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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 5 provides for a heat sink being located both below a fan filter unit chamber and also in a FFU chamber both of which are not possible. Applicant is improperly combining different embodiments and there is no support for providing a heat sink in both of these locations not to mention the same heat sink in two places at once.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 provides for the cooling heat sink being provided in the FFU chamber however claim 1 clearly states the heat sink is located directly below the FFU chamber. Both of these cannot be the location of the heat sink. See 112A rejection above. This impossible arrangement has not been examined for prior art rejections as the heat sink cannot be in two different locations at once.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Unexamined publication number KR20180074277A Woo et al. (hereinafter WOO) in view of U.S. patent number 12,201,995 Kawai et al. (hereinafter Kawai).
Regarding claim 1, Woo discloses a wafer conveyance device (see figures 1, 2, 4,5a, 5b, 6, and 7) for conveying a wafer between a FOUP (Front-Opening Unified Pod) in which the wafer is stored and a processing device for processing the wafer, the wafer conveyance device comprising: a wafer conveyance chamber 140 in which a conveyance robot is installed 170; a fan filter unit (FFU) chamber 130 communicating with the wafer conveyance chamber; 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 chamber (see pathways 510a and 510b through 200d/200c/250); a blowing fan that blows gas from the FFU chamber into the wafer conveyance chamber 323b/323a; and a heat exchanger (heat sink 200) that cools the gas circulating in an internal space including the FFU chamber, the return duct, and the wafer conveyance chamber; wherein the heat exchanger includes a cooling heat sink fins 270 that is provided in an outer wall of the internal space and is in contact with the gas (located in outer wall ductwork); and wherein the cooling heat sink is installed on a wall of the wafer conveyance chamber or the return duct (located in return ducts, see figures).
Woo does not explicitly disclose wherein the cooling heat sink is located directly below the FFU chamber within the wafer conveyance chamber. This is disclosed by Kawai who provides a similar EFEM wherein the duct for flowing air back up to the FFU is below the FFU chamber 42. It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to have the duct work be below the FFU chamber as disclosed by Kawai with the ducts of Woo in order to allow for singular and consistent external walls aligned between both chambers. Further the specific arrangement and alignment of chambers and ductwork is a design choice that can be optimized for HVAC flow. Clearly providing the return ducts below an FFU chamber is well known in the EFEM art.
Regarding claim 2, Woo as modified above does not explicitly disclose wherein the heat exchanger includes a cold water pipe that cools the cooling heat sink. The examiner goes on official notice that cold water is a well known refrigerant for cooling heat sinks and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize water pipes to provide cold water to said heat sink of Woo in order to help in cooling said ducted streams and water is well known refrigerant that is both easily obtained, replaceable, safe, and affordable.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as modified and applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. patent application publication number 2011/0083446 Pinet.
Regarding claim 3, Woo as modified 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 rejection of claim 1 above). Woo also discloses a Peltier element that is provided on a heat dissipation surface of the cooling heat sink and cools the cooling heat sink (see PTED 211, figure 7). This is further 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 Woo 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 Woo. 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 Woo 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 Woo) 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 Woo in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as modified and 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 wafer conveyance device of Woo in the rejection of claim 3 above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights