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 § 102
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 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 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazuhiro JP 2007324365A.
In Re Claim 13, Kazuhiro teaches a mapping apparatus for detecting a storing condition of objects in a container capable of storing the objects at predetermined intervals along a first direction, comprising: a mapping frame (B) configured to move in the first direction (Along 80, Paragraph 64) and a second direction (forward, Paragraph 34 and 100) substantially perpendicular to the first direction; a first detecting unit comprising a pair of first protrusions (43, 53, Fig. 3) protruding from the mapping frame in the second direction in an amount of a first length, the first protrusions being disposed with a first distance (L2, Fig. 2) therebetween in a third direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and first sensors (62a, 63a) near respective extremities of the first protrusions; and a second detecting unit comprising a pair of second protrusions (42,52, Fig. 3) protruding from the mapping frame in the second direction in an amount of a second length longer than the first length, the second protrusions being disposed at locations same as those of the first protrusions in the third direction, (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) and second sensors (61a, 64a, Fig. 3) near respective extremities of the second protrusions, the second detecting unit being disposed at a location different from that of the first detecting unit by a predetermined distance in the first direction. (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4)
In Re Claim 14, Kazuhiro teaches wherein either the first direction is a downward direction, (Fig. 2, 3) and the first detecting unit is disposed at a level below the second detecting unit by the predetermined distance; (Fig. 2, Fig. 3)
In Re Claim 16, Kazuhiro teaches a movement control unit configured to stop movement of the mapping frame before the mapping frame is moved by the predetermined distance from a point of detection of the objects by the first sensors, provided that a first detection result is input to the movement control unit and indicates the detection of the objects by the first sensors, wherein the first detection result comprises a result of detection of the objects by the first detecting unit. (Paragraph 62)
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro and in view of Morikawa et al. 2014/0178162.
In Re Claim 15, Kazuhiro teaches the apparatus of Claim 13 as recited above.
Kazuhiro does not teach a storage unit configured to store a second detection result, wherein the second detection result comprises a result of detection of the objects by the second detecting unit.
However, Morikawa et al. teach a storage unit (21) configured to store a second detection result, wherein the second detection result comprises a result of detection of the objects by the second detecting unit (50, 58) . (Paragraph 73-75)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a storage unit to the apparatus of Kazuhiro as taught by Morikawa with a reasonable expectation for success in order to in order to create a traceable record for each substrate for quality control of the product.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro and in view of Natsume 2015/0308812.
In Re Claim 18, Kazuhiro teaches the apparatus of Claim 13 as recited above.
Kazuhiro is silent concerning a load port apparatus comprising: an installation portion configured to have the container installed thereon; and a door configured to open or close a lid of the container.
However, Natsume teaches a load port apparatus comprising: an installation portion (24) configured to have the container (12) installed thereon; and a door (door of 23, Fig. 1) configured to open or close a lid of the container. (Paragraph 27)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a door to the apparatus of Kazuhiro as taught by Natsume with a reasonable expectation for success in order to in order to maintain as clean an environment for wafers during transfer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-24 allowed.
Claim 17 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sato et al. teach First and second sets of sensors of a mapping frame and a container of wafers.
Oka and Komatsu teach wafer frames with a set of sensors on a mapping frame and container of wafers.
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