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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 05/10/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “an FFU chamber” without any explanation of what FFU stands for in the claim. It will be assumed that “an FFU chamber” instead states ---a fan filter unit (FFU) chamber----.
Claim 1 states “the FFU room” which lacks antecedent basis as this is unclaer if it is referring back to “an FFU chamber”.
Claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and therefore inherit the 35 USC 112B deficiencies of their parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korean Unexamined publication number KR1020160133171 Shin et al. (hereinafter Shin).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a wafer conveyance device for conveying a wafer between a FOUP in which the wafer is stored and a processing device for processing the wafer (figure 2, EFEM 100, substrate transfer robot inside substrate transfer chamber 112 (paragraph 26) comprising a wafer conveyance chamber in which a conveyance robot is installed (paragraph 26, chamber 112); an FFU chamber communicating with the wafer conveyance chamber (FFU 115); a return duct provided in a wall or a door of the wafer conveyance chamber and communicating with both the wafer conveyance chamber and the FFU room (see duct 132); a blowing fan that blows gas from the FFU chamber into the wafer conveyance chamber (see FFU 115 includes a fan in paragraph 27) and a heat exchanger that cools the gas circulating in an internal space including the FFU chamber, the return duct, and the wafer conveyance chamber (vaporizer 156).
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses wherein the heat exchanger includes a cooling heat sink provided in an outer wall of the internal space and in contact with the gas (see 156 provided outside of 112 and outside of walls 110 and partially outside walls 136). Heat exchanger 156 absorbs heat from air circulating through 134 and 132 and therefore is a heat sink (see paragraph 33). Shin discloses a cold-water pipe that cools the cooling heat sink (see paragraph 131, processed cold water which is cold water circulates to condense the refrigerant in 154, said refrigerant provides cooling to heat sink 156).
Regarding claims 11-13, Shin discloses wherein the cooling heat sink 156 is installed in a ceiling of the FFU chamber (its installed above FFU 115), wherein the cooling heat sink is installed in a wall of the wafer conveyance chamber and installed in a wall of the return duct (heat sink/exchanger 156 is installed between walls 110 and 136 along the duct for the return air 132).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN.
Regarding claim 2, Shin discloses all of the above (see rejections above). If a cold water pipe is not inherent to providing cooling cold water to said condenser 154, the examiner goes on official notice that running cold water through a pipe to cool a heat sink is well known in the art of air cooling and refrigeration. It would have been obvious to utilize water to cool a heat sink with the heat exchanger of Shin in order to utilize readily accessible and cheap refrigerant wherein cold water is easily attainable and well known to be utilized to cool heat sinks. This is also merely use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
Regarding claims 11-13, Shin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Additionally, the specific location of the heat sink is found to be obvious - The examiner additionally points out that the specific location of the heat sink along the air flow path within the walls is considered a design choice. Applicant in their own specification provides multiple options with no criticality outlined for any of the specific locations as long as the cooling is provided to the flowing air being sent back through the FFU. In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Claim(s) 3-4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication number 2011/0083446 Pinet.
Regarding claim 3, Shin discloses claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the heat exchanger includes a cooling heat sink provided in an outer wall of the internal space and in contact with the gas (see 156 placed between walls 110 of internal space 112 and walls 136. Shin does not disclose a Peltier element that is provided on a heat dissipation surface of the cooling heat sink and cools the cooling heat sink. This is disclosed by Pinet (see 3, 4A and 4B) who provides for a cooling heat sink to cool air within a chamber 28 that includes a heat sink 25 and a Peltier element (thermoelectric module 10; see paragraphs 31-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to utilize a thermoelectric module and heat sink as provided by Pinet as the air cooling device in Shin in order to provide a more electronically controlled cooling and to avoid the need for a complex refrigerant circuit. This is a Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. a substitution of a cooling heat exchanger for cooling air with a heat sink/thermoelectric module for cooling said air in Shin. This is also applying a known technique to a known device, i.e. utilizing the entire heat sink assembly of Pinet in the duct or external wall of Shin to provide cooling to a chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Pinet further discloses (figures 3, 4A, and 4B) the heat exchanger (heat assembly of Pinet being applied into the wall or duct of Shin) includes a heat dissipation heat sink 31 that dissipates heat of a high-temperature surface of the Peltier element 13 and a cooling fan 38 that cools the heat dissipation heat sink (paragraphs 31-33). See motivation to apply the heat exchanger assembly of Pinet in Shin in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Pinet as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. patent number 4,726,193 Burke et al. (hereinafter Burke).
Regarding claim 5, Shin as modified discloses comprising an electric compartment in which the electric components are accommodated (electric compartment pat of the FFU compartment, comprising the TED as modified by Pinet and therefore has electric components such as the TED of Pinet) wherein the cooling heat sink is provided in the FFU chamber (space outside of 112) and the Peltier element, heat dissipation heat sink and the cooling fan are provide in the electric compartment (Peltier element is an electrical component so any compartment it is in can be considered an electric compartment). Additionally Burke provides a similar cooling heat exchanger assembly that utilizes a cold heat sink 26, a thermoelectric element with hot and cold plates 64/60/62, and a warm heat sink and fan 30/66. Burke further discloses an electronic compartment space above lid 14 (see figure 1) that contains the fan 30, Peltier element 60, and heat dissipation heat sink 66 and then the cooled chamber representative of an FFU portion of the chamber in Shin that contains the cooling heat sink 26. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to keep the warm components outside of the treated chamber and separate from the cold chamber and heat sink as disclosed by Burke in order to avoid heat loss and thermal bridges that could inadvertently heat up the air instead of efficiently cool. This is also merely use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (separation of hot and cold components into different chambers separated by a wall) and Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement (separating hot and cold sinks from each other with a wall to isolate the cooling and warming areas) to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Pinet as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of NPL Custom Thermoelectric (https://web.archive.org/web/20210916184035/https://customthermoelectric.com/media/wysiwyg/Tech_info_images/app_note_TEG_Install_R2_300C_graphite.pdf).
Regarding claim 6, Pinet further discloses comprising a flat plate sandwiched between the cooling heat sink and a low-temperature surface of the Peltier element (see figure 1, Peltier units commonly have low and high temperature surfaces sandwiched between two plates, in this case plate 14 is on the cold side of TED 35 sandwiched between heat sink 25 and TED 35), wherein the cooling heat sink 25, the flat plate 14, and the heat dissipation heat sink 31 are integrally fixed by a bolt inserted from a side of the cooling heat sink (see bolts 44 inserted into the cooling heat sink from a side of the heat sink, inserted 45 down into 44). All of the components are integrally connected to each other some of which are through bolts 45, i.e. the cooling heat sink would not be integrally connected with the TED and heat dissipation heat sink without bolts 44. Further the examiner goes on official notice that applying bolts from the cold side up through the same components is well known in the art. Further it would have been obvious as merely a design choice that bolts can be utilized in either direction through the components to secure the components in the same way integrally. Further, Custom Thermoelectric discloses utilizing bolts inserted from a side of the cooling heat sink to integrally fix a heat sink, flat plate, and heat dissipation sink (see page 4, Screw entering heat sink cold side through both hot and cold side sinks around a TEG). See motivation above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to connect the assembly screws on the cold side to avoid heat leaking along the screws/bolts into the compartment from the head of the bolts in the outside hotter compartment.
Regarding claim 7, Pinet does not explicitly discloses comprising a resin material sandwiched between a head of the bolt and other surfaces (such as a cooling heat sink when modified by Custom Thermoelectric), however does provide for the bolts themselves to be nylon fasteners to avoid thermal bridging between the hot and cold side. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s invention to use nylon for the spacers 50 and 48 to help insulate the cold and hot sides and avoid any heat bridges. Pinet clearly provides nylon (a resin) as a well-known material to avoid heat bridging and it would be a simple substitution to change the material of the spacers to be nylon or some other well-known resin to insulate from thermal exchange.
Regarding claim 8, Pinet provides for an opening in the Outerwall (opening between walls of 29) of the internal space in which the cooling heat sink is inserted (see heat sink sitting inside the chamber), wherein the flat plate is installed so as to cover the opening from the outside (plate 14 covering part of the opening with blocks 34 and fixed to the outer wall with a bolt inserted from the outside (see bolts 45/47, again examiner points out the direction of the bolts is found to be an obvious design choice as a manufacturer can install the device with bolts entering through the cooling fin side or through bolts entering from the outside of the wall to attach the assembly into the outer wall. See motivation in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 9 – see the rejection of claim 7 above with regard to the obviousness of utilizing resin spacers to avoid heat bridge.
Regarding claim 10, Pinet further discloses a sealing material sandwiched between the outer wall and the flat plate (see blocks 34). Motivation for using the assembly of Pinet with the chamber of Shin is in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keith Raymond whose telephone number is (571)270-1790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798