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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of JP 2023-186849 filed on 31 October 2023 was received on 22 April 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 October 2024 has been 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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), 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) 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:
“transfer device configured to” in Claims 1 and 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“transfer device” is a robot, as shown in the figures / described in the specification, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“comprising the steps of:” in Claim 1
“after the step (A)” in Claim 1
“in the step (B)” in Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9
“before the step (A)” in Claims 7, 8, and 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
On page 10 line 5, “FIG. 5B” should be “FIG. 3B
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: the preamble of Claim 1 recites “A teaching method for teaching a transfer position of a consumable member in a cassette”; however, Claim 1 does not claim “teaching a transfer position of a consumable member”. Claim 1 should be amended similarly to Claim 16 to recite “recognizing a transfer position of the consumable in the cassette based on the three-dimensional coordinates of the cassette” (or the like) or the preamble should be changed.
Claim 1: “the consumable members” lacks antecedent basis (only “a consumable member” was introduced).
Claim 2: “the position of the cassette” should be “[[the]]a position of the cassette”.
Claim 3: “an inner edge of the bottom plate” is recited twice. The second instance should be “[[an]]the inner edge of the bottom plate”.
Claim 4: “a height position of the bottom plate” should be “a height position of [[the]]a bottom plate” (alternatively, Applicant could change the scope of the claims and make Claim 4 dependent on Claim 3 where “a bottom plate” is introduced).
Claim 7: “the positions of the transfer device and the cassette are adjusted based on the reference position of the aligner in the step (B)” should be “a position of the transfer device and a position of the cassette are adjusted based on the reference position of the aligner in the step (B)”.
Claims 8 and 9: “the positions of the transfer device and the cassette are adjusted based on the reference position of the aligner in the step (B)” should be “a position of the transfer device and the position of the cassette are adjusted based on the reference position of the aligner in the step (B)”.
Claim 16: “the consumable members” lacks antecedent basis (only “a consumable member” was introduced).
Claim 16: “wherein the controller performs:…recognizes a transfer position…” is not grammatically correct and should be amended (As one possible suggestion, Applicant could change “wherein the controller performs” to “wherein the controller is configured to”, while also changing “recognizing” to “recognize”, “detecting” to “detect”, “calculating” to “calculates”, and “recognizes” to “recognize”).
Appropriate corrections are required.
Applicant is advised that should certain dependent claims be found allowable, other claims may be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof (this applies to a first grouping consisting of Claims 7-9, a seconding grouping consisting of Claims 10-12, and a third grouping consisting of Claims 13-15). When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are directed to a method. Claim 16 is directed to a system. Therefore, Claims 1-16 are directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1: Yes, the claims recite abstract ideas. The abstract ideas in Claims 1 and 16, the independent claims, are as follows:
A teaching method for teaching a transfer position of a consumable member in a cassette included in a substrate processing system, the substrate processing system having a transfer device configured to transfer the consumable member, and a storage module where the cassette accommodating a plurality of the consumable members is set (Claim 1)
(A) recognizing setting of the cassette in the storage module (Claim 1, Claim 16)
calculating three-dimensional coordinates of the cassette based on detection information of the sensor (Claim 1, Claim 16)
recognizes a transfer position of the consumable member in the cassette based on the three-dimensional coordinates of the cassette (Claim 16)
These are abstract ideas because they can reasonably be completed in the human mind. The human mind can teach positions, recognize events, and make calculations. The dependent claims recite additional abstract ideas / further limit the abstract ideas.
The additional elements in Claims 1-16 are as follows:
detecting the cassette by a sensor of the transfer device (Claim 1, Claim 16) / wherein the sensor is a displacement sensor that measures a distance from the transfer device to an opposing object (Claim 10, Claim 11, Claim 12)
the position of the cassette is directly detected by the sensor by moving the fork forward relative to the cassette (Claim 2)
multiple positions of an inner edge of the bottom plate are detected by the sensor (Claim 3)
a height position of the bottom plate of the cassette is detected by the sensor (Claim 4) / a height position of a top plate of the cassette is detected by the sensor (Claim 5) / multiple positions of the cassette which have different heights are detected by the sensor (Claim 6)
a reference position of the aligner is detected by the sensor of the transfer device before the step (A), and the positions of the transfer device and the cassette are adjusted based on the reference position of the aligner in the step (B) (Claim 7, Claim 8, Claim 9)
A substrate processing system comprising: a transfer device configured to transfer a consumable member; a storage module where a cassette accommodating a plurality of the consumable members is set; and a controller (Claim 16)
Step 2A Prong 2: the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additional element f merely links the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additional elements a, b, c, d, and e describe insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The movement / position adjustments described in Claim 2 (see at least FIG. 6 S102 and specification page 19 lines 22-26) and Claims 7-9 (see at least FIG. 6 and specification page 19 lines 12-21) are part of the data gathering and not a practical application.
Step 2B: the additional elements, individually and in combination, fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Office takes Official Notice that they are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), or else they are insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (additional elements a, b, c, d, and e) (see numerous court decisions pertaining to observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, such as the findings from Electric Power Group where it was found that collecting information, analyzing it, and outputting certain results of the collection and analysis was not significantly more than the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
To overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner recommends that Applicant amends the claims to positively recite a physical control step within the real world environment based on the calculated three-dimensional coordinates of the cassette (supported by page 22 lines 21-26 and page 23 lines 1-10 of the specification). For example, Applicant could amend Claim 16 to recite control the transfer device to unload the consumable member based on the transfer position of the consumable member, or the like.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0021452 (Hwang et al., hereinafter, Hwang) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0398838 (Amikura and Kita, hereinafter, Amikura).
Regarding Claim 1, Hwang discloses A teaching method for teaching a transfer position of a…member in a cassette included in a substrate processing system, the substrate processing system having a transfer device configured to transfer the…member, and a storage module where the cassette accommodating a plurality of the…members is set (see at least [0010], [0041], [0043]-[0044], and FIG. 3: “The FOUP 220 may be a container in which a front surface may be open and a plurality of wafers may be accommodated”; ”the controller may control the wafer transfer robot 210 to move the wafer, and may execute an operation of teaching adjusting position information about the FOUP 220, the aligner 230, or the buffer 240 with respect to the wafer transfer robot 210”);
the teaching method comprising the steps of:
(A) recognizing setting of the cassette in the storage module (see at least [0044], [0052], [0062], and [0067]: “The FOUP 220 may be a container in which a front surface may be open and a plurality of wafers may be accommodated, and may be transferred to the wafer transfer apparatus 200 by moving along a rail installed on a line. After arriving at the wafer transfer apparatus 200, when the front surface of the FOUP 220 is opened to expose the wafers accommodated therein, the wafer transfer robot 210 may eject the wafer, and may move the same to the aligner 230”; “efficiency of the semiconductor process may be improved by automatically executing the teaching operation as described above at a point in time at which an operation of the wafer transfer apparatus 200 starts and/or a point in time at which a predetermined period arrives”); and
(B) after the step (A), detecting the cassette by a sensor of the transfer device and calculating three-dimensional coordinates of the cassette based on detection information of the sensor (see at least [0052]-[0054], [0060], and FIG. 5: “Assuming that the sensor unit 215 includes a camera sensor 216 and a laser sensor 217, the controller may recognize each of the plurality of markers 224 using an image generated by the camera sensor 216 and a distance to each of the plurality of markers 224 may be measured by the laser sensor 217”; “position information about each of the FOUP 220, the aligner 230, and the buffer 240 may be defined in a three-dimensional coordinate axis. For example, the controller of the wafer transfer apparatus 200 may define positions of the plurality of markers 224, 233, and 243 attached to each of the FOUP 220, the aligner 230, and the buffer 240 in three-dimensional coordinates. Therefore, the controller may accurately determine target coordinates at which a hand unit 211 of the wafer transfer robot 210 should be located to accurately eject and feed the wafer W for each of the FOUP 220, the aligner 230, and the buffer 240”).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose a…member is a consumable member.
Amikura, in the same field of robots for semiconductor processing, and therefore analogous art, teaches a…member is a consumable member (see at least [0005]-[0006] and [0024]: using a cassette / aligner system for the consumable member of an edge ring).
Furthermore, Amikura explicitly teaches recognizing setting of the cassette in the storage module (see at least [0047] and FIG. 7: “An operator opens the door 42 and replaces the cassette 35. When the door 42 is closed and a predetermined manipulation is performed by the operator, the controller 100 determines that the replacement of the cassette 35 is completed (step S2)”).
Combining the teachings of Hwang and Amikura (using the detection of Hwang including control / sensors / markers for the edge ring system of Amikura) would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. Hwang (see at least [0041]) explicitly notes that alternate structures for the apparatus can be considered “A structure of the wafer transfer apparatus 200 is not limited as illustrated in FIG. 3, and may be variously modified according to example embodiments” and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found using the known technique of Hwang an obvious solution to improve the edge ring system of Amikura in the same way with the motivation of accurately detecting / determining positions for the edge ring system of Amikura.
Regarding Claim 2, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Hwang further discloses wherein the transfer device has a fork that supports the…member (see at least FIG. 4: hand unit 211),
the sensor is disposed at a tip end of the fork (see at least [0050], FIG. 4, and FIG. 10: in the position shown in FIG. 4 / FIG. 10, the sensor unit 215 including camera sensor 216 and laser sensor 217 are “at” a tip end hand unit 211 / hand unit 411; the examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the sensor to be “on” the fork and does not require the sensor to face in any particular direction; “the sensor unit 215 may be attached to a nearby location as close to the hand unit 211 as possible”);
in the step (B), the position of the cassette is directly detected by the sensor by moving the fork forward relative to the cassette (see at least FIG. 10: one of ordinary skill in the art would consider that hand unit 411 and driving unit 412 are moved forward / towards the markers measured by the sensor unit).
Regarding Claim 4, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 2. Furthermore, Hwang further discloses wherein in the step (B), a height position of the bottom plate of the cassette is detected by the sensor (see at least [0052]-[0054] and FIG. 5: lower markers 224 on FOUP 220 are detected / can reasonably considered part of a bottom plate of the cassette). Additionally/alternatively, since Hwang shows markers 243 on the bottom plate of buffer 240 (FIG. 7), detecting a height position on the bottom plate of the cassette would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art with the motivation of using a known position from the buffer for the cassette / there are no teachings that would discourage this location, and the markers are shown in relatively arbitrary positions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the positions of the markers of the cassette slightly until a reasonable position was found using the position on the buffer as a suggestion.
Regarding Claim 5, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 2. Furthermore, Hwang further discloses wherein in the step (B), a height position of a top plate of the cassette is detected by the sensor (see at least [0052]-[0054] and FIG. 5: upper markers 224 on FOUP 220 are detected / can reasonably considered part of a top plate of the cassette). Additionally/alternatively, since Hwang shows markers 243 on the top plate of buffer 240 (FIG. 7), detecting a height position on the top plate of the cassette would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art with the motivation of using a known position from the buffer for the cassette / there are no teachings that would discourage this location, and the markers are shown in relatively arbitrary positions, so one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the positions of the markers of the cassette slightly until a reasonable position was found using the position on the buffer as a suggestion.
Regarding Claim 6, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 2. Furthermore, Hwang further discloses wherein in the step (B), multiple positions of the cassette which have different heights are detected by the sensor (see at least [0052]-[0054] and FIG. 5: markers 224 have varying heights, each of the markers 224 / at least three markers 224 are recognized).
Regarding Claim 7, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, the Hwang further discloses wherein the storage module has an aligner that adjusts misalignment and/or a position in a rotational direction of the…member (see at least FIG. 3 and FIG. 6: aligner 230),
a reference position… is detected by the sensor of the transfer device before the step (A) (see at least [0067], [0070]-[0071], and FIG. 9: “The controller may acquire position information about each of the markers attached to the body by repeating operations S10 and S20 as many as the number of markers attached to the body. In an example embodiment, the position information about each of the markers attached to the body may be generated in three-dimensional coordinates, and in operation S30, the controller may determine a reference position of the wafer transfer robot using this information. The reference position determined in operation S30 may be an origin coordinate for determining a relative position of the wafer transfer robot with respect to the body of the wafer transfer apparatus”), and
the positions of the transfer device … are adjusted based on the reference position… in the step (B) (see at least [0038]-[0039] and [0071]-[0073]: “the controller may use the reference position as an offset coordinate, and may control the wafer transfer robot by subtracting the reference position”).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose a reference position… is a reference position of the aligner. Additionally, Hwang does not explicitly disclose the positions of … the cassette are adjusted based on the reference position… in the step (B).
Furthermore, Amikura (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) further teaches wherein the storage module has an aligner that adjusts misalignment and/or a position in a rotational direction of the consumable member (see at least Amikura [0035] and FIG. 3: “stage 31 performs a positional alignment of the edge ring 50”),
Additionally, in view of the Hwang and Amikura combination (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) a reference position… is a reference position of the aligner would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. Hwang explicitly discloses (see [0067]) “a controller of the wafer transfer apparatus may recognize markers attached to a body. The body may be a main frame … to which a FOUP transferred by a transfer device such as a rail externally is connected”. In Amikura, the stage 31 is both visible through gate valve 23 when lifted vertically and not extracted or installed like the cassette 35 (see at least [0038]-[0039]). One of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the Hwang and Amikura combination would find the stage 31 an obvious location for a reference marker.
Additionally, in view of the Hwang and Amikura combination (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) the positions of … the cassette are adjusted based on the reference position… in the step (B) would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. In Amikura, cassette 35 is only accessible to the fork 120 / robot arm 12b through gate valve 23, so in order for the sensor unit 215 of Hwang to analyze any markers on the cassette 35 of Amikura (which would be required for the combination), the cassette 35 should be adjusted to show the markers through the gate valve 23. To show the markers through the gate valve more accurately, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the cassette 35 vertical position of Amikura based on reference marker positions on the stage 31.
Regarding Claim 8, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 2. The additional limitations in Claim 8 are substantially similar to Claim 7, and Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 10, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Hwang further discloses wherein the sensor is a displacement sensor that measures a distance from the transfer device to an opposing object (see at least [0037] and [0054]: “The sensor unit may include a camera sensor capable of generating an image on which the marker is displayed, to recognize the marker, and a laser sensor capable of measuring a distance to the marker”).
Regarding Claim 11, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 2. The additional limitation in Claim 11 is substantially similar to Claim 10, and Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 13, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Amikura further teaches (as part of the same combination as Claim 1 / with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1) wherein the consumable member is a ring disposed around a substrate during substrate processing (see at least [0025]).
Regarding Claim 14, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 2. The additional limitation in Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 13, and Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 includes many limitations substantially similar to Claim 1 and accordingly Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1. Furthermore, Hwang discloses a controller, wherein the controller performs...recognizes a transfer position of the…member in the cassette based on the three-dimensional coordinates of the cassette (see at least [0008], [0035], [0074], and FIG. 9: “The controller 130 may control an operation of the wafer transfer robot 110. For example, the controller 130 may control movement, position movement, etc. of the wafer transfer robot 110 such that the wafer transfer robot 110 transfers a wafer between the plurality of transfer structures 120. In addition, the controller 130 may perform an operation of teaching adjusting position information about the plurality of transfer structures 120 such that the wafer transfer robot 110 accurately feeds and ejects the wafer with respect to each of the plurality of transfer structures 120”).
Claims 3, 9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Amikura in further view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0173870 (hereinafter, Otts).
Regarding Claim 3, the Hwang and Amikura combination teaches Claim 2. Hwang further discloses wherein the cassette includes a bottom plate (see at least FIG. 5: the bottom of FOUP 220). The Hwang and Amikura combination does not explicitly teach wherein the cassette includes a bottom plate having an opening and an inner edge of the bottom plate constitutes the opening, and in the step (B), multiple positions of an inner edge of the bottom plate are detected by the sensor, and a center position of the opening is calculated based on the multiple positions of the inner edge of the bottom plate. Hwang instead teaches determining the position based on the markers 224 and a camera. Otts, in the same field of teaching positions to robots, and therefore analogous art, teaches a bottom plate having an opening and an inner edge of the bottom plate constitutes the opening (see at least [0026] and FIG. 2: landmark 210 on work surface 208)…multiple positions of an inner edge of the bottom plate are detected by the sensor, and a center position of the opening is calculated based on the multiple positions of the inner edge of the bottom plate (see at least [0028] and FIG. 3: “the center of the line across the hole can be calculated by averaging the two readings”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would use the known technique of determining a position of Otts to improve the similar robotic system / method of the Hwang and Amikura combination in the same way; therefore, wherein the cassette includes a bottom plate having an opening and an inner edge of the bottom plate constitutes the opening, and in the step (B), multiple positions of an inner edge of the bottom plate are detected by the sensor, and a center position of the opening is calculated based on the multiple positions of the inner edge of the bottom plate would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art with the motivation of ensuring alignment to the bottom plate.
Regarding Claim 9, the Hwang, Amikura, and Otts combination teaches Claim 3. The additional limitations in Claim 9 are substantially similar to Claim 7, and Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 12, the Hwang, Amikura, and Otts combination teaches Claim 3. The additional limitation in Claim 12 is substantially similar to Claim 10, and Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, the Hwang, Amikura, and Otts combination teaches Claim 3. The additional limitation in Claim 15 is substantially similar to Claim 13, and Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 13.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited: U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0178043 which teaches horizontal and vertical laser sensors on the distal end of a transfer robot fork that detect a hole (see at least [0050]-[0053], [0060], FIG. 2, and FIG. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights