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 is a first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 19: “comprises least a heating/cooling chip” appears to be a typographical error for “comprises at least a heating/cooling chip.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In this action, “coupled” is interpreted broadly as either a direct, physical coupling (e.g., an air processing system is coupled to a wall) or a fluidic coupling (e.g., a desiccant coupled to the pump), depending on context. For example, in the latter case, the disclosure describes an air extraction module 220 and a processing module 240 ([0025]) connected by a tube 203 ([0029]), with the air extraction module including a pump ([0027]) and the processing module able to include desiccant materials and a filtering element ([0029]), so the desiccant is understood to be contained within a structure called a “processing module” and the connection of the desiccant to the pump may not be direct to be “coupled” ([0029]: “a tube 203 may be used to couple the air extraction module 220 to the processing module 240”).
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 6,758,876 B2) in view of Sakurabayashi et al. (US 2018/0286715 A1) and Okabe et al. (US 2017/0170033 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a method for transporting substrates (claim 1) such as semiconductor wafers (col. 3, lines 10-12) (i.e., a wafer transporting method) comprising:
storing wafers in a wafer carrier 4 (col. 9, line 12) of a substrate transport pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 9, line 13) mounted on a vehicle 10 for transport (Fig. 7; col. 10, lines 7-9; col. 57, lines 12-14) held by a robot (Figs. 7, 57B; col. 25, lines 39-41) (i.e., receiving a plurality of wafers in a semiconductor container attached to a mobile vehicle),
wherein filters 5, 6 and a dehumidifying agent 8 such as silica gel are provided in a duct coupled to a wall of the pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 10, lines 64-66; col. 19, lines 2-3) (i.e., wherein an air processing system is coupled to a wall of the semiconductor container; a desiccant),
preventing the rise in humidity in the interior of the pod during transport of wafers (col. 14, lines 11-13) (i.e., moving the semiconductor container) and reducing the humidity (col. 35, lines 6-13) (i.e., reducing humidity of the air when the air passes through the desiccant of the air processing system);
and circulating the air (col. 10, lines 62-63) (i.e., returning the air back to the semiconductor container).
However, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose (i) an inlet valve and an outlet valve; (ii) a pump between the inlet valve and the outlet valve; (iii) a desiccant coupled to the pump; (iv) returning the air back to the semiconductor container through the outlet valve; or (v) moving the semiconductor container followed by turning on the pump of the air processing system to extract air from inside the semiconductor container into the air processing system through the inlet valve.
Regarding (i) and (iv), Sakurabayashi discloses an atmospheric transfer device 20 for holding and transferring a wafer W comprising a foreign substance removing unit 150 (Fig. 5; Abstract) including a chemical filter 170 and a dehumidifying unit 180 ([0056]). Sakurabayashi teaches valves 201 and 202 (i.e., inlet and outlet valves) so that chemical filter 170 can be replaced without needing to stop the typical operation, reducing a downtime in the wafer processing ([0076]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki by (i) providing an inlet valve and an outlet valve; and (v) returning the air back to the semiconductor container through the outlet valve as taught by Sakurabayashi because (1) Suzuki teaches a gaseous contaminant capture medium 6 (i.e., a chemical filter) (col. 9, lines 14-15); (2) inlet and outlet valves can be used to isolate a pipeline of a chemical filter to reduce downtime (Sakurabayashi, [0076]); and (3) in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi, gas that has been processed is returned through an outlet valve (Sakurabayashi, Fig. 5).
Regarding (ii), Okabe discloses a mini-environment apparatus that includes a wafer transportation machine (Abstract; Fig. 1) in which a circulating current 80 ([0055]) passes through a particle removal filter 62 and a chemical filter 60 ([0060]). Okabe teaches that the current is formed by a fan 59 which may be a pump capable of forming the current ([0055]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi by (ii) providing a pump between the inlet valve and the outlet valve as taught by Okabe because (1) Suzuki teaches a fan motor 7 (Suzuki, col. 10, line 21); (2) a pump is capable of forming an air current and can be used in place of a fan (Okabe, [0055]); and (3) the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result is lacking in patentable distinctiveness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding (iii), in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe, the dehumidifying agent 8 is coupled to the pump by the duct (Suzuki, Fig. 16).
Regarding (v) and moving the semiconductor container followed by turning on the pump of the air processing system to extract air from inside the semiconductor container into the air processing system through the inlet valve, Suzuki teaches circulating air during a period of transport of the pod (col. 10, lines 7, 10) (i.e., cleaning air after the pod has begun transport), suggests sequential steps of loading the substrate, transporting the pod, and controlling the humidity (col. 24, lines 47, 49, 55), suggests transporting the pod to the next process and operating the fan to create a flow according to a program in that order (col. 30, lines 59-60, 62-65), and teaches intermittent operation of the fan (e.g., Abstract; col. 30, lines 49-65; col. 50, lines 36-37), so Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe is interpreted as teaching moving the container/pod and then turning on the pump.
Regarding claim 2, Sakurabayashi teaches that the valves 201 and 202 suppress the flow of gas through pipeline 200 ([0076]) (i.e., wherein the air processing system is isolated from the semiconductor container when the inlet valve and the outlet valve are closed, and the air processing system is connected to the semiconductor container when the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve are opened).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Suzuki teaches an upper particle filter 5 (i.e., a particle filter) outside the pod in a duct with the motor fan 7 (col. 9, lines 38-39; col. 10, lines 61-62), which in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe can be regarded as a first filter coupled to the inlet valve and the pump.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Suzuki teaches a lower particle filter 5 (Fig. 16) (i.e., a particle filter) coupled to the dehumidifying agent 8, which in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe can be regarded as coupled to the outlet valve (i.e., a second filter coupled to the desiccant and the outlet valve).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki discloses that the dehumidifying agent 8 includes silica gel for removing moisture from the pod interior (col. 9, lines 20-22) (i.e., wherein the desiccant comprises silica gel).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches that the dehumidifying agent 8 is adjacent a particle filter 5 and a gaseous contaminant capture medium 6 (Fig. 16; col. 9, lines 15-19, 38-39) (i.e., wherein the desiccant comprises a particle filter or a chemical filter).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leight et al. (US 9,072,805 B1).
However, Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe does not explicitly disclose a desiccant that is pluggable, and an adsorbing element of the desiccant is replaceable according to different processing requirements.
Leight discloses a desiccant canister 242 inserted into a tube section half 214a of a tubular member for air to flow through the canister, allowing removal and replacement of the desiccant canister 242 (Fig. 6; col. 5, line 16; col. 6, line 65 through col. 7, line 6) (i.e., a desiccant that is pluggable).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe by providing a desiccant that is pluggable, and an adsorbing element of the desiccant is replaceable according to different processing requirements as taught by Okabe because (1) Suzuki teaches the use of a dehumidifying agent in a cartridge form for easy replacement (Suzuki, col. 19, lines 2-5); (2) a desiccant in a cartridge or canister can be inserted or plugged into an opening of a duct to allow for removal and replacement (Leight, col. 6, line 65 through col. 7, line 6); and (3) a dehumidifying agent may be selected from a list of dehumidifying agents (Suzuki,col. 18, line 67 through col. 19, line 1), with selection of the dehumidifying agent being influenced by its potential for reuse after regenerative heating (col. 19, lines 2-4) and/or reaching its dehumidifying capacity (col. 9, lines 29-33), so it would have been prima facie obvious for the skilled practitioner of Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi, Okabe, and Leight to select a desiccant according to different processing requirements (i.e., desired capacity; the availability of regenerative heating).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki discloses a method for transporting substrates (claim 1) such as semiconductor wafers (col. 3, lines 10-12) (i.e., a wafer transporting method) comprising:
storing wafers in a wafer carrier 4 (col. 9, line 12) of a substrate transport pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 9, line 13) mounted on a vehicle 10 for transport (Fig. 7; col. 10, lines 7-9; col. 57, lines 12-14) held by a robot (Figs. 7, 57B; col. 25, lines 39-41) (i.e., receiving a plurality of wafers in a semiconductor container attached to a mobile vehicle),
wherein filters 5, 6 and a dehumidifying agent 8 such as silica gel are provided in a duct coupled to a wall of the pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 10, lines 64-66; col. 19, lines 2-3) (i.e., wherein an air processing system is coupled to a wall of the semiconductor container; a first filter; a desiccant),
preventing the rise in humidity in the interior of the pod during transport of wafers (col. 14, lines 11-13) (i.e., moving the semiconductor container) and reducing the humidity (col. 35, lines 6-13) (i.e., reducing humidity of the air when the air passes through the desiccant of the air processing system) and capturing particulate matters with the upper particle filter 5 and gaseous contaminants with the chemical filter 6 (col. 9, lines 16-20, 35-41; col. 10, line 25) (i.e., reducing a contamination of the air when the air passes through the first filter of the air processing system);
and circulating the air (col. 10, lines 62-63) (i.e., returning the air back to the semiconductor container).
However, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose (i) an inlet valve and an outlet valve; (ii) a pump between the inlet valve and the outlet valve; (iii) a desiccant coupled to the pump; (iv) moving the semiconductor container followed by turning on the pump of the air processing system to extract air from inside the semiconductor container into the air processing system through the inlet valve; (v) returning the air back to the semiconductor container through the outlet valve; or (vi) a first filter between the inlet valve and the desiccant.
Regarding (i) and (v), Sakurabayashi discloses an atmospheric transfer device 20 for holding and transferring a wafer W comprising a foreign substance removing unit 150 (Fig. 5; Abstract) including a chemical filter 170 and a dehumidifying unit 180 ([0056]). Sakurabayashi teaches valves 201 and 202 (i.e., inlet and outlet valves) so that chemical filter 170 can be replaced without needing to stop the typical operation, reducing a downtime in the wafer processing ([0076]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki by (i) providing an inlet valve and an outlet valve; and (v) returning the air back to the semiconductor container through the outlet valve as taught by Sakurabayashi because (1) Suzuki teaches a gaseous contaminant capture medium 6 (i.e., a chemical filter) (col. 9, lines 14-15); (2) inlet and outlet valves can be used to isolate a pipeline of a chemical filter to reduce downtime (Sakurabayashi, [0076]); and (3) in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi, gas that has been processed is returned through an outlet valve (Sakurabayashi, Fig. 5).
Regarding (ii), Okabe discloses a mini-environment apparatus that includes a wafer transportation machine (Abstract; Fig. 1) in which a circulating current 80 ([0055]) passes through a particle removal filter 62 and a chemical filter 60 ([0060]). Okabe teaches that the current is formed by a fan 59 which may be a pump capable of forming the current ([0055]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi by (ii) providing a pump between the inlet valve and the outlet valve as taught by Okabe because (1) Suzuki teaches a fan motor 7 (Suzuki, col. 10, line 21); (2) a pump is capable of forming an air current and can be used in place of a fan (Okabe, [0055]); and (3) the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result is lacking in patentable distinctiveness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding (iii), in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe, the dehumidifying agent 8 is coupled to the pump by the duct (Suzuki, Fig. 16).
Regarding (iv) and moving the semiconductor container followed by turning on the pump of the air processing system to extract air from inside the semiconductor container into the air processing system through the inlet valve, Suzuki teaches circulating air during a period of transport of the pod (col. 10, lines 7, 10) (i.e., cleaning air after the pod has begun transport), suggests sequential steps of loading the substrate, transporting the pod, and controlling the humidity (col. 24, lines 47, 49, 55), suggests transporting the pod to the next process and operating the fan to create a flow according to a program in that order (col. 30, lines 59-60, 62-65), and teaches intermittent operation of the fan (e.g., Abstract; col. 30, lines 49-65; col. 50, lines 36-37), so Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe is interpreted as teaching moving the container/pod and then turning on the pump.
Regarding (vi), Suzuki teaches an upper particle filter 5 outside the pod in a duct with the motor fan 7 (col. 9, lines 38-39; col. 10, lines 61-62), which in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe can be regarded as a first filter between the inlet valve and the desiccant/dehumidifying agent.
Regarding claim 13, Sakurabayashi teaches that the valves 201 and 202 suppress the flow of gas through pipeline 200 ([0076]) (i.e., wherein the air processing system is isolated from the semiconductor container when the inlet valve and the outlet valve are closed, and the air processing system is connected to the semiconductor container when the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve are opened).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki teaches a lower particle filter 5 (Fig. 16) coupled to the dehumidifying agent 8, which in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe can be regarded as coupled to the outlet valve (i.e., a second filter coupled to the desiccant and the outlet valve).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki discloses that the dehumidifying agent 8 includes silica gel for removing moisture from the pod interior (col. 9, lines 20-22) (i.e., wherein the desiccant comprises silica gel).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe.
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses a method for transporting substrates (claim 1) such as semiconductor wafers (col. 3, lines 10-12) (i.e., a wafer transporting method) comprising:
storing wafers in a wafer carrier 4 (col. 9, line 12) of a substrate transport pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 9, line 13) mounted on a vehicle 10 for transport (Fig. 7; col. 10, lines 7-9; col. 57, lines 12-14) held by a robot (Figs. 7, 57B; col. 25, lines 39-41) (i.e., receiving a plurality of wafers in a semiconductor container attached to a mobile vehicle),
wherein pairs of filters 5, 6 and a dehumidifying agent 8 such as silica gel are provided in a duct coupled to a wall of the pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 10, lines 64-66; col. 19, lines 2-3) (i.e., wherein an air processing system is coupled to a wall of the semiconductor container; a first filter; a second filter; a desiccant),
preventing the rise in humidity in the interior of the pod during transport of wafers (col. 14, lines 11-13) (i.e., moving the semiconductor container) and reducing the humidity (col. 35, lines 6-13) (i.e., reducing humidity of the air when the air passes through the desiccant of the air processing system) and capturing particulate matters with the upper and lower particle filters 5 (col. 9, lines 16-20, 35-41; col. 10, line 25) (i.e., performing a first contamination reduction on the air when the air passes through the first filter of the air processing system; performing a second contamination reduction on the air when the air passes through the second filter of the air processing system);
and circulating the air (col. 10, lines 62-63) (i.e., returning the air back to the semiconductor container).
However, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose (i) an inlet valve and an outlet valve; (ii) a pump between the inlet valve and the outlet valve; (iii) a desiccant coupled to the pump; (iv) moving the semiconductor container followed by turning on the pump of the air processing system to extract air from inside the semiconductor container into the air processing system through the inlet valve; (v) returning the air back to the semiconductor container through the outlet valve; (vi) a first filter between the inlet valve and the desiccant; or (vii) a second filter coupled to the desiccant and the outlet valve.
Regarding (i) and (v), Sakurabayashi discloses an atmospheric transfer device 20 for holding and transferring a wafer W comprising a foreign substance removing unit 150 (Fig. 5; Abstract) including a chemical filter 170 and a dehumidifying unit 180 ([0056]). Sakurabayashi teaches valves 201 and 202 (i.e., inlet and outlet valves) so that chemical filter 170 can be replaced without needing to stop the typical operation, reducing a downtime in the wafer processing ([0076]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki by (i) providing an inlet valve and an outlet valve; and (v) returning the air back to the semiconductor container through the outlet valve as taught by Sakurabayashi because (1) Suzuki teaches a gaseous contaminant capture medium 6 (i.e., a chemical filter) (col. 9, lines 14-15); (2) inlet and outlet valves can be used to isolate a pipeline of a chemical filter to reduce downtime (Sakurabayashi, [0076]); and (3) in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi, gas that has been processed is returned through an outlet valve (Sakurabayashi, Fig. 5).
Regarding (ii), Okabe discloses a mini-environment apparatus that includes a wafer transportation machine (Abstract; Fig. 1) in which a circulating current 80 ([0055]) passes through a particle removal filter 62 and a chemical filter 60 ([0060]). Okabe teaches that the current is formed by a fan 59 which may be a pump capable of forming the current ([0055]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi by (ii) providing a pump between the inlet valve and the outlet valve as taught by Okabe because (1) Suzuki teaches a fan motor 7 (Suzuki, col. 10, line 21); (2) a pump is capable of forming an air current and can be used in place of a fan (Okabe, [0055]); and (3) the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result is lacking in patentable distinctiveness. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding (iii), in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe, the dehumidifying agent 8 is coupled to the pump by the duct (Suzuki, Fig. 16).
Regarding (iv) and moving the semiconductor container followed by turning on the pump of the air processing system to extract air from inside the semiconductor container into the air processing system through the inlet valve, Suzuki teaches circulating air during a period of transport of the pod (col. 10, lines 7, 10) (i.e., cleaning air after the pod has begun transport), suggests sequential steps of loading the substrate, transporting the pod, and controlling the humidity (col. 24, lines 47, 49, 55), suggests transporting the pod to the next process and operating the fan to create a flow according to a program in that order (col. 30, lines 59-60, 62-65), and teaches intermittent operation of the fan (e.g., Abstract; col. 30, lines 49-65; col. 50, lines 36-37), so Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe is interpreted as teaching moving the container/pod and then turning on the pump.
Regarding (vi), Suzuki teaches an upper particle filter 5 outside the pod in a duct with the motor fan 7 (col. 9, lines 38-39; col. 10, lines 61-62), which in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe can be regarded as a first filter between the inlet valve and the desiccant/dehumidifying agent.
Regarding (vii), Suzuki teaches a lower particle filter 5 outside the pod in a duct with the motor fan 7 (col. 9, lines 38-39; col. 10, lines 61-62), which in the embodiment taught by Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe can be regarded as a second filter coupled to the desiccant and the outlet valve
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe does not explicitly disclose reducing humidity inside the semiconductor container to below approximately 0.7%.
However, Suzuki teaches that humidity should be less than 5% (col. 24, lines 19-21) because moisture in the environment can cause problems with materials of a semiconductor (col. 1, lines 27-28, 30-32). It has been held that obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been prima facie obvious for the skilled practitioner to reduce humidity to an optimal value approaching zero (e.g., 0.7%) to prevent problems caused by moisture in the environment. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hyun et al. (KR20070054316A, hereinafter “Hyun”).
Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe does not explicitly disclose a heating/cooling chip installed on the inlet valve or the outlet valve.
Hyun discloses a valve system for controlling the flow of a fluid such as a process gas (p. 1/4, “The present,” first and last lines). Hyun teaches that the valve system 100 comprises a valve 110 and a thermoelectric element/array 120 provided along the outer surface of the valve (p. 2/4, “According”; “The thermoelectric”) (i.e., installed on the valve), wherein the thermoelectric element array absorbs heat or generates heat (i.e., a heating/cooling chip) according to the supply of the thermoelectric element to control the temperature of the housing regardless of the temperature of the fluid (p. 2/4, “According”), so that the valve system is maintained at a constant temperature (p. 4/4, “As described”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Suzuki in view of Sakurabayashi and Okabe by providing at least a heating/cooling chip installed on the inlet valve or the outlet valve as taught by Hyun because a valve having on its surface a thermoelectric element can be maintained at a constant temperature (Hyun, p. 4/4, “As described”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,848 (“reference document”).
Regarding claim 1, claim 19 of the reference document appears to differ in that (i) the instant claim is has an air processing system “coupled to a wall” rather than “attached to” a semiconductor container; (ii) the pump is located between the inlet and outlet valves; (iii) the desiccant is coupled to pump rather than first filter; and (iv) air is recited to be returned to the container through the outlet valve.
Regarding (i), since a container would be expected to have walls defining its periphery, it would be obvious to attach an air processing system to a container at a wall.
Regarding (ii), the location of the pump between the valves is implicit in “wherein the air processing system is isolated from the semiconductor container when the inlet valve and the outlet valve are closed”; “the air processing system comprises . . . a first filter coupled to the pump and the inlet valve,” i.e., the valves can isolate the air processing system, which includes the filter that is coupled to the pump.
Regarding (iii), it is implicit that an air processing system with a pump that must be isolated from a container with valves requires a fluidic coupling between the pump and its components.
Regarding (iv), the recitation of an air processing system with an outlet valve that reduces humidity in a semiconductor container makes implicit the return of air to the container through the outlet valve.
In addition, claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 17 of the instant application correspond to claims 19, 19, 20, 19, 20, 20, 19, 19, 19, and 19 of the reference application, respectively.
Claims 7, 15, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,848 (“reference document”) in view of Suzuki (US 6,758,876 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, claim 19 of the reference document does not suggest a desiccant that comprises molecular sieve, silica gel, bentonite clay, calcium chloride (CaCl2), magnesium chloride (MgCl2), or activated aluminum oxide. However, it would be obvious to modify the method of 11,854,848 by providing a desiccant comprising silica gel because Suzuki teaches a dehumidifying agent 8 includes silica gel for removing moisture from the pod interior (col. 9, lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 18, the reference document does not claim the recited humidity. However, Suzuki teaches that humidity should be less than 5% (col. 24, lines 19-21) because moisture in the environment can cause problems with materials of a semiconductor (col. 1, lines 27-28, 30-32), so it would have been obvious to optimize humidity to the claimed level. See MPEP 2144.05 (I) and (II)(A).
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11, 16, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 10-11, 16, and 20. The concept of a wafer transporting method, comprising: receiving a plurality of wafers in a semiconductor container attached to a mobile vehicle, wherein an air processing system is coupled to a wall of the semiconductor container, the air processing system comprises an inlet valve, an outlet valve, a pump between the inlet valve and the outlet valve, and a desiccant coupled to the pump; moving the semiconductor container; turning on the pump of the air processing system to extract air from inside the semiconductor container into the air processing system through the inlet valve; reducing humidity of the air when the air passes through the desiccant of the air processing system; and returning the air back to the semiconductor container through the outlet valve (claim 1)
wherein the air processing system further comprises: a controller module disposed between the inlet valve and the outlet valve and configured to turn the pump on and off; and a power module disposed between the inlet valve and the outlet valve (claims 10, 16, and 20)
is considered to define patentable subject matter over the prior art.
The closest prior art is Suzuki (US 6,758,876 B2), which discloses a method for transporting substrates (claim 1) such as semiconductor wafers (col. 3, lines 10-12) comprising:
storing wafers in a wafer carrier 4 (col. 9, line 12) of a substrate transport pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 9, line 13) mounted on a vehicle 10 for transport (Fig. 7; col. 10, lines 7-9; col. 57, lines 12-14) held by a robot (Figs. 7, 57B; col. 25, lines 39-41),
wherein filters 5, 6 and a dehumidifying agent 8 such as silica gel are provided in a duct coupled to a wall of the pod 1 (Fig. 16; col. 10, lines 64-66; col. 19, lines 2-3),
preventing the rise in humidity in the interior of the pod during transport of wafers (col. 14, lines 11-13) (i.e., moving the semiconductor container) and reducing the humidity (col. 35, lines 6-13) (i.e., reducing humidity of the air when the air passes through the desiccant of the air processing system);
and circulating the air (col. 10, lines 62-63).
However, Suzuki does not suggest a controller module and a power module that are each disposed between an inlet valve and an outlet valve of an air treatment system, and it would not have been obvious to provide such structures in this configuration, as none of battery 9 (Fig. 6; col. 10, line 1), battery 310 (Fig. 77; col. 37, line 13), power unit 518 (Figs. 59B, 62; col. 26, line 48), control board (Fig. 77; col. 37, line 13), and control board 453 (Fig. 87A; col. 44, line 33) are positioned between inlet and outlet valves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL E GITMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7934. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:15-5:45pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3471. 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.
/GABRIEL E GITMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772