DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species Fig. 3 and Subspecies Figs. 4A-5B in the reply filed on 15 May 2026 is acknowledged. Newly added claims 21-33 are withdrawn from consideration as claims 21-26 are directed to non-elected invention of Group II which includes warpage measuring and contact pad elements, and claims 27-31 include limitations not recited in elected Group I, such as first and second positioning and contact features, which appear to be also directed to non-elected Group II. It is also noted by the Examiner that these limitations regarding “features” do not appear in the instant filed specification. Claims 1-3, and 7-10 are pending and under examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0001 of the instant filed specification must indicate that application 17/119,818 is now U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,020,963.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. 2019/0362995 to Ito et al. Ito et al. disclose a method of operating a processing apparatus (see entire reference) including: placing a substrate storage container (4) on a load port (2); matching a plurality of positioning holes (40) on a base board/bottom of the substrate storage container with a plurality of positioning pins (9) on a base frame (23) of the load port; and transferring a substrate to/from the substrate storage container when the substrate storage container is placed on the base frame (see claim 1) (as recited in in instant independent claim 1); receiving a front door (43) of the substrate storage container by a port window (front portion of 22 (O,C)) disposed on a front side of the load port (see Figs. 8 and 9) (as recited in instant dependent claim 7); opening the front door (43) of the substrate container by a port door (22 O,C) disposed adjacent to the port window (as recited in instant dependent claim 8).
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 6,591,162 to Martin. Martin discloses a method of operating a processing apparatus (see entire reference) including: placing a substrate storage container/carrier (20) on a load port (see Fig 2); matching a plurality of positioning holes/slots) on a base board/bottom surface of the substrate storage container with a plurality of positioning pins (29) on a base frame (27) of the load port; and transferring a substrate to/from the substrate storage container when the substrate storage container is placed on the base frame (see col. 6, lines 52-64) (as recited in in instant independent claim 1); receiving a front door (22) of the substrate storage container by a port window (30) disposed on a front side of the load port (see Figs. 8 and 9) (as recited in instant dependent claim 7); opening the front door (22) of the substrate container by a port door (26) disposed adjacent to the port window (as recited in instant dependent claim 8).
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0362995 to Ito et al. or U.S. 6,591,162 to Martin as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. 2017/0178942 to Sakata et al. Ito et al. or Martin disclose a method for operating a processing apparatus having all of the previous elements and method steps recited previously. Ito et al. or Martin do not explicitly disclose moving a platform table of the load port in a translation direction towards or away from the port window. Sakata et al. disclose a method for operating a processing apparatus (see entire reference) wherein moving a platform/stage (14) of a load port (2) in a translation direction towards and away from a port window (11) (see para 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary to modify the method of operating a processing apparatus, disclosed by Ito et al. or Martin, to further employ a movable platform/stage to move the substrate storage container/FOUP towards and away from the port window of the load port so as to engage the load port by a stage drive unit with a motor allowing highly controlled movement to any desired/arbitrary position and provide the correct positional relationship to transfer the substrate from the substrate storage container/FOUP to be processed, and to provability to maintain hermetical sealing to the substrate storage container/FOUP to cope with miniaturization of the semiconductor circuit (see paras 0001-0005 of Sakata et al.) meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 9.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,020,963 in view of U.S. 2014/0222202 to Yoshida. Instant independent claim 1 recites the same limitations of independent claim 1 of the ‘963 patent, including placing a substrate storage container on a load port; matching a plurality of positioning holes on a base board of a substrate storage container with a plurality of positioning pins on a base frame of the load port; wherein instant independent claim 2 matches the limitations of independent claim 1 of the ‘963 patent being emitting a signal to a surface of a substrate from an emitter disposed on the base board; and collecting the signal reflected from the surface of the substrate by a receiver disposed on the base board; and instant independent claim 3 matches the limitations of dependent claim 13 regarding transmitting data corresponding to the collected signal to a signal processor. The claims of the ‘963 patent do not recite transferring a substrate from the substrate storage container when the substrate storage container is placed on the base frame or the positioning pins are on a base frame of the load port, as recited in instant independent claim 1, or that the signal processor is in the base frame of the load port, as recited in instant dependent claim 3, however, the load port must inherently include some type of structure/frame/base to mount the positioning pins thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to employ a base frame, or any other equivalent structure to fixedly mount the positioning pins, to ensure accurate placement. As to the location of the processor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to locate the processor in the base frame, or at any other desired location, based on design choice, since the instant filed disclosure fails to disclose any particular design or engineering purpose to locating the processor in the base frame, that is solves any particular design or engineering problem, and the processor can be placed anywhere in the processing apparatus and function equally as well to process signals. As to the limitations of transferring a substrate from the substrate storage container when the substrate storage container is placed on the base frame, this is a common procedural method step in processing apparatuses, since substrates in the substrate storage container must be transferred from the substrate storage container within the processing apparatuses. This is evidenced by Yoshida. Yoshida discloses a method of operating a processing apparatus (see entire reference) wherein substrates are transferred to/from a substrate storing container (see paras 0005, 0013, 0065). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the invention of the ‘963 patent to further being configured to transfer a substrate from the substrate storage container when placed on the base frame for further processing. As to instant dependent claim 10, claims 16 and 17 of the ‘963 patent states a rechargeable battery is embedded in the baseboard of the of the substrate storage container, thus inherently must be connected to a power source to recharge from the base frame, or any other power source mounted otherwise to recharge the battery.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,020,963 in view of U.S. 2014/0222202 to Yoshida and in further view of U.S. 6,591,162 to Martin. Martin discloses a method of operating a processing apparatus (see entire reference) including: placing a substrate storage container/carrier (20) on a load port (see Fig 2); matching a plurality of positioning holes/slots) on a base board/bottom surface of the substrate storage container with a plurality of positioning pins (29) on a base frame (27) of the load port; and transferring a substrate to/from the substrate storage container when the substrate storage container is placed on the base frame (see col. 6, lines 52-64); receiving a front door (22) of the substrate storage container by a port window (30) disposed on a front side of the load port (see Figs. 8 and 9) (as recited in instant dependent claim 7); opening the front door (22) of the substrate container by a port door (26) disposed adjacent to the port window (as recited in instant dependent claim 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary to modify the method of operating a processing apparatus recited in claims 11-17 of the ‘963 patent and Yoshida, to further employ the method steps of instant dependent claims 7 and 8,
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,020,963 in view of U.S. 2014/0222202 to Yoshida and in further view of U.S. 2017/0178942 to Sakata et al. Sakata et al. disclose a method for operating a processing apparatus (see entire reference) wherein moving a platform/stage (14) of a load port (2) in a translation direction towards and away from a port window (11) (see para 0047). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary to modify the method of operating a processing apparatus recited in claims 11-17 of the ‘963 patent and Yoshida, to further employ a movable platform/stage to move the substrate storage container/FOUP towards and away from the port window of the load port so as to engage the load port by a stage drive unit with a motor allowing highly controlled movement to any desired/arbitrary position and provide the correct positional relationship to transfer the substrate from the substrate storage container/FOUP to be processed, and to provability to maintain hermetical sealing to the substrate storage container/FOUP to cope with miniaturization of the semiconductor circuit (see paras 0001-0005 of Sakata et al.) meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights