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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 9, 13-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US20110158774A1 -hereinafter Yamaguchi) in view of Li et al. (CN116300734A -hereinafter Li -As the machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches a method of operating an automatic handling system, comprising:
controlling a handling device to move forward to a load port of a production equipment; (see [0031]; Yamaguchi: “The first transfer arm 21 moves up and down with respect to wafer mounting surfaces of the two load-lock chambers 32 and the FOUPs 1 mounted on the respective mounting stages 11 to perform delivery of the wafers W.”)
controlling an image capturing device of the handling device to capture an image of the load port; (see [0037]; Yamaguchi: “The image pickup unit 41 provided at the support part 27 includes an imaging unit for capturing an image of the inside of each of the FOUPs 1. The imaging unit includes a CCD camera 42 and a wide angle lens 43 provided on the side of the transfer ports 23 at a side surface of the CCD camera 42.”)
and determining whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port. (see [0041]; Yamaguchi: “the mapping program 53 b includes instructions to perform a mapping step of acquiring a vertical position of each wafer W and determining whether there is abnormality of a received state of the wafer W based on the image data obtained by the CCD camera 42.”)
However, Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach: receiving a signal of a load request by a receiver of the handling device; determining whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request;
Li from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
receiving a signal of a load request by a receiver of the handling device; (see page 3, paragraph 12; Li: “acquiring a carrying request sent by target equipment;”)
determining whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request; (see page 10, paragraph 7; Li: “After receiving the LOTEND information returned by the MES, the EAP judges whether it has received the RTU signal representing the handling request.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Yamaguchi to include Li’s features of receiving a signal of a load request by a receiver of the handling device and determining whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request. Doing so would improve the utilization rate of conveyance control. (Li, page 6, paragraph 8)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yamaguchi and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Li further teaches wherein determining whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port is performed after determining whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request. (see page 5, first paragraph; Li: “The process end data completion information may be load information, where the load information is a return value indicating that the data processing is normal or abnormal, which is returned after the MES processes the data.”)
The same motivation to combine Yamaguchi and Li a set forth for Claim 1 equally applies to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yamaguchi and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Yamaguchi further teaches wherein determining whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port further comprises processing the image of the load port. (see [0041]; Yamaguchi: “the mapping program 53 b includes instructions to perform a mapping step of acquiring a vertical position of each wafer W and determining whether there is abnormality of a received state of the wafer W based on the image data obtained by the CCD camera 42.”)
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yamaguchi and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Yamaguchi further teaches wherein determining whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port further comprises:
determining whether the image of the load port comprises a foreign object; (see [0047]; Yamaguchi: “Then, as described above, mapping, i.e., detecting vertical positions of respective wafers W in the FOUP 1 is performed based on image data obtained by the CCD camera 42 (step S15),”)
confirming there is no abnormal condition in the load port if there is no foreign object within a range of the load port; and (see [0047]; Yamaguchi: “it is determined whether each of the wafers W is normally (correctly) received (step S16).”)
issuing an alarm if there is the foreign object within a range of the load port. (see [0047]; Yamaguchi: “If abnormality of a received state of any one of the wafers W is detected, for example, an alarm 57 is operated (step S17), and the transfer operation of the first transfer arm 21 is stopped.”)
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi and Li as discussed connection with claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi and Li as discussed connection with claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi and Li as discussed connection with claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi and Li as discussed connection with claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, and Gilchrist as discussed connection with claim 7.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Li in view of Yang et al. (US20230152775A1 -hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yamaguchi and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein controlling the image capturing device of the handling device to capture the image of the load port is performed after receiving the signal of the load request by the receiver of the handling device.
Yang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein controlling the image capturing device of the handling device to capture the image of the load port is performed after receiving the signal of the load request by the receiver of the handling device. (see [0058]; Yang: “The control unit 301 may receive inspection schedule information from the diagnostic server 400. The control unit 301 may receive the inspection schedule information via the communication unit thereof. The control unit 301 may transmit the received inspection schedule information to the transport device controller 200.” See [0059]: “. After identifying arrival of the transport device 100, the control unit 301 may check, through the inspection module 302, whether or not the transport device 100 is a current inspection object. For example, the control unit 301 may control a camera 302 a included in the inspection module 302 and, as such, the camera 302 a may photograph the equipment name (for example, ID) of the transport device 100 having arrived at the inspection position.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yamaguchi and Li to include Yang’s features of controlling the image capturing device of the handling device to capture the image of the load port is performed after receiving the signal of the load request by the receiver of the handling device. Doing so would efficiently and safely inspect a transport device and to prevent degradation of productivity of a semiconductor production line caused by failure of a transport device. (Yang, [0088])
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, and Yang as discussed connection with claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Li in view of Lin et al. (CN101482445A -hereinafter Lin -Note: As the machine translation attached) in view of Gilchrist et al. (US20060088272A1 -hereinafter Gilchrist).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yamaguchi and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach wherein the image capturing device of the handling device captures the image of a status light disposed on the load port.
Lin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: wherein the image capturing device of the handling device captures the image of a status light... (see Abstract; Lin: “performing image capture to the work state indicator lamp of the tested equipment under working state.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yamaguchi and Li to include Lin’s features of capturing the image of a status light. Doing so would solve the problem that whether the equipment work state indicator lamp is normal cannot be tested. (Lin, Abstract)
However, it does not explicitly teach: …a status light disposed on the load port.
Gilchrist from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: …and a status light disposed on the load port (see [0053]; Gilchrist: “Referring again to FIG. 4B, in this exemplary embodiment the carrier 100 may have an indication panel or device 102 for indicating to an operator various operating status and or health conditions associated with the carrier.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the step of capturing an image of a status light of the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, and Lin into the indication panel of the carrier of Gilchrist. Doing so would achieve time reduction and product ramp time improvement. (Gilchrist, [0005])
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, Lin, and Gilchrist as discussed connection with claim 3.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Li in view of Lin in view of Gilchrist in view of Iida et al. (US20110012745A1 -hereinafter Iida).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, Lin, and Gilchrist teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above, Li further teaches wherein determining whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request further comprises: (see page 3, paragraph 12; Li: “acquiring a carrying request sent by target equipment;”)
However, it does not explicitly teach: determining whether a visual signal of the status light conforms to the signal of the load request; confirming the receiver receiving the signal of the load request if the visual signal of the status light conforms to the signal of the load request; and issuing an alarm if the visual signal of the status light does not conform to the signal of the load request.
Iida from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
determining whether a visual signal of the status light conforms to the signal of the load request; (see [0148]; Iida: “The access management unit 330 receives instructions of the operation condition of the signal indicator 306 from the user (operator) via the host computer 302 and the UI device 312. The access management unit 330 decodes the operation condition of the signal indicator 306 given from the user (operator) to check whether or not there is an error in the given operation condition.”)
confirming the receiver receiving the signal of the load request if the visual signal of the status light conforms to the signal of the load request; and (see [0148]; Iida: “In the case where the check result is OK, the access management unit 330 sends the operation condition to the control unit 332.”)
issuing an alarm if the visual signal of the status light does not conform to the signal of the load request. (see [0148]; Iida: “in the case where a result of the checking is NG, displays the check result on the display unit 314 of the UI device 312.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yamaguchi, Li, Lin, and Gilchrist to include Iida’s features of determining whether a visual signal of the status light conforms to the signal of the load request; confirming the receiver receiving the signal of the load request if the visual signal of the status light conforms to the signal of the load request; and issuing an alarm if the visual signal of the status light does not conform to the signal of the load request. Doing so would make it easy to perform the operation validation when an error occurs. (Iida, [0195])
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, Lin, Gilchrist, and Iida as discussed connection with claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, Gilchrist, and Iida as discussed connection with claim 4.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Li in view of Lin et al. (US20200105555A1 -hereinafter Lin55).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Yamaguchi and Li teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, it does not explicitly teach further comprising permitting the handling device to place a material box to the load port performed after determining whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port.
Lin55 from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: further comprising permitting the handling device to place a material box to the load port performed after determining whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port. (see [0053]; Lin: “when no abnormal trend is observed, the long-term monitoring of the load port 311 continues. In some embodiments, the long-term monitoring is performed while the semiconductor device manufacturing is performed. However, when the abnormal trend of the environmental parameters of a certain load port is observed, the wafer pod 101 housing the wafers will not be placed on that load port, as described in FIG. 8.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Yamaguchi and Li to include Lin’s features of permitting the handling device to place a material box to the load port performed after determining whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port. Doing so would immediately report any problems with the tools and reduce the time required for dealing with tool problems and the possibility of cracks forming in the tools. (Lin55, [0021])
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, and Lin as discussed connection with claim 8.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Li in view of Gilchrist et al. (US20060088272A1 -hereinafter Gilchrist).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamaguchi teaches an automatic handling system, comprising:
a production equipment comprising a load port… (see [0003]; Yamaguchi: “The substrate processing apparatus is provided with horizontally arranged mounting units (loading ports) for respectively mounting (connecting) FOUPs.”)
a handling device comprising an image capturing device configured to capture an image of the load port; and (see [0037]; Yamaguchi: “The image pickup unit 41 provided at the support part 27 includes an imaging unit for capturing an image of the inside of each of the FOUPs 1. The imaging unit includes a CCD camera 42 and a wide angle lens 43 provided on the side of the transfer ports 23 at a side surface of the CCD camera 42.”)
a processing unit electrically or communicatively connected to the production equipment and the handling device, wherein the processing unit is configured to: (see [0039]; Yamaguchi: “Further, as shown in FIG. 6, the substrate processing apparatus includes the controller 51 having a computer for controlling an entire operation of the apparatus. The controller 51 includes a CPU 52, a camera moving program 53 a, a mapping program 53 b, an operation program 53 c of a transfer arm and a memory 54.”)
control the handling device to move forward to the load port of the production equipment; (see [0031]; Yamaguchi: “The first transfer arm 21 moves up and down with respect to wafer mounting surfaces of the two load-lock chambers 32 and the FOUPs 1 mounted on the respective mounting stages 11 to perform delivery of the wafers W.”)
control the image capturing device of the handling device to capture the image of the load port; (see [0037]; Yamaguchi: “The image pickup unit 41 provided at the support part 27 includes an imaging unit for capturing an image of the inside of each of the FOUPs 1. The imaging unit includes a CCD camera 42 and a wide angle lens 43 provided on the side of the transfer ports 23 at a side surface of the CCD camera 42.”)
and determine whether there is any abnormal condition in the load port. (see [0041]; Yamaguchi: “the mapping program 53 b includes instructions to perform a mapping step of acquiring a vertical position of each wafer W and determining whether there is abnormality of a received state of the wafer W based on the image data obtained by the CCD camera 42.”)
However, Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach:
…and a status light disposed on the load port and configured to display a plurality of visual signals, wherein the visual signals comprise an allowable-to-load signal, an unallowable-to-load signal, an allowable-to-unload signal, and an unallowable-to-unload signal;
receive a signal of a load request or an unload request by a receiver of the handling device;
determine whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request or the unload request;
Li from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches:
receiving a signal of a load request by a receiver of the handling device; (see page 3, paragraph 12; Li: “acquiring a carrying request sent by target equipment;”)
determining whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request; (see page 10, paragraph 7; Li: “After receiving the LOTEND information returned by the MES, the EAP judges whether it has received the RTU signal representing the handling request.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Yamaguchi to include Li’s features of receiving a signal of a load request by a receiver of the handling device and determining whether the receiver receives the signal of the load request. Doing so would improve the utilization rate of conveyance control. (Li, page 6, paragraph 8)
However, it does not explicitly teach: …and a status light disposed on the load port and configured to display a plurality of visual signals, wherein the visual signals comprise an allowable-to-load signal, an unallowable-to-load signal, an allowable-to-unload signal, and an unallowable-to-unload signal;
Gilchrist from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: …and a status light disposed on the load port (see [0053]; Gilchrist: “Referring again to FIG. 4B, in this exemplary embodiment the carrier 100 may have an indication panel or device 102 for indicating to an operator various operating status and or health conditions associated with the carrier.”) and configured to display a plurality of visual signals (see [0053]; Gilchrist: “For example the indication device may be indicator lights connected to a suitable logic circuit to switch on/off, according to respective conditions, and thereby become illuminated to indicate the corresponding condition. In alternate embodiments, the indication device on the carrier may be a graphic display, such as an LCD display, operated by a suitable controller programmed to generate desired indicia on the display corresponding to conditions of the carrier.”), wherein the visual signals comprise an allowable-to-load signal, an unallowable-to-load signal, an allowable-to-unload signal, and an unallowable-to-unload signal; (see [0053]; Gilchrist: “Examples of conditions that may be indicated by the indicia 102A-102E in the indication panel may be proper/improper interface of carrier to load port, carrier door open/closed, interior carrier environment condition (for example in the case a door seal has failed or is not properly seated), substrate shelf load/unload condition, substrate aligned/not aligned condition and in the case for independently powered carriers a battery status condition.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Yamaguchi and Li to include Gilchrist’s features of a status light disposed on the load port and configured to display a plurality of visual signals, wherein the visual signals comprise an allowable-to-load signal, an unallowable-to-load signal, an allowable-to-unload signal, and an unallowable-to-unload signal. Doing so would reduce wafer cycle time through the fab and reduce the amount of work in progress as well as to improve wafer safety. (Gilchrist, [0005])
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Yamaguchi, Li, and Gilchrist teaches all the limitations of claim 17 above, Yamaguchi further teaches wherein the handling device further comprises: a main body (see [0035]; Yamaguchi: “the atmospheric transfer chamber 22.”), wherein the image capturing device is disposed on the main body (see [0037]; Yamaguchi: “The image pickup unit 41 provided at the support part 27 includes an imaging unit for capturing an image of the inside of each of the FOUPs 1.” See [0036]: “A ball screw 28 is provided in parallel to the corresponding rail 26 to pass through the support part 27 in the longitudinal direction of the atmospheric transfer chamber 22.”); and a clamping portion connected to the main body and configured to clamp a material box. (see [0031]; Yamaguchi: “The first transfer arm 21 is vertically movably supported by an elevating support shaft 25 uprising from a bottom surface of the atmospheric transfer chamber 22 at an approximately central portion of the atmospheric transfer chamber 22 in its longitudinal direction (left-to-right direction (x-direction) in FIG. 1) as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2. The first transfer arm 21 moves up and down with respect to wafer mounting surfaces of the two load-lock chambers 32 and the FOUPs 1 mounted on the respective mounting stages 11 to perform delivery of the wafers W.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuo et al. (US20190067040A1) discloses automatically open and close a door of a wafer carrier, and store the door in a door storage space when the wafer carrier is loaded for wafer processing.
Yotsuya (US5093797A) discloses an imaging unit for picking up the image of a packaged circuit board, a decision unit for deciding the state of the parts mounted on the packaged circuit board, and a visualizing unit for displaying visibly the result of the decision and position of the relevant part in correspondence with each other.
Yoneda (US20090114150A1) discloses simultaneously display a transfer state of substrates (wafers) held on a substrate holding tool and detail-information thereof on the same screen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights