DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: Application filed on 11/13/2024.
Claims 1-9 are presented for Examination. Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 and 9 broadly recite generating an induced current in a second coil via a first coil “in order to supply power to the power consuming device” during substrate transfer via magnetic levitation.The specification discloses two vastly different embodiments:
First Embodiment (¶¶ 0036–0039): A fixed first coil positioned only above a static dwell location (load lock module) where the moving body completely stops to charge a battery (72).
Second Embodiment (¶¶ 0092–0101): A dynamically moving first coil mounted on a multi-axis stage (8) controlled by motors (83, 85) to track a moving body in real-time.The specification fails to enable the full scope of claim 1 where power transfer occurs continuously or dynamically during transit across general module paths without a moving mechanism, nor does it provide structural guidance on coupling efficiencies, acceptable high-speed misalignment limits, air-gap dimensional constraints, or power budgets necessary to run sensors/cameras while moving. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have to engage in undue experimentation to make and use the wireless power transfer system across all un-evidenced operational trajectories (see MPEP Citation: MPEP § 2164.01(a); In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 20 USPQ2d 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claim 3 recites that the moving space has a first region and a second region with different dwell times per unit time, and the first coil is provided “limitedly above the first region, where the dwell time is longer than in the second region.”. The specification ties the first coil placement functionally to "dwell time per unit time" (defined in ¶ 0082 over an arbitrary 10-hour operational window). However, the specification fails to show structural bounds or possession of what constitutes "limitedly above" (e.g., precise footprint overlap percentages or physical clearance limits relative to the region boundaries).The specification does not teach how a POSITA can structurally design or arrange a coil "limitedly" based on a shifting operational metric like long-term dwell time without arbitrary trial and error (see MPEP § 2163 (Written Description Requirement and MPEP § 2164.01).
Appropriate correction is requested.
Since the independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and hence the dependent claims of 1 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 3, 5 and 7 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “limitedly above” & “dwell times … per unit time are different” and “...the first coil is provided limitedly above the first region, where the dwell time is longer than in the second region.”
The limitations of “limitedly above” is a relative spatial term with no objective metes and bounds. It leaves uncertain whether the coil must fit entirely within the vertical projection of the region or can extend partially outside.
The limitations of “dwell time per unit time” is structurally self-referential and indefinite. As noted in the specification (¶ 0082), "unit time" can mean any arbitrary period starting from 10 hours to the entire operating lifespan of the manufacturing tool. A claim whose boundaries shift depending on an arbitrary time-window selection fails to provide the public with clear notice of infringement bounds (See MPEP Citation: MPEP § 2173.05(b) (Relative Terminology) and MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 5 recites “a position where a lateral movement of the moving body stops”)and “...wherein the first coil is provided above a position where a lateral movement of the moving body stops in order to transfer the substrate to the load lock module.” which define a permanent physical hardware location ("a position where a lateral movement ... stops") based on a transient dynamic event (the exact moment a moving body halts). Because a levitated moving body can coast, experience micro-vibrations, or halt at slightly varying coordinates during routine production cycles, anchoring a structural coil placement to a dynamic stopping point renders the geographic metes and bounds of the claim uncertain( see MPEP § 2173.05(g) (Functional Limitations) and MPEP § 2173.05(c)).
Claim 7 recites “...and the first coil moves based on a detection result from the Hall sensors.” Which is a control step (“moves based on a detection result”) without reciting the structural algorithms, mathematical transforms, or processing relationships required to convert raw Hall sensor signals into motor drive commands (such as those executed by controller 100 via motors 83/85). While the specification discusses embodiments of control logic (¶¶ 0103–0104), omitting these limitations from the apparatus claim leaves the functional scope unbounded and indefinite (see MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Appropriate correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Akada (US 2012/0084059 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Akada discloses that a transfer module used in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus (a coating and developing apparatus (substrate treatment apparatus) including a transfer arm (G2) for transferring substrates and sensor wafers between modules (¶¶ 0044–0047, 0054)), in which a moving body equipped with a magnet moves in a state of being levitated from a floor by magnetic force to transfer a substrate to a processing module for processing the substrate (a mechanical transfer arm (G2) featuring a base (34) and forks (35,36)), the transfer module comprising:
the moving body;
a housing forming a moving space therein where the moving body moves (a housing/treatment block (C2) defining an internal transfer region/space (R1) wherein the transfer arm and forks move (¶¶ 0046, 0049));
a power consuming device provided in the moving body (Fig. 9 and a sensor wafer (6A) functioning as the moving body/holder, equipped with a sensor circuit/sensor part (61,66) and communication circuits which consume electrical power (¶¶ 0066–0067);
a first coil provided above the moving space; and
a second coil provided in the moving body to generate an induced current through a magnetic field formed by the first coil, which is powered, in order to supply power to the power consuming device (Fig.9, 17:a power transmitting coil (42) provided on the transfer arm base (acting as the first coil) and a power receiving coil (63) provided at the peripheral portion of the sensor wafer (6) (acting as the second coil), wherein alternating current flows through coil (42) to form a magnetic field that induces a resonance current in coil (63) to power the subsequent sensor circuits (¶¶ 0061–0062, 0066)).
Regarding independent claim 9, Akada discloses that a substrate transfer method in a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus([0045]), the substrate transfer method comprising:
a process of moving a moving body ([0056]; TRS14) equipped with a magnet in a state of being levitated from a floor by magnetic force within a moving space formed inside a housing (Fig. 3),
a process of transferring a substrate to a processing module for processing the substrate by the moving body ([0056]),
a process of supplying power to a first coil provided above the moving space and generating an induced current in a second coil provided in the moving body through a magnetic field formed by the first coil, in order to supply power to a power consuming device provided in the moving body(Fig.9, 17:a power transmitting coil (42) provided on the transfer arm base (acting as the first coil) and a power receiving coil (63) provided at the peripheral portion of the sensor wafer (6) (acting as the second coil), wherein alternating current flows through coil (42) to form a magnetic field that induces a resonance current in coil (63) to power the subsequent sensor circuits (¶¶ 0061–0062, 0066))
Regarding claim 2, Akada discloses that wherein the moving body includes a battery which is configured to supply power to the power consuming device, and charging of the battery is performed by the induced current ([0086]).
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 of this title, 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 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Akada (US 2012/0084059 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Akada teaches that wherein the moving space has a first region and a second region, where the positions in a lateral direction are different and dwell times of the moving body per unit time are different, and
the first coil is provided limitedly above the first region, where the dwell time is longer than in the second region( positioning the power transmitting coil (42) on the transfer arm base so that it halts and aligns directly in front of specific solution-treatment modules (e.g., BCT1) where the wafer dwells for data acquisition (¶¶ 0071–0072, FIG. 11). To the extent Akada's specific module alignment differs from abstract "first/second region dwell time" terminology, modifying Akada to position the charging coil predominantly over regions of prolonged station dwell time would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to maximize inductive charging efficiency during semiconductor processing cycles.
Regarding claim 6: Kim et al. discloses wherein a moving mechanism is provided to move the first coil in a lateral direction according to a lateral movement of the moving body (Akada discloses that the transfer arm base (34) and frame (32) move horizontally along a guide (31) to track and position coils adjacent to target modules (¶ 0050, FIG. 5).Furthermore, Akada's second embodiment describes auxiliary movable structures for secondary coils (¶ 0091). Providing a mechanical drive stage or moving mechanism to dynamically adjust coil positioning relative to a moving payload is a standard mechanical design choice within the skill of a POSITA seeking to maintain coupling during extended travel paths.
Regarding claim 7: Akada teaches that a wherein a plurality of Hall sensors for detecting a position of the magnet are provided on the floor, and
the first coil moves based on a detection result from the Hall sensors (the transfer arm components output position signals to an apparatus controller (54) to time the initiation and cessation of power transmission to the coils (¶ 0065)).Utilizing magnetic position detectors (such as Hall-effect sensors, which are standard in automated semiconductor machinery for position feedback) to coordinate transfer timing and motor drive triggers represents an obvious application of conventional feedback control.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 8 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 MUHAMMAD S ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8439. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 6:00pm.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached on 571-272-2060. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights