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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 13 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11, 13, 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 13 February 2026.
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 1-10, 12 and 14-18 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 regards to claim 1, it is unclear how the rear surface is facing the front surface as recited in line 5. It appears the rear surface (BS, Fig. 4) is facing in an opposite direction of the front surface (FS). Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
In regards to claim 15, it is unclear how the rear surface is facing the front surface as recited in line 3. It appears the rear surface (BS, Fig. 4) is facing in an opposite direction of the front surface (FS). Appropriate explanation or correction is required.
Claims 2-10, 12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Minami et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0113027 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Minami teaches a substrate loading apparatus comprising: a first frame (left 3, Fig. 2) and a second frame (right 3) facing each other; a support frame (middle 3) disposed between the first frame and the second frame (as viewed from the front of Fig. 2), extending along a first direction, and comprising a front surface adjacent to a substrate (17, Fig. 16) and a rear surface (3a, Fig. 23) facing the front surface; and a support bar (1, Fig. 22) coupled to the support frame, extending in a second direction crossing the first direction, and supporting the substrate, wherein the support bar comprises an extension member (A; see annotation below) extending in the second direction and a coupling member (B) coupling the extension member and the support frame to each other, wherein the coupling member comprises a first surface (1S), which protrudes toward the support frame and is a curved surface having a first curvature, wherein the support frame comprises a second surface (2S), which faces the first surface and is a curved surface having the first curvature of the first surface, and wherein the first surface and the second surface are in surface contact with each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
220
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Minami teaches the second surface (2S above) is a portion of the front surface.
In regards to claim 14, Minami teaches the first surface (1S above) is able to move along the second surface (2S) (e.g.; see arrow in Fig. 22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 10-1073376 B1) in view of Smith (US Pat. No. 8,381,413 B2).
In regards to claim 15, Lee teaches a substrate loading apparatus comprising: a support frame (500, Fig. 9) extending along a first direction and comprising a front surface adjacent to a substrate (1) and a rear surface facing the front surface; and a support bar (600) coupled to the support frame, extending in a second direction crossing the first direction, and supporting the substrate, wherein the support bar comprises an extension member (620) extending in the second direction and a coupling member (610) coupling the extension member and the support frame to each other, wherein the coupling member comprises a protruding surface (613) that is a curved surface protruding toward the support frame, wherein a seating groove (i.e.; the groove between 510s) in which the protruding surface is seated is defined in the support frame, and wherein the protruding surface and one surface of the support frame defining the seating groove are in surface contact with each other (see Fig. 10a).
Lee does not teach the protruding surface being a spherical surface. Smith teaches a support bar having a coupling member (190, Fig. 2) with a spherical surface (i.e.; a ball) seated in a groove (195) of a support frame.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date and with reasonable expectation of success to modify Lee’s protruding surface to be a spherical surface. The motivation would be for the purpose of providing pivoting capability for greater range of motion when positioning the support bar relative to the support frame as taught by Smith (Col 12, Lines 64-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Minami, Lee, and Smith are considered the closest prior art of record as discussed above. Regarding claim 2, attempting to modify the first and second surfaces of Minami to be spherical would change the principle operation of the device. If the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959). Regarding claim 3, there would be no obvious reason to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the recited structure because the support bar is secured between the top and bottom plates (5 and 6) with the fastening nut (4). Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches first and second through holes (corresponding to bolts 630) overlapping the seating groove and the protruding surface, and passing through the support frame in the second direction, but does not teach the second through hole passing through the coupling member. Further modifying Lee’s coupling member to have the through hole passing therethrough would involve impermissible hindsight in view of Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the PTO-892 for additional prior art related to Applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANTON L KRYCINSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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 Liu can be reached at (571)272-8227. 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.
/Stanton L Krycinski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights