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 Arguments
1. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 08/06/26 regarding rejected claims on pages 8-10, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues “Wendel does not teach moving an optical device of an inspecting module by a robot arm, moving the optical device by the robot arm inside the space along a second direction intersected with the first direction…” The Examiner would like to make clear that Wendel teaches the limitation “moving an optical device … moving the optical device inside the space along a direction”, ([0019]; [0021], lines 1-9; [0045], lines 6-7; [0046]).
The limitation that Wendel does not teach is “moving the optical device by the robot arm … along a second direction intersected with the first direction”. However, this limitation is disclosed by Hu, ([0026, 0045]; figures 1A, 1B, moving an optical device camera 120, a robot arm 110 inside the space of housing 102). Hu discloses “The robot arm 110 may be called a “6-axis robot,” and it can move the camera 120 along X, −X, Y, −Y, Z, and −Z directions as shown in FIG. 1B”, ([0045], lines 3-5). It is obvious that X, −X, Y, −Y, Z, and −Z directions are intersected to each other.
3. Applicant also argues “the robot arm 110 of Hu is located within the housing 102 while the wafer carrier is located outside the housing 102, i.e. the housing 102 isolates the robot arm 110 and the wafer carrier from each other … Therefore, Hu does not disclose the movement of the camera 120 from the inside of the housing 102 to the outside of the housing 102 by the robot arm 110, not to mention the movement of the camera 120 (along the first direction) into the wafer carrier, followed by the movement of the camera 120 inside the wafer carrier (along the second direction intersected with the first direction) by the robot arm 110”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First: The current claims disclose “moving an optical device of an inspecting module by a robot arm to insert the optical device along a first direction at least partially into a space of a front opening unified pod”. The claims do not require that the robot arm must be located inside or outside the pod/housing, and the claims do not require moving the camera from the inside of the housing to the outside of the housing.
Second: The above Applicant’s argument could be considered only if it is amended into the claims and specification.
Third: Wendel has already taught the limitation “moving an optical device … moving the optical device inside the space along a direction”, (Please see paragraph 2 above). The limitation that Wendel does not teach is “moving … by the robot arm … along a second direction intersected with the first direction”. However, Hu teaches this limitation, (please see paragraph 2 above). Moreover, limitations that Wendel has already disclosed, Hu does not need to disclose again. In other words, Hu does not need to disclose all limitations of the claims except for the limitation “moving … by the robot arm … along a second direction intersected with the first direction”.
Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/26 was filed after the mailing date of 06/17/26 on Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claim(s) 9-10, 12-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendel (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0203201) in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0067057). Hereafter “Wendel” and “Hu”.
Regarding Claim 9, Wendel teaches an inspecting method, ([0002]) comprising:
moving an optical device of an inspecting module, ([0019]; [0021], lines 1-9; [0045], lines 6-7; [0046]. Please see the explanation in paragraphs 2-3 above), to insert the optical device along a first direction at least partially into a space of a front opening unified pod (FOUP), (figure 1, the combination of reflector element 120, and light source 100, and camera 140 is not different from an inspecting module. The reflector element 120 is not different from an optical device, and the reflector element 120 is at least partially inserting along a first direction along the walls 21, 22, into the interior space 30 of the front opening unified pod container body 20);
moving the optical device inside the space along a direction, ([0019]; [0021], lines 1-9; [0045], lines 6-7; [0046]), and
inspecting an inner surface of the FOUP through obtaining an image of the inner surface by the optical device (Abstract, [0009], lines 8-16; [0021, 0026, 0042-0044]), to identify any protrusion on the inner surface ([0022, 0026, 0028]. Wendel discloses “determining damages and/or defects to FOUPs, … to identify certain contaminants on surfaces, such as, for example, broken pieces of a wafer or of the container itself … container bodies not conforming to these specifications can be safely identified”. These limitations are not different from identifying any protrusion on the inner surface).
However, Wendel does not teach moving the optical device by the robot arm along a second direction intersected with the first direction. Hu teaches moving the optical device by a robot arm along a second direction intersected with the first direction, ([0026, 0045]; figures 1A, 1B, moving an optical device camera 120, a robot arm 110 inside the space of the housing 102. Hu discloses “The robot arm 110 may be called a “6-axis robot,” and it can move the camera 120 along X, −X, Y, −Y, Z, and −Z directions as shown in FIG. 1B”, [0045], lines 3-5. It is obvious that X, -X, Y, -Y, Z, -Z directions are intersected to each other. Please see the explanation in paragraphs 2-3 above). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wendel by moving the optical device by the robot arm along a second direction intersected with the first direction in order to capture images of the inside of the inspected object at different locations and from different angles, (Hu, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wendel as modified by Hu, teaches an inspecting method according to claim 9 as stated above except for analyzing the image obtained. Wendel further teaches analyzing the image obtained (Abstract, lines 7-11; [0009], lines 11-16; [0015]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wendel as modified by Hu, teaches an inspecting method according to claim 9 as stated above except for obtaining a profile of the inner surface; and analyzing the profile obtained. Wendel further teaches obtaining a profile of the inner surface; and analyzing the profile obtained ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wendel as modified by Hu, teaches an inspecting method according to claim 9 as stated above except for the robot arm is further configured to at least partially rotate the optical device. Hu also teaches the robot arm is further configured to at least partially rotate the optical device ([0026, 0045]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wendel by having the robot arm at least partially rotating the optical device in order to capture images of the inside of the inspected object at different locations and from different angles, (Hu, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wendel as modified by Hu, teaches an inspecting method according to claims 9 and 12 as stated above except for identifying a protrusion on the inner surface when a variation of the profile obtained exceeds a predetermined value. Wendel further teaches identifying a protrusion on the inner surface when a variation of the profile obtained exceeds a predetermined value ([0022, 0026, 0028]. Wendel discloses “comparing images generated by the at least one camera with images of containers conforming to a desired specification, i.e. reference images, container bodies not conforming to these specifications can be safely identified”. These limitations are not different from a variation of the profile obtained exceeds a predetermined value).
7. Claim(s) 11, 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendel (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0203201) in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0067057), further in view of Ahsan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0289935). Hereafter “Wendel”, “Hu”, “Ahsan”.
Regarding Claim 11, Wendel as modified by Hu, teaches an inspecting method according to claims 9 and 10 as stated above except for analyzing by artificial intelligence. Ahsan teaches analyzing by artificial intelligence, ([0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wendel and Hu by analyzing artificial intelligence in order to independently analyze different physical parameters effectively.
Regarding Claim 16, Wendel as modified by Hu, teaches an inspecting method according to claim 9 as stated above except for partially rotating the inspecting module. Ahsan teaches partially rotating the inspecting module, ([0043, 0044, 0046, 0048], [0058], lines 18-23). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wendel and Hu by partially rotating the inspecting module in order to operate detecting system effectively.
Other references
8. The reference of Wilkinson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0106516) also teach the limitation “inserting an optical device of an inspecting module at least partially into a space of a front opening … and inspecting an inner surface … through obtaining an image of the inner surface by the inspecting module optical device”, (figure 2, insert the cameras 120, 122 into the pipe 106, these cameras can capture images of the inside surface 107 of the object pipe 106). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Wendel by inserting an optical device into a space of a front opening of the object in order to capture images of the inside surface of the object.
Conclusion
9. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
September 23, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
