DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raatz et al. (Hereinafter Raatz) (US 2021/0249291 A1).
As per claim 1, Raatz teaches the limitations of:
a logistics processing system installed in a semiconductor manufacturing plant (See at least abstract; A conveying device for conveying at least one wafer includes at least one transport body that is designed at least for supporting or holding a wafer. The conveying device is designed to move the at least one transport body at least two-dimensionally on a conveying surface), the logistics processing system comprising:
a container transporting apparatus for transporting a container containing a plurality of substrates (See at least paragraph 23; the conveying device may be configured to convey the at least one transport body (relative to the stator in controlled fashion) up to a store or storage unit for wafers, and/or to position and/or align (orient) the wafer transported by means of the transport body in a store or storage unit for wafers. Preferably, the conveying device is configured to convey the at least one transport body from and/or out of a store or storage unit for wafers up to and/or into a processing station);
a container storage apparatus for storing the container therein (See at least paragraph 23); and
a control device configured to control each of the container transporting apparatus and the container storage apparatus (See at least paragraph 55 – 56; FIG. 1 shows diagrammatically a top view of a conveying device 10 according to a preferred embodiment. The conveying device 10 serves for conveying at least one wafer 36. The conveying device 10 has here for example two transport bodies 200. Each transport body 200 is configured to carry and/or hold at least one wafer 36, here for example by parts of the transport body 200 being formed in the manner of grippers. Furthermore, the conveying device 10 is configured to move the transport bodies 200 two-dimensionally on a conveying surface 35. The transport bodies 200 may move substantially freely on the conveying surface 35 and thus deliver wafers 36 to processing station 37, and in some cases hold them in the processing stations 37 or position and/or align them therein. In order nonetheless to be able to guarantee an optimal separation of the interior of the processing stations 37 from the environment, slit valves 39 for example may be provided, through which at least the part of the transport body 200 holding the wafer or wafers 36 may protrude (when the valve is open)),
wherein the container transporting apparatus includes a non-contact gear (See at least paragraph 82 – 84; a transport body 200 may be equipped with function groups for further additional functions. For example, a mechanical energy transmission may take place in that a disc, preferably mounted rotatably in the transport body 200 and equipped with magnets, is actively driven by the stator 100. For the drive, the disc is treated by the stator 100 for example as a seventh degree of freedom. Also, optionally, an electric contactless energy transmission may be implemented, in that for example coils for inductive energy transmission are integrated in the stator 100 and in the transport body 200. Alternatively or additionally, for example, a permanently rotating magnet in the stator 100 may induce an alternating voltage in a coil in the transport body 200 which can preferably be used to generate power on the transport body 200. … a stator 100 according to a preferred embodiment in a perspective view (FIG. 7A) and in a cross-sectional view (FIG. 7B). The stator 100 here has a plurality of actuating magnets 26, each of which again comprises a magnet group 24. … The actuating magnets 26 or magnet groups 24 are connected to actuating elements 114, by means of which their position and/or orientation can be changed. An actuating element 114 here has at least one drive, such as an electric motor, which is preferably connected to the magnet group 24 via a drive shaft and/or a gear mechanism and/or a linkage.).
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claim 1 above, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 – 14 and 16 – 17 and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raatz in view of Park et al. (Hereinafter Park) (KR20220028817A).
As per claim 2, Raatz teaches the limitations of:
wherein the container transporting apparatus includes:
a driving motor for generating a driving force (See at least paragraph 84);
a driving wheel for generating a rotational force and moving the container transporting apparatus under the rotational force (See at least paragraph 147 – 148);
Rattz teaches driving shaft a driving shaft for transmitting the driving force and the driving wheel (See at least paragraph 84); but does not explicitly teach the limitations of:
a driving shaft for transmitting the driving force to the driving wheel; and
an electronic gear coupled to the driving shaft and the driving wheel, wherein the electronic gear is embodied as a non-contact gear using a magnet.
Park teaches the limitations of:
a driving shaft for transmitting the driving force to the driving wheel (See paragraph 8; driving device of a railway vehicle having wheels (10) and an axle (20), the housing 100 is fixed to the railway vehicle and through which the axle (20) passes; A hollow shaft 200 to which the axle 20 is fitted; The traction motor 160 is installed between the housing 100 and the hollow shaft 200 in the housing 100; Magnetic reducer 180 installed between the housing 100 and the hollow shaft 200 in the housing 100: a motor fastening part 190 for transmitting the torque of the traction motor 160 to the magnetic reducer 180; and a shaft fastening part 194 for transmitting the torque of the magnetic reducer 180 to the hollow shaft 200. An integrated driving device for railroad vehicles using a traction motor and a magnetic reducer is provided); and
an electronic gear coupled to the driving shaft and the driving wheel, wherein the electronic gear is embodied as a non-contact gear using a magnet (See at least paragraph 8 and 21; the magnetic gear is a non-contact type reducer, and since the present invention does not have a gear type reducer, the problem due to mechanical friction is fundamentally solved, and maintenance is convenient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a driving shaft for transmitting the driving force to the driving wheel; and an electronic gear coupled to the driving shaft and the driving wheel, wherein the electronic gear is embodied as a non-contact gear using a magnet as taught by Park in the system of Raatz, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the electronic gear acts as a reducer (Park, see at least paragraph 8 and 21).
As per claim 4, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the electronic gear includes:
a first core portion surrounding the driving shaft (Park, see at least figure 5 #182, and paragraph 38);
a first magnet portion surrounding the driving shaft and adjacent to the first core portion (Park, see at least figure 5, and paragraph 38);
a second core portion surrounding the driving shaft and adjacent to the first magnet portion (Park, see at least figure 5 #184, and paragraph 38);
a second magnet portion surrounding the driving shaft and adjacent to the second core portion (Park, see at least figure 5, and paragraph 38); and
a third core portion surrounding the driving shaft and adjacent to the second magnet portion (Park, see at least figure 5, and paragraph 38).
As per claim 5, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the first core portion rotates at a first speed, wherein the second core portion rotates at a second speed different from the first speed (Park, see at least paragraph 41).
As per claim 6, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the second speed is lower than the first speed (Park, see at least paragraph 41).
As per claim 7, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the first magnet portion includes:
a plurality of first magnets having a first polarity (Park, see at least figure 5); and
a plurality of second magnets having a second polarity (Park, see at least figure 5),
wherein the second magnet portion includes:
a plurality of third magnets having the first polarity (Park, see at least figure 5); and
a plurality of fourth magnets having the second polarity (Park, see at least figure 5).
As per claim 8, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein a total number of the third magnets and the fourth magnets are greater than a total number of the first magnets and the second magnets (Park, see at least figure 5).
As per claim 9, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the second core portion includes a plurality of rods (See at least figure 5).
As per claim 10, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein each of the plurality of rods extends in a direction different from a longitudinal direction of the driving shaft (Park, see at least figure 5).
As per claim 11, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the plurality of rods are spaced apart from each other, and an air gap is formed between adjacent ones of the plurality of rods (Park, see at least figure 5).
As per claim 12, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein a number of the plurality of rods is determined based on a number of pole pairs of the magnets included in the first magnet portion and a number of pole pairs of the magnets included in the second magnet portion (Park, see at least figure 5).
As per claim 13, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein a rotation speed of the second magnet portion is determined based on a rotation speed of the first magnet portion, a number of pole pairs of the magnets included in the first magnet portion, and a number of pole pairs of the magnets included in the second magnet portion (Park, see at least paragraph 55 and 56).
As per claim 14, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the first core portion is coupled to the driving shaft,
wherein the second core portion is coupled to the driving wheel (Park, see at least figure 3a).
As per claim 16, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the third core portion is closer to the driving wheel than each of the first core portion and the second core portion is (Park, see at least figure 2).
As per claim 17, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches the limitations of:
wherein the electronic gear includes:
a first core portion surrounding the driving shaft (Park, see at least figure 5 #182, and paragraph 38);
a first magnet portion surrounding the first core portion (Park, see at least figure 5, and paragraph 38);
a second core portion surrounding the first magnet portion (Park, see at least figure 5 #184, and paragraph 38);
a second magnet portion surrounding the second core portion Park, see at least figure 5, and paragraph 38); and
a third core portion surrounding the second magnet portion Park, see at least figure 5, and paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claim 2 above, respectively.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raatz and Park and in further view of Jun et al. (Hereinafter Jun) (US 2022/0181936 A1).
As per claim 15, the combination of Raatz and Park teaches all the limitations of claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
wherein the second core portion and the first core portion rotate in different directions.
Jun teaches the limitation of:
wherein the second core portion and the first core portion rotate in different directions (See at least paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the second core portion and the first core portion rotate in different directions as taught by Jun in the system of the combination of Raatz and Park, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 17 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frangen (WO 2018108408 A1) discloses transporting device with a stator for the controlled transport of a transport element relative to the stator
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights