DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, last word: “sit” should be changed to --site--.
Claims 3 and 8: "transport case” should be changed to --transport cases--
Claim 11, last line: should “electronic” should be changed to --electric--?
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 11, 12, 15, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 11-13, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,154,808. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite all of the limitations of the presently pending claims.
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.
Claims 11 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2023/0001841) in view of Hsieh et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0148198).
Lee teaches:
Re claim 11. A portable cleanroom stocker, comprising:
a plurality of storage ports (storage space inside electric carts 100, Fig. 1; paragraphs [0034-0035]: “electric carts 100 configured to load articles thereon and provided to be movable”, “In the instant case, the electric cart 100 may autonomously move and has a space for loading the article. The electric cart 100 may have a specific storage function set according to a condition for storing the article.”);
an interior environment management system configured to maintain cleanroom conditions for the plurality of storage ports (paragraph [0044]: “The body portion 110 has the loading space in which the article is loaded. The body portion 110 may have a specific loading function. In the instant case, the loading function may be a function of adjusting a temperature in the loading space, a function of absorbing impact, a sterilization function, or the like.”);
wheels (electric wheels 120, Fig. 1); and
a vehicle guidance module configured to drive the portable cleanroom stocker and to maneuver the portable cleanroom stocker into an unmanned electronic vehicle (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0068]: “Therefore, when the article delivery to the destination is requested, the controller 300 controls the electric cart 100 loaded with the articles to load the electric cart 100 into the accommodation space in the delivery mobility vehicle 400 and controls and moves the delivery mobility vehicle 400 to the requested destination.”).
Lee fails to specifically teach: (re claim 11) a plurality of storage ports each configured to hold a respective transport case configured to hold a plurality of wafers.
Hsieh teaches, at Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0024 and 0028-0029], such autonomous carts may be configured to hold multiple wafer carriers, each including several wafers. This allows for such wafers to be transported around semiconductor fabrication facilities (FABs) to the locations at which the wafers are required.
In view of Hsieh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Lee, (re claim 11) a plurality of storage ports each configured to hold a respective transport case configured to hold a plurality of wafers, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hsieh teaches such autonomous carts may be configured to hold multiple wafer carriers, each including several wafers. This allows for such wafers to be transported around semiconductor fabrication facilities (FABs) to the locations at which the wafers are required.
Lee further teaches:
Re claim 15. Wherein the portable cleanroom stocker includes a manufacturing execution system interface (transmitting and receiving controller 300, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0045, 0053, and 0068]).
Re claim 16. Comprising a load/unload port configured to load and unload the transport cases (door on the body portion 110, Fig. 1; and loading articles, paragraphs [0034-0035]).
While Lee teaches a single sensor at paragraph [0052], and adjusting a temperature and minimizing impacts to loaded articles at paragraph [0035], Lee fails to specifically teach: (re claim 17) comprising a plurality of environmental sensors.
Hsieh teaches, at paragraphs [0021-0022], additionally including vibrational sensors in such autonomous carts to determine if the load carried in the autonomous carts should be inspected for errors due to the vibrations.
In view of Hsieh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the apparatus as taught by Lee, (re claim 17) comprising a plurality of environmental sensors, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hsieh teaches additionally including vibrational sensors in such autonomous carts to determine if the load carried in the autonomous carts should be inspected for errors due to the vibrations.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Publication No. 2023/0001841) in view of Hsieh et al. (US Publication No. 2019/0148198) and Abraham et al. (US Publication No. 2004/0050189).
Lee teaches:
Re claim 18. A method, comprising:
generating, with a manufacturing execution system associated with a first […] site, a command for an unmanned […] vehicle to carry a portable cleanroom stocker to a second […] site (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0068]: “Therefore, when the article delivery to the destination is requested, the controller 300 controls the electric cart 100 loaded with the articles to load the electric cart 100 into the accommodation space in the delivery mobility vehicle 400 and controls and moves the delivery mobility vehicle 400 to the requested destination.”);
storing, with the portable cleanroom stocker, […] (storage space inside electric carts 100, Fig. 1; paragraphs [0034-0035]: “electric carts 100 configured to load articles thereon and provided to be movable”, “In the instant case, the electric cart 100 may autonomously move and has a space for loading the article. The electric cart 100 may have a specific storage function set according to a condition for storing the article.”); and
driving, with a vehicle guidance module of the portable cleanroom stocker, the portable cleanroom stocker into the unmanned […] vehicle (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019 and 0068]: “Therefore, when the article delivery to the destination is requested, the controller 300 controls the electric cart 100 loaded with the articles to load the electric cart 100 into the accommodation space in the delivery mobility vehicle 400 and controls and moves the delivery mobility vehicle 400 to the requested destination.”; and paragraphs [0020, 0035 and 0073]: the electric cart 100 moves autonomously).
Lee fails to specifically teach: (re claim 18)
a first semiconductor processing site, and a second semiconductor processing site;
storing, with the portable cleanroom stocker, a transport case holding a semiconductor wafer.
Hsieh teaches, at Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0024 and 0028-0029], such autonomous carts may be configured to hold multiple wafer carriers, each including several wafers. This allows for such wafers to be transported to different sites, within semiconductor fabrication facilities (FABs), where the wafers are required.
In view of Hsieh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Lee, (re claim 18) a first semiconductor processing site, and a second semiconductor processing site; storing, with the portable cleanroom stocker, a transport case holding a semiconductor wafer, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hsieh teaches such autonomous carts may be configured to hold multiple wafer carriers, each including several wafers. This allows for such wafers to be transported to different sites, within semiconductor fabrication facilities (FABs), where the wafers are required.
Lee fails to specifically teach: (re claim 18) an unmanned electric vehicle.
Abraham teaches, at vehicle 2, wafer transfer area 1B, Fig. 3, and paragraphs [0012, 0026, 0033], such automatic guided vehicles (AGVs) for carrying wafers in a cleanroom environment are preferably propelled using electric motors. Such electric motors propel heavy loads without creating contaminants in the cleanroom environment.
In view of Abraham’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Lee, (re claim 18) an unmanned electric vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Abraham teaches such automatic guided vehicles (AGVs) for carrying wafers in a cleanroom environment are preferably propelled using electric motors. Such electric motors propel heavy loads without creating contaminants in the cleanroom environment.
Re claim 19. Comprising transporting, with the unmanned electric vehicle, the portable cleanroom stocker from the first semiconductor processing site to the second semiconductor processing site responsive to the command (paragraph [0068]: “Therefore, when the article delivery to the destination is requested, the controller 300 controls the electric cart 100 loaded with the articles to load the electric cart 100 into the accommodation space in the delivery mobility vehicle 400 and controls and moves the delivery mobility vehicle 400 to the requested destination.”).
Lee fails to specifically teach (re claim 20) comprising providing, from the unmanned electric vehicle, transportation data to a manufacturing execution system associated with the second semiconductor processing site.
Hsieh teaches, at paragraphs [0053-0054], transmitting wafer data, from a vehicle transporting the wafer, to a robotic arm at a receiving location for the wafer. This allows for wafer data to accompany the corresponding wafers throughout the manufacturing facility, such that the history of each wafer is known.
In view of Hsieh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Lee, (re claim 20) comprising providing, from the unmanned electric vehicle, transportation data to a manufacturing execution system associated with the second semiconductor processing site, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Hsieh teaches transmitting wafer data, from a vehicle transporting the wafer, to a robotic arm at a receiving location for the wafer. This allows for wafer data to accompany the corresponding wafers throughout the manufacturing facility, such that the history of each wafer is known.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claims 12-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656