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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0051], the term “I” is seen multiple times within the paragraph. It is recommended that the term is removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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: “a supply receiving section” in claims 1 and 3, “a first supply device” in claim 1 which will be considered as a supply pipe (Paragraph [0028]), “a holding section” in claims 1-2 will be considered as a holding body with claws (Paragraph [0038]), “a supply section” in claim 1 and 3, “a second supply device” in claims 1 and 2 will be considered as a gas pipe (Paragraph [0039]), “a transfer device” in claim 6 will be considered as an elevation section (Paragraph [0070]), and “a remaining amount measuring instrument” in claim 7 will be considered as a flow rate control section (Paragraph [0051]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a supply receiving section" in line 8. The limitation is unclear as to what structure is included in the “supply receiving section”. The Specification and drawings submitted 31 October 2023 does not appear to provide further explanation or details on what structure is included for the “supply receiving section”. The Office recommends amending the claim to recite the structure with support from the specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as a port.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a supply section" in line 17. The limitation is unclear as to what structure is included in the “supply section”. The Specification and drawings submitted 31 October 2023 does not appear to provide further explanation or details on what structure is included for the “supply section”. The Office recommends amending the claim to recite the structure with support from the specification. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be considered as a port.
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 Takada (US 20160133492 A1) in view of Motoori (US 20220375774 A1) in further view of Hayashi (JPS 61196856 A).
Regarding Claim 1:
Takada discloses a gas supply system (4, Figure 4, the gas supplying device is the gas supply system) configured to supply an inactive gas (Paragraph [0030]) into a container (W, Figure 1), the gas supply system comprising:
a transport vehicle (3, Figure 1, the overhead transport vehicle is the transport vehicle) configured to travel along a predetermined travel path (Paragraphs [0030] and [0032], the travel path is the predetermined travel path) and transport the container (W, Figure 1); and
a gas supply (4, Figure 4) configured to supply the inactive gas (Paragraph [0030]),
wherein the gas supply vehicle (4, Figure 4) comprises:
a supply section (27, Figure 4, the eject nozzle is the supply section) configured to be connected to and disconnected from the supply receiving section (12, Figure 4, the intake opening is the supply receiving section); and
a second supply device (25, Figure 4) configured to supply the inactive gas (Paragraph [0049], the second supply device is the nitrogen gas passage connected to a source of nitrogen gas).
Takada does not disclose:
a gas supply vehicle configured to supply the inactive gas to the transport vehicle,
wherein the transport vehicle comprises:
a supply receiving section configured to receive the inactive gas supplied from the gas supply vehicle; and
a first supply device configured to supply, to the container, the inactive gas supplied to the supply receiving section,
the gas supply vehicle is further configured to travel along the travel path, and wherein the gas supply vehicle comprises:
a holding section configured to detachably hold a gas tank filled with the inactive gas; and
a second supply device configured to supply the inactive gas from the gas tank held by the holding section to the supply section.
Motoori teaches a transport vehicle system, comprising:
wherein the transport vehicle (3, Figure 1) comprises:
a supply receiving section (Figure 1 and Paragraph [0031], the gas supply tube part connected to the outlet (34a) of the tank (34) receives the inactive gas) configured to receive the inactive gas supplied from the gas supply vehicle (Paragraph [0030], the transport vehicle is also the gas supply vehicle); and
a first supply device (35, Figure 1, the gas supply tube is the first supply device) configured to supply, to the container (10, Figure 1, the FOUP is the container), the inactive gas supplied to the supply receiving section (Paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takada to include the transport vehicle, a supply receiving section configured to receive the inactive gas supplied from the gas supply vehicle, and a first supply device configured to supply, to the container, the inactive gas supplied to the supply receiving section as taught by Motoori with the motivation to keep supplying the inactive gas as the container is being transported to maintain the conditions within the container to prevent damage to the semiconductors.
Takada and Motoori do not teach:
a gas supply vehicle configured to supply the inactive gas to the transport vehicle,
the gas supply vehicle is further configured to travel along the travel path, and wherein the gas supply vehicle comprises:
a holding section configured to detachably hold a gas tank filled with the inactive gas; and
a second supply device configured to supply the inactive gas from the gas tank held by the holding section to the supply section.
Hayashi teaches a cart, comprising:
a gas supply vehicle (B, Figure 1, the transport vehicle is the gas supply vehicle) configured to supply the inactive gas to the container,
the gas supply vehicle (B, Figure 1) is further configured to travel along the travel path (T, Figure 1, the light-reflecting tape is the travel path), and wherein the gas supply vehicle comprises:
a holding section (See Annotated Figure 1 below) configured to detachably hold a gas tank (10, Figure 1) filled with the inactive gas (Page 4, Last Paragraph, First Sentence, the gas tank contains nitrogen gas); and
a second supply device (See Annotated Figure 1 below) configured to supply the inactive gas from the gas tank (10, Figure 1) held by the holding section to the supply section (12, Figure 1, the electromagnetic on-off valve is the supply section).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Takada and Motoori to include a gas supply vehicle configured to supply the inactive gas to the container, the gas supply vehicle is further configured to travel along the travel path, a holding section configured to detachably hold a gas tank filled with the inactive gas, and a second supply device configured to supply the inactive gas from the gas tank held by the holding section to the supply section as taught by Hayashi with the motivation to control the flow of gas into the container based on the pressure to prevent pressure variations that could damage the objects.
Through the combination of Takada, Motoori, and Hayashi, the gas supply system of Hayashi would be similar to the gas supply vehicle of Motoori where it is connected to a rail on the ceiling where it would provide gas to the transport vehicle of Takada.
Hayashi, Figure 1
(Annotated by Examiner)
PNG
media_image1.png
718
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest pieces of prior art are Takada (US 20160133492 A1) in view of Motoori (US 20220375774 A1) in further view of Hayashi (JPS 61196856 A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 where Takada, Motoori, and Hayashi teach the gas supply system.
Hayashi teaches the second supply device (See Annotated Figure 1 above) is connected to the gas tank (10, Figure 1) held by the holding section, (See Annotate Figure 1 above and Page 4, First Paragraph, last sentence, the gas tank is detachably provided).
An additional reference is needed to further teach the limitations “in response to a change from a non-holding state, in which the holding section is not holding the gas tank, to a holding state, in which the holding section is holding the gas tank” seen in the last 3 lines of claim 2. The reference would cause hindsight as it would further modify both Motoori and Hayashi. The limitations in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 2 are found to be allowable in view of the prior art.
Regarding Claim 6:
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 where Takada, Motoori, and Hayashi teach the gas supply system.
An additional reference is needed to further teach the limitations “a gas tank storage configured to store the gas tank, and wherein the gas supply vehicle further comprises a transfer device configured to transfer the gas tank between a body of the gas supply vehicle and the gas tank storage” seen in lines 1-6 of claim 6. The reference would cause hindsight as it would further modify Hayashi. The limitations in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 6 are found to be allowable in view of the prior art.
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent on claim 6.
The closest pieces of prior art are Takada (US 20160133492 A1) in view of Motoori (US 20220375774 A1) in further view of Hayashi (JPS 61196856 A) and Lee (KR 101691607 B1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 where Takada, Motoori, and Hayashi teach the gas supply system.
Takada discloses a supply section (27, Figure 4).
Motoori teaches a supply receiving section (Figure 1 and Paragraph [0031], the gas supply tube part connected to the outlet (34a) of the tank (34) receives the inactive gas).
Lee teaches a wafter container transferring apparatus comprising the supply receiving section (410, Figure 1) protrudes from a body of the transport vehicle (100, Figure 1) toward a second side (Figure 1, the port is on the second side).
An additional reference is needed to further teach the limitations “the supply section protrudes from a body of the gas supply vehicle toward a first side in a traveling direction extending along the travel path, the supply receiving section protrudes from a body of the transport vehicle toward a second side in the traveling direction, at least either the supply section or the supply receiving section is provided with an electromagnet, and connection and disconnection of the supply section and the supply receiving section are controlled based on whether or not the electromagnet is energized” seen in lines 1-10 of claim 3. The reference would cause hindsight as it would further modify Takada, Motoori and Lee . The limitations in view of all other limitations of claims 1 and 3 are found to be allowable in view of the prior art.
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent on claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshida (US 8231324 B2) teaches an article storage facility comprising a container, a transport vehicle and a predetermined travel path.
Oguro (US 8245647 B2) teaches a switching facility comprising a container, a transport vehicle and a predetermined travel path.
Jang (US 9412631 B2) teaches a ceiling storage device comprising a supply receiving section, a supply section and containers.
Sugita (US 5332013 A) teaches an unmanned conveying device comprising a container and a transport vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753