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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to an amendment filed January 15th 2026. By the amendment claims 1-4 are pending with claims 1 and 3 being amended and claims 5-6 being canceled. The applicant’s amendments have overcome all the objections and 35 112 rejections as outlined in the previous Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on October 22nd 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 14 “latchkey-driving mechanism to rotationally drive the latchkey” should be “the latchkey-driving mechanism to rotationally drive the latchkey.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to by virtue of its dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenquist (US 6188323) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20050111937) hereafter Kobayashi.
With regards to claim 1, Rosenquist discloses a method (Abstract) for carrying a wafer carried by a carrier robot via a load port to take in and out the wafer (process tool 20) between: a closed container (pod 26) having a container body containing the wafer and a lid (pod door 30) with which an opening of the container body is opened and closed; and a carrying room housing the carrier robot (Col. 6, L35-38), wherein in taking out the wafer from the closed container and carrying the wafer by the carrier robot or in taking in the wafer carried by the carrier robot into the closed container, when a latchkey is rotationally driven for fixing and unfixing the lid relative to the container body of the closed container (Col.6, L25-29) mounted on a load port frame (Not labeled separately in Fig. 1), by a latchkey-driving mechanism provided on a load port door (Col.6, L25-29), that can fit with a wafer carrying-in/out port of the carrying room and that holds the lid of the closed container to enable removal from the wafer carrying- in/out port, Col. 6, L29-35). Rosenquist does not disclose wherein a claw is inserted into a hole of the latchkey and upon rotation causes the latchkey-driving mechanism to rotationally drive the latchkey and that the latchkey is rotationally driven at a rotation rate of 60 deg/s.
However, Kobayashi discloses wherein a claw (rotation keys 121) is inserted into a hole of the latchkey (key grooves 221) and upon rotation causes latchkey-driving mechanism to rotationally drive the latchkey (P0023). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a claw as disclosed by Kobayashi in the device disclosed by Rosenquist in order to have better control over the rotation of the latchkey. Furthermore, Kobayashi teaches it is desirable to reduce the opening speed for the purpose of reducing foreign particles (P0028-P0030) and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rotate the latch-key driving mechanism disclosed by Rosenquist at 60 deg/sec or less, as is routine optimization and disclosed by Kobayashi in order to reduce contamination while maintaining throughput (P0032, L1-8).
With regards to claim 2, Rosenquist and Kobayashi disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Rosenquist further discloses wherein when the load port door is lowered and removed from the wafer carrying-in/out port or raised to and fitted with the wafer carrying-in/out port, a lowering rate and raising rate of the load port door are 100 mm/sec or less (Col. 7 L46-52).
With regards to claim 3, Rosenquist discloses A wafer-carrying apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising: a carrying room housing a carrier robot (Col. 6, L35-38); and a load port (process tool 20) for taking in and out a wafer between a closed container (pod 26) having a container body containing the wafer and a lid with which an opening of the container body is opened and closed (pod door 30), and the carrying room, wherein the load port comprises: a load port door that can fit with a wafer carrying-in/out port of the carrying room (Col. 6, L29-35), and that holds the lid of the closed container to enable removal from the wafer carrying-in/out port (Col. 6, L29-35); a load port frame mounting the closed container so that the lid of the closed container is opposite to the wafer carrying-in/out port (Fig. 1); and a controller to driving-control the load port door (Col. 10, L30-32), the load port door comprises a latchkey-driving mechanism for rotationally driving a latchkey for fixing and unfixing the lid relative to the container body of the closed container mounted on the load port frame (Col.6, L25-29) and the controller can driving-control the latchkey- driving mechanism, (Col. 6, L29-35) Rosenquist does not disclose the latchkey-driving mechanism having a claw that is inserted into a hole of the latchkey and upon rotation rotationally drives the latchkey; wherein a set value of a rotation rate of the rotational driving of the latchkey by the latchkey-driving mechanism is 60 deg/sec or less.
However Kobayashi discloses the latchkey-driving mechanism having a claw (rotational keys 121) that is inserted into a hole of the latchkey (key grooves 221) and upon rotation rotationally drives the latchkey (P023) Furthermore, Kobayashi teaches it is desirable to reduce the opening speed for the purpose of reducing foreign particles (P0028-P0030) and it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rotate the latch-key driving mechanism disclosed by Rosenquist at 60 deg/sec or less, as is routine optimization and disclosed by Kobayashi in order to reduce contamination while maintaining throughput (P0032, L1-8).
With regards to claim 4, Rosenquist and Kobayashi disclose all the elements of claim 3 as outlined above. Rosenquist further discloses wherein in the controller, a set value of a lowering rate for removing the load port door from the wafer carrying-in/out port and a set value of a raising rate of the load port door for fixing with the wafer carrying-in/out port are 100 mm/sec or less (Col. 7 L46-52).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Kobayashi adjusts the opening speed of the pod lid to reduce particle generation which is the same thing that the instant invention is doing. Kobayashi is used teach that this problem and solution is known in the art and therefore the exact speed required by the claim is routine optimization as outlined above.
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 JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653