40E and the traveling vehicle controller 35 in a non-contact manner. Osaka and Shimomura fail to explicitly disclose a wafer conveyance robot; and a chamber.
Shinozaki discloses a sensor (see [0183], [0187]); a wafer conveyance robot; and a chamber (see Abstract, [0007], [0015], [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a wafer conveyance robot, and a chamber in the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus taught by Shinozaki into teachings of Osaka in order to prevent the size of the reduced pressure atmosphere conveyance chamber 70 from increasing.
Regarding claim 18, Shinozaki discloses a box including an electrical device (see Figs. 1 and 2), and a conveyance module including a wafer conveyance robot (see [275]) and a chamber (see Abstract, [0004], [0007], wherein the non-contact communication devices are arranged to transmit and receive data in a non-contact manner between the box and the conveyance module (see Abstract, [0011], [0015]).
Regarding claim 20, Osaka discloses wherein the electrical device is a module controller or a programmable logic controller (see Fig. 2, [0133], [0135]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16, are allowable.
Claim 21, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 4:00pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571 272 3042. 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.
/QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2632.
Prosecution Insights