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 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: driving unit in claim(s) 1 (first instance), collection unit in Claim 3 (first instance), image processing unit in Claim 11 (first instance),
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.
The driving unit will be interpreted as a wheel and motor assembly as described in par. 0051-0052 of applicant’s specification as filed, or equivalents thereof.
The collection unit will be interpreted as a fan filter unit as described in par. 0050 of applicant’s specification as filed, or equivalents thereof.
The image processing unit will be interpreted as a display as described in par. 0078 of applicant’s specification as filed, or 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 § 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 10-11, 19 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.
Regarding Claims 10-11, 19, the claims recite "a contaminate processing device…a first contaminant processing device…a second contaminant processing device".
It is unclear whether the “contaminate processing device” in the preamble of the claims refers to the first contaminate processing device, the second contaminate processing device, or a system comprising both the first and second contaminate devices. The lack of clarity in the relationship between the contaminate processing devices makes the scope of the claims as a whole indefinite. For examining purposes, the contaminate processing device in the preambles will be interpreted as a system that can contain multiple contaminate processing devices.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rim et al (KR 20150047676, hereinafter Rim) in view of Holeyannavar et al (US 11353381, hereinafter Holeyannavar).
Regarding Claim 1, Rim teaches:
a contaminant processing device (see at least "portable air inlet filter system" on page 2 and Fig. 1 ) comprising:
a body unit; (see at least "body 100" on page 2 and Fig. 1 )
a driving unit installed on the body unit and configured to drive (see at least "drive means 200" on page 3 and Fig. 1 )
a manipulator installed on an upper surface of the body unit and including a plurality of joints; (see at least "robot arm 320" on page 4 and Fig. 1 )
a suction unit installed on the upper surface of the body unit and connected to the manipulator; and (see at least pump 120 on page 3 and Fig. 2 )
a controller that controls the manipulator to position the suction unit on a process chamber (see at least controller 400 on page 4 and “The portable air inlet filter system (1) of the present invention may further include a sensing unit 500, which is for measuring the temperature of the intake air temperature sensor, a contamination material or a material identification sensor for identification of radioactive materials, contaminants or the like provided with a concentration sensor for measuring the concentration of radioactive substances in the air… The suction nozzle 310 is installed on one end of the robot arm 320. In addition, the suction pipe is being extended to the body 100 and held through the outer peripheral surface or the inner side of the robot arm (310). To do this, the suction nozzle 310 by communicating with the pump 120 for generating ultimately suction force by the suction pipe as a medium, serves to draw air containing contaminants or radioactive material and the close contact with the damaged area of the structure (2) and a.” On page 4 )
Rim does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Holeyannavar does teach:
a controller that controls the manipulator to position the suction unit on a process chamber inside the semiconductor line and controls the suction unit to suck chemical gas discharged from the process chamber (see at least “The measurement data is correlated with position of the detector disc within the processing system, and thus provide information about the detected levels of the chemical gas contaminants separately within a storage location, a factory interface, a load lock, a transfer chamber, or a processing chamber, to name a few.” In col. 3 lines 36-41 and “The microcontroller 230 may be adapted to receive detection signals from the sensor 226 upon the sensor 226 detecting certain levels of concertation of chemical gas contaminants.” In col. 6 lines 10-13 and "The microcontroller 330 may be a programmed processor, a FPGA, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or other controller. The microcontroller 330 may be configured to activate the MEMs pump 329, e.g., after detection of movement of the detector disc 301 or some other trigger and/or to shut off the MEMS pump 329, e.g., responsive to a timer timing out, responsive to an external signal, responsive to a measurement from a sensor (e.g., that indicates an amount of gas pumped into a sorbent tube), or responsive to some other condition. " in col. 8 line 25-35)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Rim to incorporate the teachings of Holeyannavar wherein the robot is operating within a semiconductor line detecting chemical contaminates within the processing chambers. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Holeyannavar would be to improve substrate manufacturing performance by identifying areas where chemical gas contaminants are too high and targeting additional gas filtration in these areas (see col. 3 lines 58-65).
Regarding Claim 6, Rim as modified by Holeyannavar teaches:
a contaminant processing device of claim 1,
Rim further teaches: wherein the suction unit includes a suction pad that is connected to the manipulator and sucks the chemical gas,(see at least "suction nozzle 310" on page 4 and Fig. 1 ) and
a suction cable that is connected to the suction pad and the body unit and is a passage through which the sucked chemical gas moves. (see at least " The suction nozzle 310 is installed on one end of the robot arm 320. In addition, the suction pipe is being extended to the body 100 and held through the outer peripheral surface or the inner side of the robot arm (310). To do this, the suction nozzle 310 by communicating with the pump 120 for generating ultimately suction force by the suction pipe as a medium, serves to draw air containing contaminants or radioactive material and the close contact with the damaged area of the structure (2) and a." on page 4 )
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rim et al (KR 20150047676, hereinafter Rim) in view of Holeyannavar et al (US 11353381, hereinafter Holeyannavar) and Rhoades et al (US 20240032761, hereinafter Rhoades)
Regarding Claim 2, Rim as modified by Holeyannavar teaches:
a contaminant processing device of claim 1,
Rim further teaches: wherein the body unit includes different first and second surfaces, (see body 100 on page 3 and Fig. 1)
a purification unit installed in the body unit and installed to penetrate the first surface and the second surface (see at least "The suction nozzle 310 is installed on one end of the robot arm 320. In addition, the suction pipe is being extended to the body 100 and held through the outer peripheral surface or the inner side of the robot arm (310)." On page 4 and Figs. 1-2), wherein the purification unit includes:
a flow path disposed between the first surface and the second surface, (see at least “As long filter member for filtering the contaminants contained in the air, or radioactive materials, the size of the mesh material and is not limited or restricted. The air filtered by the filter 110 is out into the outside air through the exhaust port 130.” On page 3 and Figs. 1-2 and "The suction nozzle 310 is installed on one end of the robot arm 320. In addition, the suction pipe is being extended to the body 100 and held through the outer peripheral surface or the inner side of the robot arm (310)." On page 4 and Figs. 1-2)
a chemical gas detection sensor measuring the chemical gas flowing in through the first surface, wherein the chemical gas detection sensor installed in the flow path (see at least "The portable air inlet filter system (1) of the present invention may further include a sensing unit 500, which is for measuring the temperature of the intake air temperature sensor, a contamination material or a material identification sensor for identification of radioactive materials, contaminants or the like provided with a concentration sensor for measuring the concentration of radioactive substances in the air. Such a sensor may be provided in the body 100 or the suction unit (300). The sensor of the sensing unit 500 are connected to the controller 400 will transmit the detected electrical signal to the controller 400. The controller 400 properly controls the operation of pump 120 based on a signal received from the sensing unit 500" on page 4 and Figs. 1-2) ,
wherein the controller receives a concentration of the chemical gas from the chemical gas detection sensor and (see at least " The portable air inlet filter system (1) of the present invention may further include a sensing unit 500, which is for measuring the temperature of the intake air temperature sensor, a contamination material or a material identification sensor for identification of radioactive materials, contaminants or the like provided with a concentration sensor for measuring the concentration of radioactive substances in the air. Such a sensor may be provided in the body 100 or the suction unit (300). The sensor of the sensing unit 500 are connected to the controller 400 will transmit the detected electrical signal to the controller 400. The controller 400 properly controls the operation of pump 120 based on a signal received from the sensing unit 500" on page 4)
Rim and Holeyannavar do not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Rhoades does teach:
further comprising a position sensor installed in the body unit and sensing a position (see at least "The robot 10 comprises wheels 24 for movement, a position sensor 38 and laser 40. Position sensor 38 may comprises a Global Positioning Device for navigation (e.g. through GPS) or the robot may use triangulation with known positioning reflectors and the laser 40 for positioning. The position sensor may be located wherever appropriate on or in the robot for whatever positioning means is to be utilised by the robot. In operation, the robot may be in constant communication with a positioning device or means and may reposition itself based on communication from a Global Positioning Device. Reflectors and smart Reflectors may be used as part of the positioning and robot movement system, as described in other applications by the Applicant." in par. 0064)
wherein the controller receives a concentration of the chemical gas from the chemical gas detection sensor and receives position data from the position sensor to check the concentration of the chemical gas according to the position (see at least “Preferably, the method further comprises generating a heat map of data points using the location data in combination with the other data collected by the robot, including the data related to hygiene or cleanliness. Preferably, the heat map of data points is an indicator of wider-area cleanliness or hygiene of a building, facility or single site, or indicates areas of a wider area which may need cleaning.” In par. 0020 and “Preferably, the robot is capable of recording other data, such as recording human footfall around the robot as it operates, and recording such data as part of the data file. Other data that can be collected by the robots include light levels (for example with a lux meter, light detector), air quality (for example level of oxygen or CO2, level of pollutant or particulates in the air, tests could be carried out onboard the robot, could be used in conjunction with air-virology testing), moisture levels (for example measuring dry air or damp), wetness or dryness of testing surfaces (for example to test floor safety), number of people or other objects around the robot (for example footfall, how often the robot had to move around people through smart sensors), or any other parameter which could be linked to a building or facilities safety, environmental condition or quality.” In par. 0027and " Preferably, the data point which is an indicator of hygiene or cleanliness is a data point collected to give an indication of one or more of the following: level of dirt or debris, level of disease, level of virus, level of bacteria, level of microorganism, level of fungi, level of pathogen, biological material deposited, biological material present, level of waste, level of contaminants or level of sterility, air quality." in par. 0030 and “For example, a hoover or deposition removal device could be added to the robot, where the material deposited e.g. a cleaning fluid or decontamination material can be hoovered or vacuumed up and removed by the robot.” in par. 0099)
Given that Holeyannavar already teaches a robot for measuring chemical levels at different positions within a semiconductor line, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Rim as modified by Holeyannavar to incorporate the teachings of Rhoades wherein the robot body has a position sensor and contaminate levels throughout a facility are measured and presented with their corresponding position to form a heat map. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Rhoades would be to have improved monitoring and targeting of locations in need of decontamination within a facility (see par. 0012)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-12 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 comes from Rim, Holeyannavar, and Rhoades. These references in combination discloses a mobile robot that operates within a semiconductor line to detect concentrations of chemicals and purify areas of need, but fail to teach all of the claimed structural and control logic features listed below. Note for claims 10-11 there are no prior art rejections, but the 112(b) rejections above will need to be overcome before allowance.
For Claim 3, Rim is the closest prior art but does not appear to teach “wherein the chemical gas detection sensor is disposed between the suction fan and the collection unit.” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claims 4 and 5, Rim is the closest prior art but does not appear to teach “a width of the center is smaller than a width of the one side and a width of the other side” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claims 7, Rhoades is the closest prior art but does not appear to teach “a distance control sensor installed on the side of the body unit,” in combination with “wherein the distance control sensor controls a distance between the process chamber where the chemical gas presents and the body unit.” and all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claims 8, Holeyannavar is the closest prior art but does not appear to teach “wherein an exhaust device is installed inside the semiconductor line” in combination with “wherein the contaminant processing device moves to the exhaust device and removes the chemical gas collected in the collection unit through the exhaust device” and all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claims 9-11, Rim is the closest prior art but does not appear to teach “senses a position of the chemical gas using the position sensor” in combination with “moves the suction unit to the position of the chemical gas using the manipulator” and all of the other limitations in the claim.
For Claims 12, Holeyannavar is the closest prior art but does not appear to teach “the manipulator to control the suction unit to be positioned at a position of the particle” in combination with all of the other limitations in the claim.
Claims 13-18, 20 allowed
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art comes from Rim, Holeyannavar, and Rhoades. These references in combination discloses a mobile robot that operates within a semiconductor line to detect concentrations of chemicals and purify areas of need.
For Claims 13-19, these references fail to teach having both a particle sensor and a chemical gas detection sensor in combination with “a controller controlling the manipulator to position the suction unit on a process chamber inside the semiconductor line and to control the suction unit to suck the chemical gas and the particles present on the process chamber” and all of the other limitations in the independent claim. Note for claim 19 there are no prior art rejections, but the 112(b) rejections above will need to be overcome before allowance.
For Claim 20, the prior art does not appear to teach “a distance control sensor installed on a side of the body unit” in combination with “controlling the distance between a process chamber from which the chemical gas is discharged and the body unit” and all of the other limitations in the claim.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights