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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: for Claim 15, “first-type guide part” was identified as the - - second-type guide part - - in the orig. spec. (orig. para. [0059]-[0061]) For instance, “[0059] The first guide cylinder 161 may transmit power to the second-type guide part 152. For example, the first guide cylinder 161 may transmit power to the second-type guide part 152 through a piston positioned inside the first guide cylinder 161.” However, in Claim 15, “a first-type guide part connected to the first guide cylinder and movable in the first direction.”
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 15 (line number on left), the extra space before the comma should be 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: vertical extension part, support part, first-type guide part (Claims 1-20), horizontal extension part (Claims 2-6,9-20), second-type guide part (Claims 3-6,12,18), third-type guide part (Claims 5-6,13,19), adsorption part (Claims 7-8,20), and suction part (Claim 14). The limitation part is construed to be a generic placeholder.
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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushita (US 2021/0291236).
Claim 9: a vertical extension part extending in a first direction and including a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (2);
a support part on the first surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the first direction (4);
a horizontal extension part on the support part and extending in the second direction, and including a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to each other in a third direction crossing the first direction and the second direction (3);
a first guide cylinder on the third surface of the horizontal extension part and configured to transmit power (32b; on 3rd surface via at least 35); and
a first-type guide part connected to the first guide cylinder and movable in the first direction (32a),
wherein the first-type guide part includes a vertical surface parallel to the third surface (right/left of 32a in FIG. 2/PA circle detailed view) and an inclined surface forming an acute angle with an upper surface of the horizontal extension part (left side of 32a in FIG. 2/PA circle detailed view);
Claim 10: a horizontal plate on the upper surface of the horizontal extension part and extending in the second direction (35);
Claim 11: wherein the first-type guide part is movable to extend through the horizontal plate (35; FIG. 2/PA circle detailed view);
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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al. (US 2021/0351052) (“Chu”) in view of Yang et al. (US 6135168) (“Yang”). Chu discloses:
Claim 1: a vertical extension part extending in a first direction and including a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a second direction crossing the first direction (FIG. 2, part at 40);
a support part on the first surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the first direction (FIG. 1, part at 10);
a horizontal plate on the support part and extending in the second direction (FIG. 28, 11 with plate above 11), and including a corner at which a first edge extending in the second direction (at one 50 in FIG. 28)
a first-type guide part (at least one 50) extending from an upper surface of the horizontal plate at the corner (at plate above 11);
Claim 2: a horizontal extension part between a lower surface of the horizontal plate and an upper surface of the support part, extending in the second direction, and including a third surface and a fourth surface opposite to each other in the third direction (plate below 11);
Claim 3: a first guide cylinder (FIG. 12, 28) on the third surface of the horizontal extension part (via 27/etc.) and configured to transmit power; and
a second-type guide part (26) connected to the first guide cylinder and movable in the first direction (para. [0046]);
Claim 4: wherein the second-type guide part is movable to extend through the horizontal plate (FIG. 12);
Claim 7: a bracket on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the third direction (FIG. 5, 73/74/etc.);
an adsorption part (FIG. 3, 71; para. [0052]) connected to the bracket and configured to adsorb a wafer transfer device; and
a pin extending from the adsorption part in the first direction and configured to fix the wafer transfer device (shown at 71),
wherein the adsorption part and the pin are movable in the second direction to extend through the vertical extension part in the second direction (FIG. 3/5/6A);
Claim 8: a vertical cylinder on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the first direction (43/etc.),
wherein as a piston included in the vertical cylinder (cylinder has a piston thereto) moves in the first direction, movement of the bracket in the second direction is adjusted (FIG. 3/5/6A).
Chu does not directly show:
Claim 1: the circumference of the horizontal plate as claimed.
Yang shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: the circumference of the horizontal plate as claimed (FIG. 1/2; 204/800 have a circumference of the horizontal plate at 204/800; it is noted that Chu contemplates many different embodiments of semiconductor transfer container);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of better ensuring that the semiconductor transfer container is more efficiently moved since the guide part on the horizontal plate matches the profile of the semiconductor transfer container with a curved corner profile (col. 2, lines 52-54; Yang contemplates semiconductor transfer containers of any type). Therefore, 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 Chu as taught by Yang and include Yang’s similar device having:
Claim 1: the circumference of the horizontal plate as claimed;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of better ensuring that the semiconductor transfer container is more efficiently moved since the guide part on the horizontal plate matches the profile of the semiconductor transfer container with a curved corner profile.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita in view of Chu. Matsushita discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Matsushita does not directly show:
Claim 14: a bracket on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the third direction;
a suction part connected to the bracket and configured to suction a wafer transfer device;
a pin extending from the suction part in the first direction and configured to fix the wafer transfer device; and
a vertical cylinder on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the first direction,
wherein the suction part and the pin are movable in the second direction to extend through the vertical extension part in the second direction, and
as a piston included in the vertical cylinder moves in the first direction, movement of the bracket in the second direction is adjusted.
Chu shows a similar device having:
Claim 14: a bracket on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the third direction (FIG. 5, 73/74/etc.);
a suction part connected to the bracket and configured to suction a wafer transfer device (FIG. 3, 71; para. [0052]);
a pin extending from the suction part in the first direction and configured to fix the wafer transfer device (shown at 71); and
a vertical cylinder on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the first direction,
wherein the suction part and the pin are movable in the second direction to extend through the vertical extension part in the second direction (FIG. 3/5), and
as a piston included in the vertical cylinder moves in the first direction (cylinder has a piston thereto), movement of the bracket in the second direction is adjusted (FIG. 3/5/6A);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a load port adapted for wafer cassettes of different sizes (para. [0004]). Therefore, 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 Matsushita as taught by Chu and include Chu’s similar device having:
Claim 14: a bracket on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the third direction;
a suction part connected to the bracket and configured to suction a wafer transfer device;
a pin extending from the suction part in the first direction and configured to fix the wafer transfer device; and
a vertical cylinder on the second surface of the vertical extension part and extending in the first direction ,
wherein the suction part and the pin are movable in the second direction to extend through the vertical extension part in the second direction, and
as a piston included in the vertical cylinder moves in the first direction, movement of the bracket in the second direction is adjusted;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a load port adapted for wafer cassettes of different sizes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed except for the specification objection above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 15 overcomes the prior art since it requires that the first-type guide part includes a vertical surface parallel to the third surface and a concave surface between the vertical surface and the third surface in combination with the other claim limitations. Claims 16-20 depend on Claim 15.
The prior art of record does not disclose this combination of limitations. For example, Matsushita discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above, however, Matsushita does not disclose that the first-type guide part includes a vertical surface parallel to the third surface and a concave surface between the vertical surface and the third surface in combination with the other claim limitations. Similarly, other prior references do not disclose all the limitations of the independent claim. Therefore, the claims are allowed except for the specification objection above.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose a third-type guide part connected to the second guide cylinder and movable in the first direction in combination with the other claim limitations. Claim 6 depends on Claim 5.
The prior art does not disclose the horizontal plate includes the corner at which a first edge extending in the second direction along a circumference of the horizontal plate and a second edge extending in the third direction along the circumference of the horizontal plate intersect in combination with the other claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0082867 discloses guides 156/158 in FIG. 4.
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