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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/24 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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:
a supply module in claims 1-2 (200 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0065]: e.g., The supply module 200 may supply the tray 20 to the stage 100. The supply module 200 may include an adsorption portion 210, a first moving portion 220, and a second moving portion 230).
an alignment module in claims 1 and 6.
an inspection module in claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 (300 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0070]: e.g., the alignment module 300 may be disposed to surround the tray 20 supplied to the stage 100, and may align the tray 20 by pressing at least a portion of the edge of the tray 20).
a display unit in claim 11 (460 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0090]: e.g., The display unit 460 may display an image photographed by the camera 450).
a control unit in claim 11 (470 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0091]: e.g., The control unit 470 may be connected to the display unit 460 and may analyze the image displayed on the display unit 460. The control unit 470 may determine the alignment state of the tray 20 aligned by the alignment module 300 on the upper surface of the stage 100 by analyzing the image displayed on the display unit 460).
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 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 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Washio et al (US 2011/0018564 hereinafter “Washio”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12; Washio discloses a tray alignment device and method (1 @ figure 1 and paragraph [0044]: e.g., a prober 1 of this embodiment is a wafer prober for semiconductor inspection) comprising:
a stage (18 @ figure 2);
a supply module (6 @ figure 1) that supplies a tray (3 @ figure 1) to the stage (18 @ figure 2);
an alignment module (4 @ figures 1-2) disposed to surround the tray (3 @ figures 1-2) supplied to the stage (18 @ figure 2) and aligning the tray (3 @ figure 2) by pressing at least a portion of an edge (12, 13 @ figure 2) of the tray (3 @ figure 2); and
an inspection module (20 @ figure 2 and paragraph [0057]: e.g., The camera 20 is a camera for photographing the alignment marks of the wafer 2 supported by the chuck pin 17 and of the tray 3 and positioning the wafer 2 with respect to the tray 3. As the camera 20, a double focus camera is used, and the mark of the wafer 2 and the alignment marks 12 of the tray 3 can be photographed at the same time. By photographing the mark of the wafer 2 and the alignment marks 12 of the tray 3 by this camera 20 and matching the images with each other, the wafer 2 is positioned at the installation position of the tray 3) that inspects an alignment of the tray (3 @ figure 2). See figures 1-21
PNG
media_image1.png
658
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
664
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 2-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washio et al (US 2011/0018564hereinafter “Washio”) in view of Lee et al (KR 102549629 B1 hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 2; Washio discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the supply module includes: an adsorption portion disposed above the stage and including an adsorption nozzle for adsorbing the tray; a first moving portion that moves the adsorption portion in a first direction; and a second moving portion that moves the adsorption portion in a second direction. However, Lee teaches that it is known in the art to provide the supply module (300 @ figure 2) includes: an adsorption portion (310, 320 @ figure 2) disposed above the stage (130 @ figure 2: e.g., The transfer arm 140 may transfer the tray 20 from the tray input unit 110 to the tray arranging unit 130 and transfer the tray 20 from the tray arranging unit 130 to the tray output unit 120) and including an adsorption nozzle (311 @ figure 2) for adsorbing the tray (20 @ figures 2-3); a first moving portion (112 @ figures 2-3) that moves the adsorption portion (311 @ figure 2) in a first direction (figures 2-3: e.g., The first lifting member 112 may be moved up and down by a driving unit such as a motor or a cylinder); and a second moving portion (30 @ figure 3) that moves the adsorption portion in a second direction (figures 3-4: e.g., the first initial position A1 and the side of the tray 20 support the first tray support member 111 between the first lifting position (A2), which rises to the extent of falling, and the first lowering position (A3), which descends from the first lifting position (A2)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the tray alignment device and method of Washio with limitation above as taught by Lee for the purpose of improve the accuracy of the inspection by solving the problem of erroneous inspection as a defect.
Regarding claim 3; Washio discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the first direction is a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the stage, and the second direction is a direction parallel to the upper surface of the stage. However, Lee teaches that it is known in the art to provide the first direction (figures 2-3: e.g., The first lifting member 112 may be moved up and down by a driving unit such as a motor or a cylinder) is a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the stage (111 @ figure 3), and the second direction (figures 3-4: e.g., the first initial position A1 and the side of the tray 20 support the first tray support member 111 between the first lifting position (A2), which rises to the extent of falling, and the first lowering position (A3), which descends from the first lifting position (A2)) is a direction parallel to the upper surface of the stage (30, 111 @ figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the tray alignment device and method of Washio with limitation above as taught by Lee for the purpose of improve the accuracy of the inspection by solving the problem of erroneous inspection as a defect.
Regarding claim 4; Washio discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for a plurality of trays are provided and arranged to be spaced apart from each other on the upper surface of the stage, and the second direction is a direction parallel to a direction in which the trays are arranged. However, Lee teaches that it is known in the art to provide a plurality of trays (20 @ figures 3-4) are provided and arranged to be spaced apart from each other on the upper surface of the stage (111 @ figures 2-3), and the second direction (figures 3-4: e.g., the first initial position A1 and the side of the tray 20 support the first tray support member 111 between the first lifting position (A2), which rises to the extent of falling, and the first lowering position (A3), which descends from the first lifting position (A2)) is a direction parallel to a direction in which the trays (20 @ figures 3-4) are arranged. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the tray alignment device and method of Washio with limitation above as taught by Lee for the purpose of improve the accuracy of the inspection by solving the problem of erroneous inspection as a defect.
Regarding claim 5; Washio discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the inspection module is disposed on the adsorption portion to be positioned above the tray. However, Lee teaches that it is known in the art to provide the inspection module (200 @ figures 2 and 7-11) is disposed on the adsorption portion (227@ figures 7-11) to be positioned above the tray (10 @ figures 7-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the tray alignment device and method of Washio with limitation above as taught by Lee for the purpose of improve the accuracy of the inspection by solving the problem of erroneous inspection as a defect.
Regarding claim 6; Washio discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the alignment module includes: an alignment member disposed adjacent to at least the portion of the edge of the tray; and an actuator that pushes the alignment member toward the tray so that the alignment member contacts and presses at least the portion of the edge of the tray. However, Lee teaches that it is known in the art to provide the alignment module (130 @ figures 2 and 5: e.g., The tray arranging unit 130 aligns the tray 20 to a preset alignment position before the cap assembly of the tray 20 delivered from the tray input unit 110 is picked up by the pick-up unit 300 to be described later) includes: an alignment member (131 @ figure 5) disposed adjacent to at least the portion of the edge of the tray (20 @ figure 5); and an actuator (figure 5: e.g., the tray aligning unit 130 of this embodiment may include a tray aligning member 131 and an aligning driving unit (not shown). The alignment driving unit may be implemented by means such as a motor or a cylinder) that pushes the alignment member (131 @ figure 5) toward the tray (20 @ figure 5) so that the alignment member (131 @ figure 5) contacts and presses at least the portion of the edge of the tray (20 @ figure 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the tray alignment device and method of Washio with limitation above as taught by Lee for the purpose of improve the accuracy of the inspection by solving the problem of erroneous inspection as a defect.
Regarding claim 9; Washio discloses the inspection module (1 @ figure 1) having the alignment unit (4 @ figures 1-5 and paragraph [0051]) includes: a transfer rail (27, 34 @ figures 2-5); a transfer block (21 @ figures 2-5) disposed on the transfer rail (27, 34 @ figures 2-5) and transferred along the transfer rail (27, 34 @ figures 2-5); a camera holder (25 @ figures 2-5) disposed on the transfer block (21 @ figures 2-5); and a camera (20 @ figures 2-5) disposed in or on the camera holder (25 @ figures 2-5) to photograph a contact area where the tray (3 @ figure 2) and the alignment member (12, 13 @ figure 2) come into contact.
Washio discloses al of feature of claimed invention except for the transfer rail disposed on the adsorption portion. However, Lee teaches that it is known in the art to provide the transfer rail (30, 310 @ figures 2-3) disposed on the adsorption portion (311 @ figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the tray alignment device and method of Washio with limitation above as taught by Lee for the purpose of improve the accuracy of the inspection by solving the problem of erroneous inspection as a defect.
Regarding claim 10; Washio discloses the transfer rail (27, 34 @ figures 2-5) extends in a direction horizontally (figures 4, 15, and paragraph [0059]: e.g., the X-axis moving mechanism 23 is a device for moving the camera 20 in the X-axis direction. The X-axis moving mechanism 23 is configured by a slide plate 25 and an X-axis driving portion 26) perpendicular to the second direction (figures 4, 15, and paragraph [0060]: e.g., the Y-axis moving mechanism 24 is a device for moving the X-axis driving portion 26 in the Y-axis direction. The Y-axis moving mechanism 24 includes a slide plate 32 and a Y-axis driving portion 33).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Washio in view of Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Okita et al (US 2013/0068726 hereinafter “Okita”).
Regarding claim 11; Washio in view of Lee combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the inspection module further includes: a display unit that displays an image photographed by the camera; and a control unit that determines the alignment state of the tray by analyzing the image displayed on the display unit. However, Okita teaches that it is known in the art to provide the inspection module (1 @ figures 1 and 6) further includes: a display unit (61 @ figure 6) that displays an image photographed by the camera (43, 44A, 44B @ figures 2 and 4); and a control unit (6 @figure 6) that determines the alignment state of the tray (7 @ figures 2, 5A, 8) by analyzing the image displayed on the display unit (61 @ figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the tray alignment device and method of Washio with limitation above as taught by Okita for the purpose of determining accurately detects whether or not the wafer is present in each of the accommodation holes provided to the tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 13-23 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 prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a tray alignment device comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the tray includes a first alignment surface extending in one direction and a second alignment surface extending in an oblique direction relative to the one direction, and the alignment member includes a first pressing surface extending in the one direction to press the first alignment surface and a second pressing surface extending in the oblique direction to press the second alignment surface in set forth of claim 7.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a tray alignment inspection method comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the tray supply step includes: a first supply step in which an adsorption portion moves in a second direction so that the adsorption portion for adsorbing the tray is positioned above the tray positioned outside the stage; a second supply step in which the adsorption portion moves in a first direction so as to be in contact with the tray; a third supply step in which the tray is adsorbed to the adsorption portion; a fourth supply step in which the adsorption portion that adsorbs the tray moves in the first direction; a fifth supply step in which the adsorption portion moves in the second direction so as to be positioned above the stage; a sixth supply step in which the adsorption portion moves in the first direction so that the tray is seated on an upper surface of the stage; and a seventh supply step in which the adsorption of the adsorption portion and the tray is released in set forth of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Jung (US 2014/0300043) discloses a film alignment device includes a stage on which a film is disposed and an alignment body above the stage, the alignment body and the stage being spaceable apart from and facing each other.
2) Hong (KR 20230050175 A) discloses a secondary battery tray inspection system and a secondary battery tray inspection method, and more particularly, to a secondary battery tray inspection system and a secondary battery tray inspection method for detecting defective trays in advance before inputting process equipment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
May 7, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights