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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/890,735 filled on 09/19/2024.
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “a carry-in/out port” should apparently be “a carry -in and/or a carry-out port”. Claim 13 is also objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “on one side surface” on line 4 should apparently be “one on side of a surface of the carrier”. Appropriate correction is required
In claims 1 and 13, the phrase “advancing/retracting the holding hand” should apparently be “advancing the holding hand/or retraction the holding hand” . Claim 7-9 are also objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 1, 4,and 13, the phrase “advancing/retracting direction” should apparently be “advancing direction and/or retracting direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 cites “a substrate” on line 2, and “a plurality of substrates” on line 3. Further claim 1 cites “the substrate” on line 15. Claim would require a consistency of wording of the phrase, use either “substrate” or “plurality of substrates” in the claims. Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11 and 13 are also objected for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In Fig. 1, on the left, the later C and W represents the same entity (see the second block from the top and on the left side of the drawing, where in the specification, C represents carrier and W represents substrates. W and C shouldn’t be represented for same entity. Fig. 2A and 2B also objected for the same reason as discussed above for C and W.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “capable of” on line 2 and line 3 respectively . It is not clear if the functional language recited afterwards is optional step or required functionality. For examining purposes, this limitation is interpreted as not required by the claim. Examiner recommends to amend all instances of “capable of” to read as “configured to”, so that all the functions of “a carrier” are positively recited and required by the claims. Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency on rejected base claim 1.
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: “acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 13, “imaging unit” in claim 9, “control unit” in claims 1 and 11-13, “gap information acquisition unit ” in claim 11, “processing unit” in claim 13; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
In Specification, para. [0051], cites “the flight controller 42 records the position information of the drone 10 in the memory 80. The recording of the position information of the drone 10 may be periodically performed. In addition, the flight controller 42 records, in the memory 80, pieces of the unique information received from the other-device drones 101 to 103 and the like”. Therefore, recording unit in claim 5 is interpreted as the flight controller 42.
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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 20 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-13 would be allowable claims are re-written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and claims/drawing objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art, Cho et al. (KR20110089645, this reference is from IDS and the attached English translate of this document is used for claim mapping) teaches a substrate transporting device (See Para. [0001], “wafer transfer device [construed as substrate transfer Device]”) for transporting a substrate with a carrier capable of stacking (See Para. [0003], “transferring multiple wafers loaded in a cassette one by one to specific equipment”, and/or see Para. [0020], “the wafer transfer device for transferring a wafer in a shipping box [i.e., carrier] to a wafer storage unit”) and accommodating a plurality of substrates with a gap and having a carry-in/out port on one side surface (See Para. [0003], “the wafer [i.e., substrate is loaded into a cassette and transported”, where the cassette obviously create a gap between substrates and the cassette obviously having in/out port, same as claimed]), the device comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire shape information of the substrate (See Para. [0007], [0016], “a wafer transfer device equipped with a wafer bending detection means for detecting the bending of the wafer [construed as shape information of the substrate]”, and/or Para. [0034], “image processing techniques for extracting shapes using pixel information extracted from an acquired image”); and
a control unit configured to control the transporting unit based on the shape information, wherein the acquisition unit obtains the shape information of the substrate by irradiating light (See Para. [0030], “the control unit determine that the wafer is normal shape using infrared sensor that irradiates infrared light on the cross-section of the thickness of the wafer to be transported”).
Another prior art, Kuwahara teaches, a transporting unit including a holding hand that holds the substrate (See Abstract, Para. [0057]-[0058], discloses “A substrate carrier apparatus includes a hand with holding arm 13 and 2 fingers 11”), the transporting unit being configured to transport the substrate by advancing/retreating the holding hand to/from the carry-in/out port of the carrier to the gap between the substrates (See Fig. 5, Para. [0063]-[0064], discloses “advancing/Retracting mechanism 31 that moves up and down to move hand up and down”, and Para. [0005], “an advancing/retracting mechanism that moves the hand in a forward and backward direction to cause the hand to enter and be retracted from the substrate container”, and see Para. [0027], discloses “a plurality of the substrates W in a horizontal orientation are stacked in a vertical direction with spacings [i.e., Gap]);
Another prior art, Hashizaki et al. (US 2024/0253233, this reference is from IDS) teaches, acquire shape information of the substrate (See Para. [0030], “he controller 30 acquires the shapes of the substrates 1 based on the detection results of the light receiver 24b”, and/or see Para. [0041], “the controller 30 acquires at least one of the shapes or positions of the substrates 1 based on the image captured by the imager 25, and acquires the size of the conveyance gap C. Specifically, the controller 30 acquires both the shapes and positions of the substrates 1 by analyzing the image captured by the imager 25. For example, the controller 30 acquires the shapes of the substrates 1 along the horizontal plane or the curved shapes of the substrates 1 based on the image captured by the imager 25”).
Nevertheless, the cited prior arts as discussed above fails to teach or suggest the claimed feature of “acquire shape information of the substrate when the substrate is viewed in an advancing/retreating direction of the holding hand and from a carry-in/out port side of the carrier in a state where the substrate is accommodated in the carrier, and obtain the shape information of the substrate by irradiating light in a wavelength region longer than visible light from the advancing/retreating direction of the holding hand”, and in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-12 depends either directly or indirectly upon claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-12 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Claim 13 is a substrate processing device claim and having the same allowable subject matter of claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, Claim 13 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights