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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 07/23/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 16 and 19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Joint Inventors
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.
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 (a)-(d) to application KR10-2024-0020613 filed 02/13/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of the application is 02/13/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a first transport unit" in claims 1-3 and 15 and "a second transport unit" in claims 1, 4, 11 and 15.
The first transport unit is defined as an overhead hoist transport and the second transport unit is defined as an autonomous mobile robot in page 9, column 13 to page 10, column 2 of the applicant's specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 11 - 12, 15 - 16 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Pub No: 2025/0187638 A1), hereinafter Kim in view of Yoon (US Pub No: 2023/0376046 A1), hereinafter Yoon and Wang (US Pub No: US 20150162228 A1 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding Claim 1 Kim discloses:
A transport system, comprising:
a first transport unit configured to move along a travelling rail installed in a semiconductor fabrication line, the first transport unit being configured to transport a transport target. (See at least paragraph [0029] which describes a transport vehicle 110 that could be an overhead hoist transport (OHT).)
a second transport unit configured to autonomously travel on a floor of the semiconductor fabrication line, in a location lower than the first transport unit. (See first paragraph [0029] which describes a transport vehicle 110 that could be an autonomous mobile robot (AMR). Paragraph [0089] describes a first and second transport vehicle.)
Kim does not disclose:
a first robot, a second robot and a main server communicating with each other;
controlling the first transport unit to lower the transport target toward the second transport unit in response to confirming that the second transport unit is located at a position below the first transport unit.
Yoon, in the analogous field of industrial automation, teaches:
a first interface installed in the first transport unit and configured to identify and communicate with the second transport unit; a second interface installed in the second transport unit and configured to identify and communicate with the first transport unit; and a controller configured to receive signals from the first interface and the second interface, generate and transmit a control signal to the first transport unit and the second transport unit, and control the transport target to be exchanged between the first transport unit and the second transport unit. (See at least paragraph [0070] which describes a first robot, a second robot and an integrated control server that can communicate with each other.)
Wang, in the analogous field of semiconductor production systems teaches:
controlling the first transport unit to lower the transport target toward the second transport unit in response to confirming that the second transport unit is located at a position below the first transport unit. (See at least Fig. 4 and paragraphs [0024]-[0025] which depict and describe how a transport target is lowered from one transport unit to another.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Yoon to show a first robot, a second robot and a main server communicating with each other. One would have been motivated to do SO there is a connection structure for information to easily be communicated ([0070] of Yoon). It would have further been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Yoon with the transportation method according to Wang. This is because traditional semiconductor transport systems have the flaws as described in [0004] of Wang’s disclosure: “The dual roles of the robot to facilitate the storage function of a stocker for the same transport system and to perform cross-system transportation make the robot a potential bottleneck of the overall transportation of wafer carriers. The stocker and the robot might not meet the expectation of lean operation in semiconductor fabrication facilities. In addition, if the stocker is used solely for cross-system transportation, the shop floor occupied by the stocker would be less cost effective.”
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches:
The transport system of claim 1.
Kim further discloses wherein the first transport unit comprises an overhead hoist transport (OHT). (See at least paragraph [0029] which describes a transport vehicle 110 that could be an overhead hoist transport (OHT).)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches the transport system of claim 1.
Kim further discloses wherein the travelling rail is installed on a ceiling of the semiconductor fabrication line, and the first transport unit is adjacent to the ceiling. (See at least paragraph [0029] which describes a transport vehicle 110 that could be an overhead hoist transport (OHT) that is installed on the ceiling.)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches:
The transport system of claim 9.
Kim further discloses wherein the second transport unit comprises a sensor configured to detect the exit prevention bar. (See at least paragraph [0061] which describes a camera sensor.)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches:
The transport system of claim 1.
Kim further discloses wherein each of the first interface and the second interface comprises a camera or a vision sensor. (See at least paragraph [0061] which describes a camera sensor.)
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 12 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches the transport system of claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Yoon teaches:
wherein: the controller comprises a first transport unit controller configured to control the first transport unit, a second transport unit controller configured to control the second transport unit, and an upper-level material control system configured to control the first transport unit controller and the second transport unit controller together; and the first transport unit controller and the second transport unit controller are configured to communicate with each other. (See at least paragraph [0070] which describes a first robot, a second robot and an integrated control server that can communicate with each other.)
The reason to combine Yoon with Kim is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 15 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 4 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoon and further in view of Gatchalian (US Pub No: 2024/0174445 A1, hereinafter Gatchalian).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teach the transport system of claim 1
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Gatchalian, in the analogous field of industrial automation, teaches:
wherein the second transport unit comprises an autonomous mobile robot (AMR) including a shelf. (See at least paragraph [0043] which describes autonomous mobile robots that can carry shelves to move material.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Gatchalian to show a robot that carries a shelf. One would have been motivated to do so that material can be properly moved within a warehouse ([0043] of Gatchalian).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kim, Yoon, Wang and Gatchalian teaches the transport system of claim 4.
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Gatchalian teaches:
wherein the shelf comprises a plurality of stages that are stacked (See at least paragraph [0043] which describes autonomous mobile robots that can carry shelves to move material. Additionally, as is well known in the art, a shelf has at least 3 layers. A shelf is not new or novel in the art.)
The reason to combine Gatchalian with Kim is for the same reason as in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoon, Wang, Gatchalian and further in view of Fountain et al. (US Pub No: 2024/0288867 A1, hereinafter Fountain).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kim, Yoon, Wang and Gatchalian teach the transport system of claim 5.
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Fountain, in the analogous field of shelving, teaches:
wherein the shelf includes a plurality of shelf sections adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction. (Paragraph [0031] and figure 2 describes a robot carrying 2 item baskets. While not a shelf, they are arranged in a way similar to a shelf as they are connected via two supporting shelves.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Fountain to show a shelf that has a plurality of sections adjacent to each other in a horizontal direction. One would have been motivated to do so that items can be properly arranged, similar to a cabinet or bookshelf in a house.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kim, Yoon, Wang and Gatchalian teach the transport system of claim 4.
Kim does not explicitly disclose but Fountain teaches:
wherein the shelf is moveable in and out in a horizontal direction. (Paragraph [0031] and figure 2 describes a robot carrying 2 item baskets. While not a shelf, they are arranged in a way similar to a shelf as they are connected via two supporting shelves. As the containers are mounted to a movable robot they can be moved in any direction.)
The reason to combine Fountain with Kim is for the same reason as in claim 6.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoon and further in view of Fountain.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches the transport system of claim 16.
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Fountain teaches:
wherein the AMR includes a shelf configured to store the transport target. (Paragraph [0031] and figure 2 describes a robot carrying 2 item baskets.)
The reason to combine Fountain with Kim is for the same reason as in claim 6.
Claim(s) 8 - 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Yoon, Wang and further in view of Lough (US Pub No: 2009/0260293 A1, hereinafter Lough).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches the transport system of claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Lough, in the analogous field of safety mechanisms, teaches:
Wherein the transport system of claim 1 further comprises a gate installed on the floor of the semiconductor fabrication line, the gate comprising an exit prevention bar configured to open and close. (Paragraph [0008] describes a bar that can open or close.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Lough to show a exit bar that can open or close. One would have been motivated to do so that a safety bar can be raised, lowered and locked in any desired position.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 8 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kim, Yoon, Wang and Lough teaches the transport system of claim 8.
Kim does not explicitly teach, but Lough teaches:
wherein the gate comprises a stationary block to which a first end of the exit prevention bar is fixed and which is configured to pivot the exit prevention bar. (Paragraph [0019] describes a pivot that can connect to the bracket to allow the bar to pivot between an open and closed position.)
The reason to combine Lough with Kim is for the same reason as in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kim, Yoon, Wang and Lough teaches the transport system of claim 9.
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Lough teaches:
wherein the stationary block has a guide groove configured to guide a motion of the exit prevention bar, and the stationary block comprises a damper in at least one end portion of the guide groove. (Paragraph [0025] describes a pneumatic cylinder that acts as a damper to damper downward movement of the safety bar.)
The reason to combine Lough with Kim is for the same reason as in claim 8.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Yoon, Wang and further in view of Fan et al. (US Pub No: 2022/0344187 A1, hereinafter Fan).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches the transport system of claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose, but Fan, in the analogous field of industrial automation, teaches:
wherein each of the first interface and the second interface comprises a parallel input/output (PIO) sensor. (Paragraph [0048] describes a parallel input/output interface used to automate transport carrier delivery.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Fan to show an interface with parallel input/output sensor. One would have been motivated to do so that can be both received and sent in one system to reduce space on the robots.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Yoon, Wang and further in view of Nagasue et al. (US Pub No: 2024/0094738 A1, hereinafter Nagasue).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kim, Yoon and Wang teaches the transport system of claim 1.
Kim does not explicitly disclose but Nagasue, in the analogous field of automation, teaches:
wherein each of the first interface and the second interface comprises an antenna for short-range communication and a wireless LAN card. (Paragraph [0092] describes an antenna and a wireless LAN card.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Kim to incorporate the teachings of Nagasue to show an antenna and a wireless LAN card. One would have been motivated to do SO to allow the robots to communicate without the need for wires and to lessen the delay between communications.
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 ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights