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 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.
“attachment/detachment mechanism” recited in Claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) and is being interpreted as item “1904” or “137” in the specification and drawings.
“transfer mechanism” recited in Claims 7 and 12 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) and is being interpreted as an “OHT” item “30” as described in Lines 19-24 of Page 24 of specification and drawings, or as item “18” which includes a guide rail and crane as described in Lines 21-24 of the specification.
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: “attachment/detachment mechanism in claim 6 and “transfer mechanism” in Claims 7 and 12.
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 1-15 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 initially recites the limitation “the object” in Line 19. It is not clear if the object is singular as recited in Line 19 and subsequent recitations or if “the object” is plural per the recitation of “a plurality of objects” in Line 12 of the claim. For examination purposes, “the object” in Line 19 and subsequent recitation is being interpreted as “an object of said plurality of objects”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the stage” in Line 9. It is not clear if the object is singular as recited in Line 9 or if “the stage” is plural per the recitation of “a plurality of stages” in Line 2 of the claim. For examination purposes, “the stage” in Line 9 is being interpreted as “a stage of said plurality of stages”.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation “the stage” in Line 6. It is not clear if the object is singular as recited in Line 6 or if “the stage” is plural per the recitation of “a plurality of stages” in Line 2 of the claim. For examination purposes, “the stage” in Line 6 is being interpreted as “a stage of said plurality of stages”.
Claim 15 initially recites the limitation “the object” in Line 6 of Page 51. It is not clear if the object is singular as recited in Line 6 of Page 51 and subsequent recitations or if “the object” is plural per the recitation of “a plurality of objects” in Line 25 of Page 50 of the Claims. For examination purposes, “the object” in Line 6 of Page 51 and subsequent recitation is being interpreted as “an object of said plurality of objects”.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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 1, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura 2006/0207680 and in view of Van Der Meulen 8,197,177.
In Re Claim 1, as best understood, Takamura teaches a transfer module, comprising: a first transfer chamber (7) connected to a vacuum transfer (10) module and configured to be maintained at a low pressure lower than atmospheric pressure; (Paragraph 30) a second transfer chamber (2A) provided on a second sidewall other than a sidewall opposite to a first sidewall to which the vacuum transfer module is connected in the first transfer chamber or in an upper portion of the first transfer chamber, (Fig. 3) the second transfer chamber capable of accommodating a container (4a) accommodating a plurality of objects (wafers, Paragraph 41) to be transferred and being configured to be able to switch an internal pressure between the atmospheric pressure and the low pressure; (Paragraph 30) and an opening/closing door (3a) configured to partition the first transfer chamber and the second transfer chamber, wherein the first transfer chamber has an accommodation portion (6) configured to accommodate the object to be transferred, and the container accommodating the plurality of objects to be transferred is carried into the second transfer chamber, (Paragraph 41) the opening/closing door is controlled to communicate a space in the first transfer chamber and a space in the second transfer chamber after a pressure in the second transfer chamber is switched from the atmospheric pressure to the low pressure, (Paragraph 41-42) the plurality of objects to be transferred are transferred from the container to the accommodation portion in the first transfer chamber, the object to be transferred is transferred from the accommodation portion into the vacuum transfer module, (Paragraph 41-42)
Takamura does not teach the object to be transferred carried out from the vacuum transfer module is transferred into the container without passing through the accommodation portion.
However, Van der Meulen teaches the object (wafers, Paragraph 135) to be transferred carried out from the vacuum transfer module (14010, Fig. 14) is transferred into the container without passing through the accommodation portion (4002). (Fig. 14 and 14a)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to transfer the object to the container from the vacuum transfer chamber without passing through the accommodation portion in the transfer module of Takamura as taught by Van der Meulen with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase the capacity of the system.
In Re Claim 13, Takamura teaches wherein, in the second transfer chamber, the container is accommodated in the second transfer chamber, and after the pressure in the second transfer chamber is switched from the atmospheric pressure to the low pressure, the pressure inside the container is able to be switched from the atmospheric pressure to the low pressure. (Paragraph 42)
In Re Claim 14, Takamura teaches wherein an inert gas (Nitrogen gas, Paragraph 32) is supplied into the container while the pressure in the second transfer chamber is switched from the atmospheric pressure to the low pressure in a state where the container is accommodated in the second transfer chamber. (Paragraph 32)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamura 2006/0207680 and in view of Van Der Meulen 8,197,177.
In Re Claim 15, as best understood, Takamura teaches a transfer method performed in a transfer module, comprising: a first transfer chamber (7) connected to a vacuum transfer module (10) and configured to be maintained at a low pressure lower than atmospheric pressure; (Paragraph 30) a second transfer chamber (2a) provided on a second sidewall other than a sidewall opposite to a first sidewall to which the vacuum transfer module is connected in the first transfer chamber or in an upper portion of the first transfer chamber, (See Fig. 1) the second transfer chamber capable of accommodating a container (4a) accommodating a plurality of objects (wafers, Paragraph 41) to be transferred and being configured to be able to switch an internal pressure between the atmospheric pressure and the low pressure; (Paragraph 41) and an opening/closing door (3a) configured to partition the first transfer chamber and the second transfer chamber, wherein the first transfer chamber has an accommodation portion (6) configured to accommodate the object to be transferred, the method comprising: a) a process of carrying the container accommodating the plurality of objects to be transferred into the second transfer chamber; (Paragraph 41) b) a process of switching a pressure in the second transfer chamber from the atmospheric pressure to the low pressure; (Paragraph 41) c) a process of controlling the opening/closing door to communicate a space within the first transfer chamber and a space within the second transfer chamber; (Paragraph 41-42) d) a process of transferring the plurality of objects to be transferred from the container to the accommodation portion in the first transfer chamber; (Paragraph 41-52) e) a process of transferring the object to be transferred from the accommodation portion into the vacuum transfer module; (Paragraph 41-42)
Takamura does not teach a process of transferring the object to be transferred, which has been carried out from the vacuum transfer module, into the container without passing through the accommodation portion.
However, Van der Meulen teaches transferring the object (wafers, Paragraph 135) to be transferred carried out from the vacuum transfer module (14010, Fig. 14) into the container without passing through the accommodation portion (4002). (Fig. 14 and 14a)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to transfer the object to the container from the vacuum transfer chamber without passing through the accommodation portion in the method of Takamura as taught by Van der Meulen with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase the capacity of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 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.
Claims 7, 11 and 12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yonemitsu et al., Kawamura et al. and Sieradzki teach a second chamber and a vacuum transfer chamber and wherein the second chamber holds a container.
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