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.
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 6 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.
Claim 6 recites, “the first sensor is disposed relatively adjacent to the traveling device, and the at least one second sensor is disposed relatively far from the traveling device.” It is unclear to Examiner what Applicant would consider “relatively adjacent” or “relatively far” as these points of reference are not being considered in relation to each other, but rather to the traveling device and have no further relativity established.
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 1, 3-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20220258990 A1) in view of Kobayashi (JP 2021046287 A).
Regarding claim 1: Choi teaches a substrate transfer apparatus (Fig.1) comprising: a traveling rail comprising a straight section and a curved section (210; Fig.1 and typical clean room layout see Para.[0004], lines 12-17); a raceway structure disposed on the traveling rail and configured to fix the traveling rail (500; Fig.1) a traveling device (130; Fig.2) comprising a traveling wheel (120_2 and 120_1; Fig.2) configured to travel on the traveling rail so as to transfer a substrate (Fig.1); a first sensor connected to the raceway structure and configured to recognize the traveling device (320; Fig.4); at least one second sensor connected to the raceway structure and configured to recognize the traveling device (310; Fig.4); and a third sensor connected to the traveling rail and configured to recognize the traveling device (700; Fig.1). Choi does not teach wherein the at least one second sensor and the third sensor are configured to move in a traveling direction of the traveling device.
However, Kobayashi teaches the movement of sensors along a rail in a traveling direction of a traveling device (135; Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Choi with the moving sensors as in Kobayashi to provide additional sensing locations per sensors adaptable to system movements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first sensor is configured to recognize a time when the traveling device enters the traveling rail (Para.[0031], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 4: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one second sensor is configured to measure a diameter of the traveling wheel (Para.[0029]).
Regarding claim 5: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the third sensor (700; Fig.1) is configured to identify identification information about the traveling device (Para.[0041], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 6: As best understood by the Examiner, Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in the traveling direction, the first sensor is disposed relatively adjacent to the traveling device, and the at least one second sensor is disposed relatively far from the traveling device (the sensors are both disposed at different locations relative to the traveling device during different times of system operation; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 7: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one second sensor includes two second sensors (two 310; Fig.3), and the two second sensors are disposed to face each other with respect to a direction perpendicular to the traveling direction in the raceway structure (located on opposite sides of traveling rail; Fig.3).
Regarding claim 8: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one second sensor is a displacement sensor (Para.[0025], lines 7-8), and the third sensor is a camera (Para.[0041], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 9: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, with the at least one second sensor (310; Fig.4) and the third sensor (700; Fig.1). Choi does not teach wherein the sensors are configured to move at a same time.
However, Kobayashi teaches the movement of sensors along a rail in a traveling direction of a traveling device (135; Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Choi with the moving sensors as in Kobayashi to provide additional sensing locations per sensors adaptable to system movements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the third sensor is disposed in the straight section of the traveling rail (700; Fig.1), and the first sensor and the at least one second sensor are disposed in the raceway structure corresponding to the straight section of the traveling rail (310,320; Fig.4).
Regarding claim 11: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a control device configured to control operations of the first sensor, the at least one second sensor, and the third sensor (400; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 12: Choi teaches a substrate transfer apparatus (Fig.1) comprising: a traveling rail comprising a straight section and a curved section (210; Fig.1 and typical clean room layout see Para.[0004], lines 12-17); a raceway structure disposed on the traveling rail and configured to fix the traveling rail (500; Fig.1); a traveling device (130; Fig.2) comprising a traveling wheel (120_2 and 120_1; Fig.2) configured to travel on the traveling rail so as to transfer a substrate (Fig.1); a first sensor connected to the raceway structure and configured to recognize the traveling device (320; Fig.4); at least one second front sensor connected to the raceway structure and configured to recognize the traveling device (320; Fig.4); and a third sensor connected to the traveling rail and configured to recognize the traveling device (700; Fig.1). Choi does not teach the use of at least one second rear sensor connected to the raceway structure to be spaced apart from the at least one second front sensor in a traveling direction of the traveling device and configured to recognize the traveling device; and wherein the at least one second front sensor, the at least one second rear sensor, and the third sensor are configured to move in the traveling direction.
However, Kobayashi teaches the movement of sensors along a rail in a traveling direction of a traveling device (135; Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Choi with the moving sensors as in Kobayashi to provide additional sensing locations per sensors adaptable to system movements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Choi in view of Kobayashi teaches the claimed invention except for the use of at least one second rear sensor connected to the raceway structure to be spaced apart from the at least one second front sensor in a traveling direction of the traveling device and configured to recognize the traveling device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional second sensor to recognize the traveling device, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 15: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 12, wherein the at least one second front sensor (310; Fig.4) is configured to measure a diameter of the traveling wheel (Para.[0029]). Choi does not teach the use of at least one second rear sensor.
Choi in view of Kobayashi teaches the claimed invention except for the use of an additional second sensor as “at least one second rear sensor”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional second sensor, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 16: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 12, wherein the third sensor is configured to identify identification information about the traveling device (700; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 17: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 12, with the at least one second front sensor (310; Fig.4) and the third sensor (700; Fig.1). Choi does not teach wherein the sensors are configured to move at a same time or the use of at least one second rear sensor.
However, Kobayashi teaches the movement of sensors along a rail in a traveling direction of a traveling device (135; Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Choi with the moving sensors as in Kobayashi to provide additional sensing locations per sensors adaptable to system movements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Choi in view of Kobayashi teaches the claimed invention except for the use of an additional second sensor as “at least one second rear sensor”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional second sensor, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 18: Choi further teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 12, wherein the third sensor is disposed in the straight section of the traveling rail (700; Fig.1), and the first sensor, the at least one second front sensor, are disposed in the raceway structure corresponding to the straight section of the traveling rail (310,320; Fig.4). Choi does not teach the use of at least one second rear sensor.
Choi in view of Kobayashi teaches the claimed invention except for the use of an additional second sensor as “at least one second rear sensor”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional second sensor, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 19: Choi teaches a substrate transfer method comprising: recognizing, through a first sensor (320; Fig.4), a time when a traveling device in which a substrate is accommodated enters a traveling rail (Para.[0031], lines 5-8); a second sensor (310; Fig.4) and a third sensor (700; Fig.1); and measuring, by the second sensor (310; Fig.4), a diameter of a traveling wheel of the traveling device (Para.[0029]), and identifying, by the third sensor (700; Fig.1), identification information about the traveling device (Para.[0041], lines 1-4). Choi does not teach wherein the second sensor and third sensors are moving in a traveling direction while operating.
However, Kobayashi teaches the movement of sensors along a rail in a traveling direction of a traveling device (135; Fig.6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Choi with the moving sensors as in Kobayashi to provide additional sensing locations per sensors adaptable to system movements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 13-14 and 20 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 fails to teach the combination of limitations recited in the dependent claims 2, 13, 14 and 20.
More specifically, the prior art fails to teach wherein the second and third sensors are configured to move at a same speed as the traveling speed of the traveling device as claimed within claims 2, 14 and 20. To modify the above prior art to include this feature as claimed would change the principle of operation of the reference.
Further, the prior art fails to teach wherein the first sensor is disposed between the at least one second front sensor and the at least one second rear sensor in the traveling direction as claimed within claim 13. To modify the above prior art to include this feature as claimed would change the principle of operation of the reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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 at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615