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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention IV in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 & 18-19 have been canceled. Claims 16 & 17 have been withdrawn. The arguments are directed to the lack of unit as between Inventions IV (apparatus claims 11-14) and invention V (method claims 16-17). The traversal is on the ground(s) that Invention IV & V are linked an inventive concept because the apparatus is a device for retrieving a reticle and the method recites a limitation wherein the method is performed using the apparatus claims. This is not found persuasive. According to 37 CFR 1.75 certain claims that referenced other claims would be treated as independent claims where it refers to a different statutory class of claims, e.g. method v. apparatus. In this case, the recitation of "a device according to claim 11" in claim 16. And, as noted on page 3 of the restriction requirement mailed March 26, 2026, both claims do not share a special technical feature in light of Kishkovich in view of Yamamoto.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishkovich (US 2010/0294397) in view of Yamamoto (US 7,731,470).
Kishkovich discloses-
a second handling element 232 adapted to handle a second reticle pod,
wherein first and second handling elements are adapted to be individually displaceable in a vertical direction such that a second reticle pod can be lifted off a first reticle pod and a first reticle pod can be lifted off a third reticle pod,
a third reticle pod being arranged adjacent and vertically under a first reticle pod within a stack of reticle pods,
a first reticle pod can be retrieved form a stack of reticle pods, and a second reticle pod can be placed on a third reticle pod.
Kishkovich does not explicitly disclose a first and second handling elements adapted to be displaceable horizontally and vertically such that a second reticle pod can be lifted off a first reticle pod and a first reticle pod can be lifted off a third reticle pod.
Yamamoto discloses-
a first handling element 44 for handling a first reticle pod, and
a second handling element 42 adapted to handle a second reticle pod,
a second reticle pod being arranged adjacent and vertically above a first reticle pod within a stack of reticle pods,
a second reticle pod 31 (FIG. 4) being arranged adjacent and vertically above a first reticle pod 31 within a stack of reticle pods,
wherein first and second handling elements are adapted to be individually displaceable in a horizontal direction (C4/L18-30) and displaceable in a vertical direction (C4/L20) such that a second reticle pod can be lifted off a first reticle pod and a first reticle pod can be lifted off a third reticle pod,
a third reticle pod 31 being arranged adjacent and vertically under a first reticle pod within a stack of reticle pods,
a first reticle pod can be retrieved form a stack of reticle pods, and a second reticle pod can be placed on a third reticle pod.
A person with ordinary skill in the art of reticle movement would be motivated to combine Kishkovich with Yamamoto to provide independent control over individual pods within a vertical stack, allowing intermediate pods to be safely accessed without disturbing the integrity of the rest of the stack, and enable efficient vertical clearance lifting so that adjacent pods can be unstacked, retrieved, and restacked seamlessly without requiring full disassembly of the entire stack.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Kishkovich to include a second reticle pod being arranged adjacent and vertically above a first reticle pod, wherein first and second handling elements are adapted to be individually displaceable in a horizontal direction and displaceable in a vertical direction, as taught by Yamamoto, such that under the teachings of KSR both references address the same problem of selective handling of stacked semiconductor pods, Yamamoto improves independent horizontal/vertical movement, increasing flexibility and reducing mechanical interference, the combination yields predictable results which is more efficient pod retrieval and repositioning and the combination does not teach away.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-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, 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights