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 § 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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites “a second member… from each of the sides opposite to the one side”. It is unclear what this limitation means. Although the extension upward from one side is understood, the phrase “from each of the sides opposite to the one side” is not understood. It is unclear from the claim language what such a limitation means. It is unclear what structure of an item which has a member extending upwardly from one side and each side opposite to the one side is. The claim limitation is so unclear that searching and application of prior art to the limitation cannot be made. Accordingly, claim 8 can only be understood by examiner as an each of the pair of second gripping claws first member having a rectangular shape, for the purposes of applying prior art.
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 & 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebstock (US20100319733A1) in view of Davis (US20070125404A1), Sakashita (US20150209843A1), and evidentiary references Okada (US6098809A) and Mortensen (US4582219A).
As to claim 1, Rebstock discloses a wafer storage cleaning device (abstract) comprising: a cleaning chamber (e.g., Fig.15 ref 432) configured to clean a wafer storage container which a skilled artisan would understand is capable of cleaning a container having a hexahedral outer shape with an opening on one surface and a door; a transfer robot (best seen by ref 700) that individually grips the shell and door and configured to individually load the shell and the door into the cleaning chamber and unload the same from the cleaning chamber [0115-0117]. Rebstock also indicates that the chamber is placed such that the opening is facing downwardly while nozzles clean the interior (Figs.5 ref 51-52 and Fig.6A refs 63-64; see also [0052 & 0059-0063]). Rebstock does not explicitly disclose the structural limitations of the gripping elements located on the arm to interface with the door and shell, however such gripping members for interaction with the wafer container is known in the art, as seen by Davis and Sakashita.
Davis discloses an art related device for cleaning of semiconductor workpieces (abstract), wherein a robot (ref 300) with a transfer arm (ref 304) has two distinct end effectors (refs 306/308; e.g., gripping claws) for gripping and removal of a lid from the body of the wafer container and movement of the wafer container [0066] to and from processing chambers for cleaning. At least one end effector allows for gripping via claws moving linearly toward the shell of the container (Figs. 16A-16C ref 309).
Sakashita discloses an art related substrate case cleaning apparatus (abstract), having a 2-axis gripping system (ref 61) for movement of parts into a cleaning chamber, wherein the gripping system utilizes opposing gripping hands (ref 71) that move linearly in one direction in order to clamp the pod base and pod shell [0062]. Accordingly, both Davis and Sakashita disclose than that linearly moving gripping claws are known elements for gripping of portions of a wafer container or lid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Rebstock to utilize gripping claws at the end of each arm in order to allow for gripping of the door and body (see Davis and Sakashita), as desired by Rebstock. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize known gripping elements for securing of a wafer container body and lid when the specific gripping elements are not specified.
The only different between Modified Rebstock and the invention of claim 1 is the claimed linear direction of the gripping claws being along straight lines that intersect when viewed in a top view (e.g., the movement directions of the claws are not parallel). However, a skilled artisan recognizes that such a limitation is dependent upon the portion at which the chamber and lid are gripped. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that different gripping areas may be present for different wafer containers (see evidentiary references Okada Figs.5-17 and Mortensen Figs.1-9 which showcase that a wafer container may have gripping portions are various locations; also see Davis which indicates that a door can be gripped from a different area than a wafer container). Accordingly, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to provide the gripping portions in such a manner where they can grip the door and shell including variations in which the linear movement direction of the grippers is not parallel. It is noted that the limitations "including a shell... detachable from the opening" are limitations directed towards the wafer container, which is not a positively recited limitation in the claim. Thus, said limitations are not required by the claim. Further, a skilled artisan would reasonably expect that a station for cleaning a wafer container is capable of receiving a container of such shape and size.
As to claims 6-7, Modified Rebstock teaches the apparatus of claim 1, comprising a controller (see Rebstock [0040, 0079, 0102] indicated the presence of a controller to control the cleaning process) in which Rebstock desires the wafer container to be loaded with opening facing downward (Rebstock [0052 & 0059-0063]). Although Rebstock itself does not explicitly disclose the controller controlling the robot and gripping movements, such a feature would be obvious as Rebstock desired to control the entire process automatically with a controller. Further, Sakashita [0062] indicates that controllers for controlling the movement of a robot which grips the wafer container is known. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it routine and obvious to allow the controller to control the robot in order to load and unload wafer container with the opening facing downward. Again, the only difference between Modified Rebstock and apparatus of claims 6-7 is the gripping claws gripping the shell of the wafer container from above and below. As mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above, such a limitation is dependent upon the gripping location and structure of the wafer container. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to allow the gripping portions to grip the wafer container at the appropriate areas in the appropriate manner, including instances where such gripping portions are designed to be gripped from above and below.
As to claim 8, Modified Rebstock teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each second gripping claw has a first member with a rectangular shape (see Davis Figs.16A-16C & Sakashita Figs.16A-16B). Alternatively, absent evidence to the contrary, a skilled artisan would recognize such a difference to amount to a mere change in shape (see MPEP 2144.04) that would be obvious in order to grip a lid with a corresponding shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is that recited in this action.
In the case of claim 2, Rebstock discloses the possibility of rotating of the arms, and thus indicates the presence of some rotating element [0105, 0112, 0115, 0121, & 0124]. It is conceivable that a skilled artisan would allow such rotation in all axis in order to improve the movement range of the arm, thus allowing there to exist a portion of such a rotating portion where the first and second straight line directions intersect. Davis and Sakashita discloses the presence of a guide (Davis Figs.16A-16C & Sakashita Figs.16A-17B) for the supporting and guiding the movement of the claws.
However, the references do not specifically teach or suggest the presence of connectors which connect each gripping claw to the rotating plate and a mover which allows for movement of all claws when one claw is moved. Such limitations denote a specific structural configuration of the rotating plate with respect to the claws and connector which allows such movement to be possible. Accordingly, the reference of record, when taken alone or in combination fails to teach the invention of claim 2. Thus, claim 2 and its dependents are considered to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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 Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights