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. 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).
2. With respect to applicant’s remarks filed on 03/11/26 regarding rejected claim 9, pages 7-9, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues “light source 100 and reflector 120 of Wendel are not used to obtain an image, light source 100 and reflector 120 of Wendel cannot be compared to the optical device of amended claim 9. Since the Office asserts that light source 100, reflector 120 and camera 140 of Wendel correspond to the claimed inspecting module, in which only camera 140 is used to obtain an image, for the sake of analysis, camera 140 is assumed to correspond to the claimed optical device (which Applicant does not agree)”.
First: Current claim 9 discloses: “inserting an optical device of an inspecting module at least partially into a space of a front opening unified pod (FOUP)”.
The following dictionary has the definition of wording “optical”
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/optical
Optical devices, processes, and effects involve or relate to vision, light, or images.
of, relating to, producing, or involving light
of or connected with the sense of sight; visual; ocular
of the relation between light and vision
having to do with optics
To the Examiner point of view, any device related to vision, light, or images is considered as an optical device. So, the reflector element 120 is not different from an optical device. Further, an inspecting module of Wendel’s reference could be considered to include reflector element 120, light source 100, and camera 140. In the other words, the combination of reflector element 120, and light source 100, and camera 140 is not different from an inspecting module. Therefore, Wendel’s reference clearly discloses the limitation “inserting an optical device of an inspecting module 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 into a space 30 of a front opening unified pod container body 20).
Second: No where in claim 9 requires that “only camera 140 is used to obtain an image, for the sake of analysis, camera 140 is assumed to correspond to the claimed optical device”. In the other words, this limitation must be amended into the claims and specification in order to be considered.
3. The new added limitation “inspecting an inner surface of the FOUP through obtaining an image of the inner surface by the optical device” has been found in reference of Wendel’s reference, (Abstract, [0009], lines 8-16; [0021, 0026, 0042-0044]).
Wendel’s reference discloses: “the light is reflected by the reflector element in a diffuse manner and generating at least one image of the at least one interior surface by means of at least one camera, and evaluating the state of the container body on the basis of the at least one image” (Abstract, lines 7-11);
“Using reflector elements positioned in the interior of the container body can minimise or even avoid the requirement of moving the light source in order to illuminate regions of interest. By providing such an effective illumination of the interior of a container body, usage of cameras to generate images of the at least one interior surface of the container can be optimised, so that, as a result, an evaluation of the state of the container body can be performed in an effective manner ([0009], lines 8-16);
“Utilizing this homogenous illumination of interior surfaces 21a, 22a, cameras 140 generate images of interior surfaces 21a, 22a” ([0042], lines 8-11).
It is obvious that the reflector element 120 is the device which is used for reflecting light to the camera to generate images. This is not different from inspecting an inner surface of the FOUP through obtaining an image of the inner surface by using optical devices reflector element 120, and light source 100, and camera 140. In the other words, Wendel’s reference clearly teaches inspecting an inner surface of the FOUP through obtaining an image of the inner surface by the optical device, the reflector element 120.
4. Grounds for the rejection of claims are provided below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 9-10, 12, 14-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wendel (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0203201). Hereafter “Wendel”.
Regarding Claim 9, Wendel teaches an inspecting method, ([0002]) comprising:
inserting an optical device inspecting module 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 into a space 30 of a front opening unified pod container body 20. Please see the explanation in paragraph 2 above); 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]. Please see the explanation in paragraph 3 above), 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 to identify any protrusion on the inner surface).
Regarding Claim 10, Wendel teaches analyzing the image obtained (Abstract, lines 7-11; [0009], lines 11-16; [0015]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wendel teaches obtaining a profile of the inner surface; and analyzing the profile obtained ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wendel 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).
Regarding Claim 15, Wendel teaches moving the inspecting module by a robot arm ([0005], lines 1-4; [0048], lines 15-21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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 Ahsan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0289935). Hereafter “Wendel” and “Ahsan”.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Wendel teaches all the limitations of claim 9 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 by analyzing by artificial intelligence in order to independently analyze different physical parameters effectively.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Wendel teaches all the limitations of claims 9, 15, 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 by partially rotating the inspecting module in order to operate detecting system effectively.
9. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendel (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0203201) in view of Rebstock (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0040494). Hereafter “Wendel” and “Rebstock”.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Wendel teaches emitting a beam across the inner surface; and receiving the beam reflected from the inner surface, (figure 1, illumination light 102a, 102b, inner surface 21a-24a). However, Wendel does not teach laser beam. Rebstock teaches laser beam, ([0017]; [0024], lines 28-33). 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 laser beam in order to be utilized to confirm specific measurements of a FOUP ([0017]).
Other references
10. 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
11. 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 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 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.
Prosecution Insights