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 .
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis et al. 2003/0198541.
In Re Claim 1, Davis et al. teach a rotational interface comprising: a base column (92) extending in a first direction; a rotary unit (104); and a carrier plate (94) longitudinally extending from the base column in a second direction intersecting the first direction, wherein the carrier plate has a length in the second direction greater than a width in a third direction intersecting the second direction, (Fig. 6) wherein the carrier plate includes: a plate body (94) longitudinally extending and coupled to the base column; (Fig. 6) and a plurality of storage pots (98) disposed on the plate body and each having an upper surface, wherein each of the plurality of storage pots includes a fixing pin (102) located on the upper surface thereof and configured to fix a semiconductor carrier (51) to the plate body.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. and in view of Inui 2003/0059284.
In Re Claim 2, Davis et al. teach the interface of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Davis et al. do not teach the rotary unit includes a motor, and a gear configu8ured to transmit power of the motor to the carrier plate.
However, Inui teaches the rotary unit includes a motor, and a gear configu8ured to transmit power of the motor to the carrier plate. (Fig. 3, Paragraph 52)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a motor and gear in the interface of Davis et al. as taught by Inui with a reasonable expectation for success in order to transmit forces with minimal damage to components.
In Re Claim 5, Davis et al. teach wherein the rotary unit includes an angle sensor (108) configured to detect a rotational angle of the carrier plate.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al./Inui and in view of Li et al. CN 105730960.
In Re Claim 3, Davis et al./Inui teach the interface of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Davis et al./Inui are silent concerning the gear including a planetary gear.
However, Li et al. teach a gear including a planetary gear (Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a planetary gear in the interface of Davis et al./Inui as taught by Li et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to transmit forces with minimal damage to components.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. and in view of Ito 2024/0128108.
In Re Claim 7, Davis et al. teach the interface of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Davis et al. is silent concerning an upper portion of the fixing pin having a rounded shape.
However, Ito teaches an upper portion of the fixing pin (30) having a rounded shape. (Fig. 4b)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use fixing pins with rounded shape upper portion in the interface of Davis et al. as taught by Ito with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent wear when interfacing with carriers.
Claim 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. and in view of Hsu et al. 2024/0258146.
In Re Claim 11, Davis et al. teach a carrier transfer system comprising: a rotational interface comprising: wherein the rotational interface comprises: a base column (92) extending in a first direction; a rotary unit (104); and a carrier plate (94) longitudinally extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction from the base column and connected to the rotary unit, wherein the carrier plate has a length in the second direction greater than a width in a third direction intersecting the second direction, (Fig. 6) wherein the carrier plate includes: a plate body (94) coupled to the base column and extending in the second direction; (Fig. 6)
Davis et al. do not teach a travel rail; an overhead hoist transport movably coupled to the travel rail;
However, Hsu et al. teach a travel rail (108); an overhead hoist transport (120) movably coupled to the travel rail;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a travel rail and overhead hoist transport to the system of Davis et al. as taught by Hsu et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to move carriers to the system without taking up floor space.
In Re claim 14, Davis et al. teach a storage pot (98) located on the plate body and each having an upper surface, and wherein each of the plurality of storage pots includes a fixing pin (102) located on the upper surface of the storage pot and configured to fix a semiconductor carrier (51) to the plate body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Claims 4, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17 and 21 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights