CTNF 18/679,010 CTNF 83301 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the colon should be removed, and the semicolons should be removed or replaced by a comma. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “comprise” should be - - comprises - - (only one plate ) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. In the independent claims, it is unclear how the following phrases are possible. They are, “doors in the body part and configured to move in a first direction and open and close entrances of the load ports” and “a fan unit on the load ports and configured to provide an airflow in a direction opposite to the first direction .” The doors move in the first direction (D1) to open and close entrances of the load ports in up and down directions in FIG. 2. Direction 185 in FIG. 2 is down which is in the same as the opening direction of the doors (down direction) which renders the two limitations unclear; these directions appear to not be opposite to each other as claimed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 6-7, 12-14, and 16, as best understood , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (JP 2018-37543 A) in view of Shiu et al. (US 2022/0293447) (“Shiu”). Iwamoto discloses: Claim 1: a body part (figures 1-2 and 8, 310); load [port] ports in the body part (at 2b/13) and configured to have loaded therein front opening unified [pod] pods ([FOUP] FOUPs ; 2) that are configured to store a plurality of wafers (1); [door] doors (4) in the body part and configured to move in a first direction (Z-direction), and open and close entrances of the load [port] ports ; a fan unit on the load [port] ports (56) and configured to provide an airflow in a direction opposite to the first direction (down direction); a first screen plate between the fan unit and the load [port] ports and attached to the body part (30), the first screen plate comprising a slant edge (22b) that extends in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Y-direction); and second screen plates attached to the doors and that extend in the first direction from upper surfaces of the doors (230), wherein the first screen plate is configured to change a direction of the airflow (para. [0018]), and wherein the second screen plates are configured to prevent the airflow from entering the load [port] ports (para. [0018]/[0064]-[0067]); Claim 2: wherein in a case that the doors open the entrances of the load [port] ports , a level of uppermost parts of the second screen plates is lower than a level of lower surfaces of the load [port] ports (figure 8); Claim 3: wherein the first screen plate further comprises a bottom surface and sidewalls (bottom surface at leader 22 in figure 8; sidewalls in figure 2), the sidewalls being connected to the slant edge, and wherein an interior of the first screen plate defined by the slant edge, the bottom surface, and the sidewalls is an empty space (figures 1-2 and 8); Claim 6: wherein the first screen plate further comprises a bottom surface that is connected to the slant edge and extends in a third direction (X-direction) that intersects the first direction and the second direction (bottom surface at leader 22 in figure 8), and wherein an angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface of the first screen plate is in a range of 30° to 50°, inclusive (approx. 45°); Claim 7: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface is uniform along the third direction (figures 1-2 and 8); Claim 12: a body part (figures 1-2 and 8, 310); load [port] ports in the body part (at 2b/13) and configured to have loaded therein front opening unified [pod] pods ([FOUP] FOUPs; 2) that are configured to store a plurality of wafers (1); [door] doors (4) in the body part and configured to move in a first direction (Z-direction), and open and close entrances of the load [port] ports ; a fan unit on the load [port] ports (56) and configured to provide an airflow in a direction opposite to the first direction (down direction); a first screen plate between the fan unit and the load [port] ports and attached to the body part (30), the first screen plate comprising: a slant edge (22b) that extends in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Y-direction); a bottom surface that is connected to the slant edge and extends in a third direction (X-direction) that intersects the first direction and the second direction; and sidewalls that are connected to the slant edge and the bottom surface; (bottom surface at leader 22 in figure 8; sidewalls in figure 2) second screen plates attached to the doors and extending in the first direction from upper surfaces of the doors (230); and an index robot (54) configured to grasp and transfer the plurality of wafers disposed in the load [port] ports , wherein an interior of the first screen plate defined by the slant edge, the bottom surface, and the sidewalls is an empty space (figures 1-2 and 8), and wherein a height from lower surfaces of the load [port] ports to a bottom surface of the first screen plate is greater than a height from the lower surfaces of the load [port] ports to an uppermost part of the index robot (figure 1); Claim 13. The EFEM of claim 12, wherein an angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface is in a range of 30° to 50°, inclusive (approx. 45°); Claim 14: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface is uniform along the third direction (figures 1-2 and 8); Claim 16: wherein the index robot comprises a robot arm (54a) that is configured to directly grasp the plurality of wafers, and wherein in a case that the doors open entrances of the load [port] ports , a length, in the first direction, from uppermost parts of the second screen plates to the lower surfaces of the load [port] ports is greater than a thickness of the robot arm (figures 1-2 and 8). Iwamoto does not directly show: Claim 1: load ports; doors; FOUPs; Claim 2: load ports; Claim 12: load ports; doors; FOUPs; Claim 16: load ports. Shiu shows a similar device having: Claim 1: load ports (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); doors (FIG. 8; para. [0063]/[0069]); FOUPs (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); Claim 2: load ports (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); Claim 12: load ports (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); doors (FIG. 8; para. [0063]/[0069]); FOUPs (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); Claim 16: load ports (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing production efficiency and lowering associated costs by increasing the number of supply pods in the apparatus (para. [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto as taught by Shiu and include Shiu’s similar device having: Claim 1: load ports; doors; FOUPs; Claim 2: load ports; Claim 12: load ports; doors; FOUPs; Claim 16: load ports; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing production efficiency and lowering associated costs by increasing the number of supply pods in the apparatus . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19-20, as best understood , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto in view of Shiu and Asakawa et al. (US 5934856) (“Asakawa”). Iwamoto discloses: Claim 19: an equipment front-end module (EFEM; 50) that is configured to accommodate therein front opening unified [pod] pods ([FOUP] FOUPs ) that store wafers; a process chamber (para. [0023]-[0024]) connected to the EFEM and configured to perform a semiconductor process on the wafers; and a cleaning chamber configured to perform a cleaning process on the wafers that have been subjected to the semiconductor process , wherein the EFEM comprises: a body part (figures 1-2 and 8, 310); load [port] ports (at 2b/13) in the body part and configured to have the [FOUP] FOUPs loaded therein (2), [door] doors (4) in the body part and configured to move in a first direction (Z-direction) and open and close entrances of the load [port] ports ; a fan unit on the load [port] ports (56) and configured to provide an airflow in a direction opposite to the first direction (down direction), a first screen plate between the fan unit and the load [port] ports , and attached to the body part (30), the first screen plate comprising a slant edge (22b) extending in a second direction that intersects the first direction (Y-direction), and second screen plates attached to the doors and extending in the first direction from upper surfaces of the doors (230), wherein the first screen plate is configured to change a direction of the airflow (para. [0018]), and wherein the second screen plates are configured to prevent the airflow from entering the load [port] ports (para. [0018]/[0064]-[0067]); Claim 20: wherein the first screen plate further comprises a bottom surface connected to the slant edge and extending in a third direction that intersects the first direction and the second direction (bottom surface at leader 22 in figure 8), and wherein an angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface of the first screen plate is in a range of 30° to 50°, inclusive (approx. 45°). Iwamoto does not directly show: Claim 19: load ports; doors; FOUPs; a cleaning chamber configured to perform a cleaning process on the wafers that have been subjected to the semiconductor process. Shiu shows a similar device having: Claim 19: load ports (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); doors (FIG. 8; para. [0063]/[0069]); FOUPs (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing production efficiency and lowering associated costs by increasing the number of supply pods in the apparatus (para. [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto as taught by Shiu and include Shiu’s similar device having: Claim 19: load ports; doors; FOUPs; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing production efficiency and lowering associated costs by increasing the number of supply pods in the apparatus. Asakawa shows a similar device having: Claim 19: a cleaning chamber configured to perform a cleaning process on the wafers that have been subjected to the semiconductor process (col. 16, lines 52-64); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving transportation efficiency to increase wafer production yields (col. 1, line 60 to col. 2, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto and Shiu as taught by Asakawa and include Asakawa’s similar device having: a cleaning chamber configured to perform a cleaning process on the wafers that have been subjected to the semiconductor process; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving transportation efficiency to increase wafer production yields . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5, 9, 11, and 17, as best understood , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto in view of Shiu and Yamazaki et al. (JP 2006159093) (“Yamazaki”). Iwamoto discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above . Iwamoto does not directly show: Claim 4: a plurality of frames inside the first screen plate and supporting the slant edge and the bottom surface; Claim 5: wherein a spacing between the plurality of frames is uniform; Claim 9: wherein the first screen plate comprise a first sub-screen plate and a second sub-screen plate that have a same size as each other, and wherein the first sub-screen plate and the second sub-screen plate are connected in series in a third direction that intersects the first direction and the second direction; Claim 11: wherein a length of the first screen plate in a third direction that intersects the first direction and the second direction is greater than a length of the load [port] ports in the third direction; Claim 17: wherein the first screen plate comprises a first sub-screen plate and a second sub-screen plate having a same size as each other, and the first sub-screen plate and the second sub-screen plate are connected in series in the third direction. Shiu shows a similar device having: Claim 11: load ports (FIG. 8; para. [0063]); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing production efficiency and lowering associated costs by increasing the number of supply pods in the apparatus (para. [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto as taught by Shiu and include Shiu’s similar device having: Claim 11: load ports; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing production efficiency and lowering associated costs by increasing the number of supply pods in the apparatus. Yamazaki shows a similar device having: Claim 4: a plurality of frames inside the first screen plate and supporting the slant edge and the bottom surface (figure 4, 28’s inside); Claim 5: wherein a spacing between the plurality of frames is uniform (figure 4); Claim 9: wherein the first screen plate comprise a first sub-screen plate and a second sub-screen plate that have a same size as each other (27’s), and wherein the first sub-screen plate and the second sub-screen plate are connected in series in a third direction that intersects the first direction and the second direction (figure 4); Claim 11: wherein a length of the first screen plate in a third direction that intersects the first direction and the second direction is greater than a length of the load [port] ports in the third direction (figure 1 suggests this where 26/30 (first screen plate) are wider than where object 2 sits on 8/9 (port)); Claim 17: wherein the first screen plate comprises a first sub-screen plate and a second sub-screen plate having a same size as each other (27’s), and the first sub-screen plate and the second sub-screen plate are connected in series in the third direction (figure 4); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing more uniform downward airflow that reduces the likelihood of air turbulence to interfere with wafer transfer (para. [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto and Shiu as taught by Yamazaki and include Yamazaki’s similar device having: Claim 4: a plurality of frames inside the first screen plate and supporting the slant edge and the bottom surface; Claim 5: wherein a spacing between the plurality of frames is uniform; Claim 9: wherein the first screen plate comprise a first sub-screen plate and a second sub-screen plate that have a same size as each other, and wherein the first sub-screen plate and the second sub-screen plate are connected in series in a third direction that intersects the first direction and the second direction; Claim 11: wherein a length of the first screen plate in a third direction that intersects the first direction and the second direction is greater than a length of the load [port] ports in the third direction. Claim 17: wherein the first screen plate comprises a first sub-screen plate and a second sub-screen plate having a same size as each other, and the first sub-screen plate and the second sub-screen plate are connected in series in the third direction; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing more uniform downward airflow that reduces the likelihood of air turbulence to interfere with wafer transfer . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 and 15, as best understood , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto in view of Shiu and Mishima (JP 7-90939 A). Iwamoto discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above . It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker , 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Mishima is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned since it deals with protecting a structure from airflow. Iwamoto does not directly show: Claim 8: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface increases in a direction from an edge part of the first screen plate to a central part of the first screen plate; Claim 15: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface gradually increases from an edge part of the first screen plate to a central part of the first screen plate. Mishima shows a similar device having: Claim 8: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface increases in a direction from an edge part of the first screen plate to a central part of the first screen plate (3/31/etc. in figure 1 suggests the angle as claimed); Claim 15: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface gradually increases from an edge part of the first screen plate to a central part of the first screen plate (3/31/etc. in figure 1 suggests the angle as claimed); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of efficiently blocking damaging airflow from the wafer (para. [0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto and Shiu as taught by Mishima and include Mishima’s similar device having: Claim 8: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface increases in a direction from an edge part of the first screen plate to a central part of the first screen plate; Claim 15: wherein the angle of the slant edge relative to the bottom surface gradually increases from an edge part of the first screen plate to a central part of the first screen plate; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of efficiently blocking damaging airflow from the wafer . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10, as best understood , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto in view of Shiu and Kawai et al. (US 2020/0168495) (“Kawai”). Iwamoto discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above . Iwamoto does not directly show: Claim 10: wherein the slant edge contacts the body part, and wherein the EFEM further comprises a sealing part disposed where the slant edge and the body part contact each other. Kawai shows a similar device having: Claim 10: wherein the slant edge contacts the body part, and wherein the EFEM further comprises a sealing part disposed where the slant edge and the body part contact each other (96 in FIG. 11 suggests a sealing part between two structures); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the sealing between exposed structures to airflow to reduce contamination and/or damage of the wafer (para. [168]-[0171]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto and Shiu as taught by Kawai and include Kawai’s similar device having: Claim 10: wherein the slant edge contacts the body part, and wherein the EFEM further comprises a sealing part disposed where the slant edge and the body part contact each other; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the sealing between exposed structures to airflow to reduce contamination and/or damage of the wafer . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 18, as best understood , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto in view of Shiu and Bonora et al. (US 2018/0361433) (“Bonora”). Iwamoto discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above . Iwamoto does not directly show: Claim 18: wherein the EFEM further comprises a rail that extends in the third direction, and the index robot is movable along the rail. Bonora shows a similar device having: Claim 18: wherein the EFEM further comprises a rail that extends in the third direction, and the index robot is movable along the rail (142; para. [0142]; FIG. 1B); with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the versatility of the apparatus to reach more load ports and increase efficiency (para. [0005]-[0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwamoto and Shiu as taught by Bonora and include Bonora’s similar device having: Claim 18: wherein the EFEM further comprises a rail that extends in the third direction, and the index robot is movable along the rail; with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the versatility of the apparatus to reach more load ports and increase efficiency . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0029508 discloses airflow 128 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)). 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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. /Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 2 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 3 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 4 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 5 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 6 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 7 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 8 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 9 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 10 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 11 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 12 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 13 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 14 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 15 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 16 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 17 Art Unit: 3652 Application/Control Number: 18/679,010 Page 18 Art Unit: 3652
Prosecution Insights