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 communication is a First Action Non-Final on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed on December 7, 2023, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20140111797 - hereinafter Kit) in view of Peng et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20090101173 - hereinafter Peng).
Re. claim 1, Kit teaches:
A method, comprising:
loading a wafer into a slot of a transport case with a robot arm; [Kit; ¶28 shows robot transport wafer, and wafers inserted into chamber].
measuring, with a sensor system in the transport case, an orientation of the wafer in the slot; and [Kit; ¶28 “an orienter chamber 408 that detects and adjusts the position and orientation of the semiconductor wafers loaded onto transport robot 404”].
Kit doesn’t teach, Peng teaches:
transmitting, from the transport case to a control system remote to the transport case, orientation data indicating the orientation of the wafer. [Peng; ¶76 shows orientation data for wafer, while ¶93 shows utilization of remote network where data is communicated].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Peng in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 12,
Transport Case of claim 12 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1.
Re. claim 18,
System of claim 18 substantially mirrors the method of claim 1.
Re. claim 19, Kit in view of Peng teaches system of claim 18.
Kit doesn’t teach, Peng teaches:
further comprising a robot communicatively coupled to the control system, wherein the robot is configured to adjust the aspect of the transport case under control of the control system responsive to the sensor data. [Peng; ¶76]. Please see motivation to combine Kit in view of Peng presented in claim 18 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Staals et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20090262320 - hereinafter Staals).
Re. claim 2, Kit in view of Peng teaches method of claim 1.
Kit doesn’t teach, Staals teaches:
wherein measuring the orientation includes a tilt of the wafer including measuring a first vertical distance to a first point on the wafer, measuring a second vertical distance to a second point on the wafer, and measuring a third vertical distance to a third point on the wafer. [Staals; ¶14].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Staals in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Staals in view of Byun et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240112938 - hereinafter Byun) in view of Schumann et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210373307 - hereinafter Schumann).
Re. claim 3, Kit in view of Peng in view of Staals teaches method of claim 2.
Kit doesn’t teach, Byun teaches:
further comprising:
measuring the first vertical distance with a first laser sensor of the sensor system in the transport case; measuring the second vertical distance with a second laser sensor of the sensor system in the transport; and measuring the third vertical distance with a third laser sensor of the sensor system in the transport; and [Byun; ¶91 shows use of laser to measure distances].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Byun in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Kit doesn’t teach, Schumann teaches:
calculating the tilt of the wafer based on the first vertical distance, the second vertical distance, and the third vertical distance. [Schumann; ¶30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Schumann in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 13,
Transport Case of claim 13 substantially mirrors the method of claim 3.
Claim 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Kondoh et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20250079216 - hereinafter Kondoh).
Re. claim 4, Kit in view of Peng teaches method of claim 1.
Kit doesn’t teach, Kondoh teaches:
detecting, with the sensor system while loading the wafer into the slot, whether an edge of the wafer is aligned to collide with a frame of the slot. [Kondoh; ¶88].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kondoh in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 5, Kit in view of Peng in view of Kondoh teaches method of claim 4.
Kit doesn’t teach, Kondoh teaches:
further comprising transmitting an indication to the control system that the edge of the wafer is aligned to collide with the frame of the slot responsive to detecting that the wafer is aligned to collide with the edge of the slot. [Kondoh; ¶88].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Kondoh in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 14,
Transport Case of claim 14 substantially mirrors the method of claim 4.
Re. claim 15,
Transport Case of claim 15 substantially mirrors the method of claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Kondoh in view of Wu et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210249282 - hereinafter Wu).
Re. claim 6, Kit in view of Peng in view of Kondoh teaches method of claim 5.
Kit doesn’t teach, Wu teaches:
further comprising controlling, with the control system responsive to the indication, the robot arm to adjust an alignment of the wafer to avoid a collision of the edge of the wafer with the frame of the slot. [Wu; ¶46-¶55].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Wu in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Byun.
Re. claim 7, Kit in view of Peng teaches method of claim 1.
Kit doesn’t teach, Byun teaches:
wherein measuring the orientation includes measuring how centered the wafer is within the slot, including: capturing, with a camera of the sensor system, an image of an edge of the wafer in the slot; and determining, with the sensor system based on the image, how centered the wafer is within the slot. [Byun; Abstract and ¶38, ¶71].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Byun in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 16,
Transport Case of claim 16 substantially mirrors the method of claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Kondoh in view of Park et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240241527 - hereinafter Park).
Re. claim 8, Kit in view of Peng teaches method of claim 1.
Kit doesn’t teach, Park teaches:
comprising:
measuring, with the sensor system, a tilt of the transport case; and [Park; ¶99].
transmitting, to the control system, transport case tilt data indicating the tilt of the transport case. [Park; ¶55 shows communication with an external device and a server such as “the communication interface 120 includes circuitry, and is a component that can communicate with an external device and a server. The communication interface 120 may perform communication with an external device or a server based on a wired or wireless communication method”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Park in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Park in view of Balutis et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20160174459 - hereinafter Balutis).
Re. claim 9, Kit in view of Peng in view of Park teaches method of claim 8.
Kit doesn’t teach, Balutis teaches:
further comprising measuring the tilt of the transport case with a leveling sensor of the sensor system. [Balutis; ¶40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Balutis in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 17,
Transport Case of claim 17 substantially mirrors the method of claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Park in view of Dellon et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240361779 - hereinafter Dellon).
Re. claim 10, Kit in view of Peng in view of Park teaches method of claim 8.
Kit doesn’t teach, Park teaches:
further comprising:
comparing the tilt of the transport case to a tilt threshold; and [Park; ¶7-¶8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Park in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Kit doesn’t teach, Dellon teaches:
outputting, with the control system, an alert that the transport case is tilted if the tilt of the transport case is greater than the tilt threshold. [Dellon; ¶384].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Dellon in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Bellota et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150027818 - hereinafter Bellota).
Re. claim 11, Kit in view of Peng teaches method of claim 1.
Kit doesn’t teach, Bellota teaches:
further comprising detecting, with the sensor system, positions of door transfer pins of a load/unload port prior to removing a door of the transport case with the door transfer pins. [Bellota; ¶70].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Bellota in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kit in view of Peng in view of Rakshit et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230305581 - hereinafter Rakshit).
Re. claim 20, Kit in view of Peng teaches system of claim 18.
Kit doesn’t teach, Rakshit teaches:
further comprising an overhead track transport system configured to carry the transport case. [Rakshit; ¶46].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Rakshit in the system of Kit, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628