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 with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 08-10-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claimed Inventions overlap in scope and that there would not be a serious search burden on the examiner. This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement between Inventions I-III (as in the office action dated 06-08-2026) is withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (U.S. Pub. 2008/0156069) in view of Goodwin et al. (WO 2009/023787).
Regarding claim 1, Murata discloses (Figs. 1-4) an airflow detection device (as shown in Fig. 4; flow meter 70: [0039]), comprising:
an air tunnel (i.e. piping connected to the flow meter 70: see Fig. 4);
an airflow sensor 70 [0039] configured to measure a flow of a gas [0039]/[0047], in the air tunnel (i.e. piping connected to the flow meter 70: see Fig. 4), associated with a transport carrier (as shown in Fig. 4); and
one or more recessed portions 32/33 (i.e. the left and right pipes: see Fig. 4; [0047], which are recessed, i.e. further back from, the bottom wall 22) at an inlet/outlet 22e/22f [0043] in the transport carrier (as shown in Fig. 4).
Murata does not disclose the one or more recessed portions are configured to interface with a diffuser in the transport carrier.
Goodwin discloses a diffuser 25 (p. 8, lines 20-21) located at the inlet/outlet in the transport carrier (p. 8, lines 20-28). Thus, in combination, the diffuser 25 would be placed at the inlet/outlet of Murata, which interfaces with Murata’s recessed portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata’s device so that the one or more recessed portions are configured to interface with a diffuser in the transport carrier, as taught by Goodwin.
Such a modification would help the purge gas flow more uniformly in the pod (Goodwin: p. 8, lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 2, Murata discloses (Figs. 1-4) the airflow sensor is configured to generate airflow data based on a flow rate of the flow of the gas in the air tunnel.
Regarding claim 17, Murata discloses (Figs. 1-4) a device (as shown in Fig. 4), comprising:
a first recessed portion 32 (i.e. the left pipe: see Fig. 4; [0047], which is recessed, i.e. further back from, the bottom wall 22);
a first opening (bottom opening of the pipe 32 which connects with the bottom of the pod 22: see Fig. 4) in the first recessed portion 32 and configured to receive a flow of gas [0047];
a second recessed portion 33 (i.e. the right pipe: see Fig. 4; [0047], which is recessed, i.e. further back from, the bottom wall 22);
a second opening (bottom opening of the pipe 33 which connects with the bottom of the pod 22: see Fig. 4) in the second recessed portion 33 (as shown in Fig. 4);
an air tunnel (i.e. piping connected to the flow meter 70: see Fig. 4) connected to the first opening and the second opening (through the pipes 32/33: see Fig. 4); and
a sensor 70 [0039] located in a portion of the air tunnel (as shown in Fig. 4) and configured to measure the flow of the gas [0039]/[0047].
Murata does not disclose the first recessed portion is configured to receive a diffuser; and the first opening in the first recessed portion is configured to receive a flow of gas from the diffuser.
Goodwin discloses a diffuser 25 (p. 8, lines 20-21) located at the inlet/outlet in the transport carrier (p. 8, lines 20-28). Thus, in combination, the diffuser 25 would be placed at the inlet/outlet of Murata, which interfaces/is received by Murata’s recessed portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murata’s device so that the first recessed portion is configured to receive a diffuser; and the first opening in the first recessed portion is configured to receive a flow of gas from the diffuser, as taught by Goodwin.
Such a modification would help the purge gas flow more uniformly in the pod (Goodwin: p. 8, lines 20-28).
Regarding claim 19, Murata discloses (Figs. 1-4) the first recessed portion 32 extends inward into the device from a first side of the device (i.e. on the left side, inward from the bottom of the pod 22: see Fig. 4), and
wherein the second recessed portion 33 extends inward into the device from a second side of the device (i.e. on the right side, inward from the bottom of the pod 22: see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Murata discloses (Figs. 1-4) a third recessed portion 23 (i.e. the inner space of the pod [0044]; Fig. 4) that extends inward into the device from the first side of the device (as shown in Fig. 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (U.S. Pub. 2008/0156069) in view of Goodwin et al. (WO 2009/023787), and further in view of Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pub. 2002/0124906).
Regarding claim 9, Murata’s modified device is applied as above, but does not disclose a mounting point configured to permit the airflow detection device to be mounted to a support member associated with a robot arm.
Suzuki discloses a mounting point (where the robot arm hold the pod: [0259]) configured to permit the pod [0259] to be mounted to a support member associated with a robot arm [0259]. Since Murata’s airflow detection device is within a pod, see Murata Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify further Murata’s device to include a mounting point configured to permit the airflow detection device to be mounted to a support member associated with a robot arm, as taught by Suzuki.
Such a modification would automate the process of placing and transferring the pods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 are allowed.
Claims 3-8 and 18 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art of record does not show or suggest:
“…a first recessed portion configured to receive a diffuser when the airflow detection device is in a first orientation;
“a second recessed portion configured to receive the diffuser when the airflow detection device is in a second orientation…”
(as in claim 10)
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights