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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of September 15, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on September 15, 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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:
See “chucking module gripping the transport object” in claim 13, with “module” being the generic placeholder and “gripping the transport object” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a gripper.
See “rotation module rotating the chucking module” in claim 13, with “module” being the generic placeholder and “rotating the chucking module” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a body, turntable and motor.
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 Objections
At claim 1, line 6, please replace “upgrip” with – ungrip --.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomida (USPN 9938120).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Tomida (USPN 9938120) teaches a transport apparatus comprising: a vehicle (vehicle 1); a housing (13) connected to the vehicle and forming an internal space with an open bottom; a hand unit (19) provided to be movable in an up-down direction, in the housing and to grip and ungrip a transport object (object 6); and a slide unit (22) separated from the hand unit, in the housing, and moving horizontally in a direction where the hand unit is disposed, wherein the slide unit includes: a base plate (32) provided in the internal space of the housing; a slide plate (27) sliding from the base plate in the direction where the hand unit is disposed and seating the transport object; and a drive module (motor 28) provided on the base plate, and sliding the slide plate so that the slide plate protrudes from the base plate (as seen in Figures 5, 6 and 7).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, a pair of slide units are provided, facing each other with the hand unit therebetween within the internal space of the housing. Figure 2 shows a pair of slide units (22).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the drive module includes: a moving block (33) fixed to the slide plate; a ball screw (34) penetrated by the moving block; and a first motor (28) rotating the ball screw, and as the moving block moves due to the rotation of the ball screw driven by the first motor, the slide plate slides
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the slide unit further includes a first detachment prevention block (30a) provided on an upper surface of the slide plate and contacting one side of the transport object.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, the slide unit further includes a second detachment prevention block (30b) provided on the upper surface of the slide plate, opposite to the first detachment prevention block, and contacting the other side of the transport object.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uchino (USPN 8757401).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, Tomida teaches the hand unit includes: a rotation module rotating the hand unit [Col. 9:8-16, “vertical movement support portion 13 includes a positioning mechanism for rotating the vertically moving mechanism 20 about a vertical axis (axis along the vertical direction) and for moving the vertically moving mechanism 20 in the fore and aft direction in order to adjust the attitude and position of the support mechanism 19 relative to the travel portion 12”. Tomida fails to teach a chucking module gripping the transport object or that the rotation module rotates the chucking module. Uchino (USPN 8757401) teaches transport apparatus comprising a vehicle having a hand unit including a chucking module (grip unit 9 having 22) gripping the transport object (cassette 5); and a rotation module rotating the chucking module (swing motor 20 rotating grip unit 9 about swing axle 19 via transmission 21). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a chucking module and rotation module in a transport apparatus since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The chucking module would secure the object and the rotation module would rotate the chucking module and object to align the object with a workstation.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, Tomida teaches the transport object is provided as a magazine housing chips [Col 7:53-57, “object 6S may be a container for storing a number of semiconductor wafers”]. The recitation of “chips” does not limit the structure as recitations directed toward the articles handled by an apparatus do not bear on the patentability of the apparatus. See MPEP 2115. Tomida fails to teach the chucking module includes a gripper sliding to fit onto or separate from the top of the magazine. Uchino teaches a gripper (grip tools 22) sliding to fit onto or separate from the top of a magazine (cassette 5) [Col. 7:1-8]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a gripper sliding to fit onto or separate from the top of the magazine as taught by Uchino to positively hold the transport object.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Tomida teaches a lifting unit (20) including a belt (24a) with adjustable length to raise and lower the hand unit (length adjustable by motor 25).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 11, 15, 17 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.
Claim 18 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim(s) 18, the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest wherein the slide unit includes: a base plate provided in the internal space of the housing, formed with a first cutting hole into which one side of the transport object is inserted, and provided with a first transport object detachment prevention unit forming a band shape surrounding the transport object, combined with the rest of the claim language.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 9558977 discloses a transport apparatus having storage parts for storing a magazine and is related to applicant cited KR20150140208. US Pub 20040109746 A1 is related to applicant cited KR20040050704.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653