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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and considered below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 – 3, 5 – 6, and 8 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto et al (Hereinafter Otto) (US 2017/0334696 A1) in view of Lee et al. (Hereinafter Lee) (US 2016/0035607 A1).
As per claim 1, Otto teaches the limitations of:
an article transfer and storage apparatus (See at least figure 2) comprising:
a case (See at least figure 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
658
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a frame, the frame including at least a first shelf plate extending in a first horizontal direction (See at least figure 1), and
PNG
media_image2.png
648
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a plurality of storage ports arranged on the first shelf plate, each of the plurality of storage ports configured to accommodate a carrier (See at least figure 1 and figure 4), and
PNG
media_image3.png
645
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a storage port transport configured to move the storage ports in the first horizontal direction (See at least figure 4 – figure 5); and
PNG
media_image4.png
678
835
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a transfer robot comprising a transport base at a bottom of the transfer robot, the transfer robot configured to place the carrier in the case or take out the carrier from the case and move the carrier (See at least figure 2).
Otto teaches a case (see rejection above) but does not explicitly teach the limitations of:
a case installed in a semiconductor factory, and;
a semiconductor carrier.
Lee teaches the limitations of:
a case installed in a semiconductor factory (See at least figure 21 – 2b), and;
a semiconductor carrier (See at least figure 21 – 2b).
PNG
media_image5.png
736
616
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
766
678
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a case installed in a semiconductor factory and a semiconductor carrier as taught by Lee in the system of Otto, 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 2, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the storage port transport further comprises:
a guide rail fixed to the frame, the guide rail extending in the first horizontal direction, wherein each storage port of the plurality of storage ports is coupled to the guide rail and is configured to move along the guide rail (See at least paragraph 36 and figure 3 of Otto); and
a plurality of electromagnets, each electromagnet configured to provide a driving force to move a corresponding storage port of the plurality of storage ports in the first horizontal direction (See at least paragraph 54 and figure 3 – 6 of Otto).
As per claim 3, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein each storage port includes a first end and a second end opposite to the first end, wherein each electromagnet is disposed at the first end of the corresponding storage port, and wherein the case further comprises a magnetic material disposed at the second end of each storage port of the plurality of storage ports (See at least paragraph 54 and figure 3 – 6 of Otto).
As per claim 5, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the first shelf plate of the case comprises a spare space corresponding to a size of at least one of the plurality of storage ports (See at least figure 4 – 5 of Otto).
As per claim 6, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the first shelf plate is one of a plurality of shelf plates spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction (See at least figure 1 of Otto).
As per claim 8, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the case further comprises an identification device configured to recognize an ID of the semiconductor carrier transferred from the transfer robot (See at least paragraph 38 of Otto and abstract of Lee).
As per claim 9, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the transfer robot comprises a gripper configured to grip the semiconductor carrier and an extendable arm configured to move the gripper in a horizontal direction (See at least paragraph 54 of Otto and abstract of Lee).
As per claim 10, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the transfer robot further comprises a rotator configured to rotate the extendable arm in a horizontal direction (See at least paragraph 36 and 37 of Otto).
As per claim 11, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the transfer robot further comprises a lift configured to move the extendable arm in a vertical direction (See at least paragraph 27 of Otto).
As per claim 12, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the transfer robot further comprises a transfer shelf configured to support the semiconductor carrier and move a plurality of the semiconductor carriers (See at least figure 2 of Otto and abstract and Lee).
As per claim 13, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches the limitations of:
wherein the article transfer and storage apparatus comprises a plurality of the transfer robots and each of the plurality of transfer robots operates independently (See at least figure 1 of Otto and abstract and Lee).
Regarding claims 14 – 18:
Claims 14 – 18 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 3, 5 – 6 and 8 – 13 above, respectively.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto and Lee and in further view of Liu et al. (Hereinafter Liu) (WO 2022/156780 A1).
As per claim 4, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches all the limitations of claimed invention but does not teach the limitations of:
a damper coupled to one side of the magnetic material disposed at the second end of each storage port.
Liu teaches the limitations of:
a damper coupled to one side of the magnetic material disposed at the second end of each storage port (See at least page 23 paragraph 4),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify wafer transfer and transporting apparatus of the combination of Otto and Lee, to include a damper coupled to one side of the magnetic material disposed at the second end of each storage port as taught by Liu in order to reduce vibration (See at least page 23 paragraph 4).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto and Lee and in further view of Bonora et al. (Hereinafter Bonora) (CN 102460675 A).
As per claim 7, the combination of Otto and Lee teaches all the limitations of claimed invention but does not teach the limitations of:
wherein the case further comprises, at a bottom of the case, a plurality of wheels configured to move the case.
Bonora teaches the limitation of:
wherein the case further comprises, at a bottom of the case, a plurality of wheels configured to move the case (See at least paragraph 62).
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 case further comprises, at a bottom of the case, a plurality of wheels configured to move the case as taught by Bonora in the system of the combination of Otto and Lee, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsujimoto et al. (US 7686559 B2) discloses article transport facility and a method of operating the facility.
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