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 .
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macknight 9,190,304 and in view of Takai 2017/0200626.
In Re Claim 1, Macknight teaches a method, comprising: moving a transfer device (601, Fig. 7a-7k) of an hoist transport vehicle (10), between a first buffer (top left, Fig. 7C) of the vehicle (top) and a second buffer (top right, Fig. 7C) of the vehicle or a central position (along 609a, Fig. 7G) in the vehicle; and loading, after moving (Column 9, Line 53-Column 10, Line 26) the load port transfer device, a first transport carrier (303a, 303b, 303c and 303d), storing one or more first wafers, into the first buffer or the second buffer. (Column 8, Lines 22-44) and (Column 9, Line 53-Column 10, Line 26)
Macknight does not teach the vehicle being an OHT vehicle.
However, Takai teaches an OHT vehicle for handling transport carriers.
It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an OHT vehicle in the method of Macknight as taught by Takai with a reasonable expectation for success in order to move the vehicle without utilizing as much floor space.
In Re Claim 2, Macknight teaches wherein each of the first buffer and the second buffer are configured to store the first transport carrier. (Fig. 7a-7K)
In Re Claim 3, Macknight teaches wherein one of the first buffer or the second buffer is configured to store the first transport carrier, and wherein another one of the first buffer or the second buffer is configured to store a second transport carrier storing one or more second wafers. (Fig. 7a-7K)
In Re Claim 4, Macknight teaches unloading the first transport carrier while the vehicle retains a second transport carrier. (Fig. 7a-7K)
In Re Claim 6, Macknight teaches receiving a command to load the first transport carrier. (Column 17, Lines 39-64)
In Re Claim 7, Macknight teaches moving the vehicle to a position to load the first transport carrier. (Column 16, Lines 14-49)
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macknight 9,190,304 and in view of Takai 2017/0200626.
In Re Claim 8, Macknight teaches a method, comprising: moving an hoist transport vehicle from a first position to a second position; (Column 7, Lines 47-65) and loading, after moving the vehicle, a first transport carrier, storing one or more first wafers, into a first buffer (right side, Fig. 7a-7k) of the vehicle or a second buffer (left side, Fig. 7a-7k) of the vehicle, (Column 7, Lines 47-65) wherein each of the first buffer and the second buffer is configured to store the first transport carrier within the vehicle while the vehicle is moving. (Fig. 7a-7k)
Macknight does not teach the vehicle being an OHT vehicle.
However, Takai teaches an OHT vehicle for handling transport carriers.
It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an OHT vehicle in the method of Macknight as taught by Takai with a reasonable expectation for success in order to move the vehicle without utilizing as much floor space.
In Re Claim 9, Macknight teaches wherein the first transport carrier is loaded into the first buffer while the second buffer retains a second transport carrier. (Fig. 7a-7k)
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Macknight 9,190,304 and in view of Takai 2017/0200626.
In Re Claim 15, Macknight teaches a device, comprising: one or more processors (1501) configured to: move a transfer device (601, Fig. 7a-7k) of a hoist transport vehicle (200b), from between a first buffer (top right buffer, Fig. 7E) of the vehicle and a second buffer (top left buffer, Fig. 7E) of the vehicle or a central position (along 609a, Fig. 7a) in the vehicle; and load, after moving (Column 9, Line 53-Column 10, Line 26) the transfer device, a first transport carrier (303a, 303b, 303c and 303d), storing one or more first wafers, into the first buffer or the second buffer. (Column 8, Lines 22-44) and (Column 9, Line 53-Column 10, Line 26)
Macknight does not teach the vehicle being an OHT vehicle.
However, Takai teaches an OHT vehicle for handling transport carriers.
It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use an OHT vehicle in the method of Macknight as taught by Takai with a reasonable expectation for success in order to move the vehicle without utilizing as much floor space.
In Re Claim 16, Macknight teaches wherein each of the first buffer and the second buffer are configured to store the first transport carrier. (Fig. 7a-7k)
In Re Claim 17, Macknight teaches wherein one of the first buffer or the second buffer is configured to store the first transport carrier, and wherein another one of the first buffer or the second buffer is configured to store a second transport carrier storing one or more second wafers. (Fig. 7a-7k)
In Re Claim 18, Macknight teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: unload the first transport carrier while the vehicle retains a second transport carrier. (Fig. 7F)
In Re Claim 19, Macknight teaches wherein the first transport carrier is capable of being loaded while a semiconductor processing tool (Column 3, Lines 45-67) is processing the one or more first wafers stored by the second transport carrier.
In Re Claim 20, Macknight teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: move the vehicle to a position to load the first transport carrier. (Column 7, Lines 47-65)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10-14 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 and 15-20 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.
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 GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 PM.
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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights