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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/18/26 has been entered. Claims 1-2 remain pending in the application. Application’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/23/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2002005485 to Kamiya et al. (Kamiya) in view of JP2007269489 to Taniguchi et al. (Taniguchi) and U.S. PGPUB 20020081962 to Matsuura et al. (Matsuura).
Regarding claim 1, Kamiya teaches a stocker area (interior of the central area in between areas 16, Figure 1) in which an article management storage is installed (any device in the interior of this area can be considered an article management storage. Additionally, the interior of this area could be considered an article management storage), wherein the article management storage includes an upper opening (top portion of this area, Figure 1) and a lower flow-out port (through 10, Figure 1) having an adjustable open area (aperture ratio can be adjusted. Additionally, it appears to be adjusted by the components fitting over a one of the apertures), a ceiling of the stocker area includes an eyelid (walls surrounding the area. Examiner considers the walls to be an eyelid because they extend from the ceiling of the device and therefore can be considered hanging walls. If Applicant has additional structure to overcome this it should be claimed.) and an air outlet port (through 7, Figure 1, air is outlet from this port), the upper opening part of the article management storage and the air outlet port are connected to each other so as to be surrounded by the eyelid (shown in Figure 1), and the clean room is configured that air supplied from the air outlet port is directly supplied into the article management storage through the upper opening part, flows as a laminar flow from the upper opening to the lower flow-out port without being discharged from the article gateway, and is discharged from the lower flow-out port (flowpath shown in Figure 1 and device is configurable to deliver laminar flow dependent on operation and therefore is considered intended use).
Kamiya is silent on having an adjustable open area, a transport apparatus, and an article gateway, the transport apparatus including a transport vehicle and a transfer robot, wherein the transfer robot is configured to be able to deliver and receive an article at the article gateway, and the transport apparatus is configured to be capable of self-propelling by the transport vehicle and adjusting the height of the transfer robot to a target height and the eyelid including a plate or sheet of a resin with an antistatic effect.
Taniguchi teaches an adjustable open area, a transport apparatus, and an article gateway, the transport apparatus including a transport vehicle and a transfer robot, wherein the transfer robot is configured to be able to deliver and receive an article at the article gateway, and the transport apparatus is configured to be capable of self-propelling by the transport vehicle and adjusting the height of the transfer robot to a target height (V, Figures 1-4 and 7-8 disclose a vehicle that moves horizontally and vertically along with an article gateway in Figures 1-4 and 7-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiya with the teachings of Taniguchi to provide an adjustable open area, a transport apparatus, and an article gateway, the transport apparatus including a transport vehicle and a transfer robot, wherein the transfer robot is configured to be able to deliver and receive an article at the article gateway, and the transport apparatus is configured to be capable of self-propelling by the transport vehicle and adjusting the height of the transfer robot to a target height. Doing so would allow for additional storage/treatment of semiconductors in the clean room.
Matsuura teaches the eyelid including a plate or sheet of a resin with an antistatic effect (Paragraphs 0053, 0087, and 0105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiya with the teachings of Matsuura to provide the eyelid including a plate or sheet of a resin with an antistatic effect. Doing so would prevent a charge from being imparted to the products which could damage the products.
Regarding claim 2, Kamiya teaches wherein an article to be managed by the article management storage is FOUP or FOSB (30 is considered a FOUP per the specification, this is labeled in Figure 3 and unlabeled in Figure 1. Additionally, this is considered intended use and the device is capable of handling a FOUP or FOSB).
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 STEVEN S ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)272-2055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Hoang can be reached at 574-272-6460. 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.
/STEVEN S ANDERSON II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights