Patent Application 18289518 - HANDLING SYSTEM FOR FETCHING A SUBSTRATE - Rejection

Patent Application 18289518 - HANDLING SYSTEM FOR FETCHING A SUBSTRATE

Title: HANDLING SYSTEM FOR FETCHING A SUBSTRATE

Application Information

• Invention Title: HANDLING SYSTEM FOR FETCHING A SUBSTRATE
• Application Number: 18289518
• Submission Date: 2025-05-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2023-11-03T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2023-11-03T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 029
• National Sub-Class: 559000
• Examiner Employee Number: 85536
• Art Unit: 3652
• Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

• US 0082895🔗

Office Action Text

    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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 4/28/2025 has been entered into the record.  Claim 1 is amended.  Claims 12 and 17-19 are withdrawn.
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 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barker (US 2009/0082895 A1).
Consider claim 1.  Barker teaches a handling system for fetching a substrate out of a substrate container, comprising:  a main assembly (13, 14), and a sub assembly (10), wherein the sub assembly is moveably attached to the main assembly, wherein the sub assembly is moveable relative to the main assembly between a fetch position (robot B in fig. 3A) and a rest position (robot B in fig. 2), wherein the sub assembly in the fetch position extends over the main assembly to fetch the substrate out of the substrate container, wherein the sub assembly in the rest position lies on the main assembly to provide a contact (14) between the main assembly and the substrate, wherein the main assembly comprises a suction means (see paragraph [0043]).  Barker’s suction means is capable of performing the recited functional language:  fastening and straightening the substrate while the substrate is retained on the main assembly.  Please see MPEP 2114 regarding functional limitations in apparatus claims.
Barker does not explicitly teach that the suction means is a plurality of suction means.  It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Barker’s suction means to be a plurality of suction means, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.  Please see MPEP 2114.04(VI)(B).  One would have been motivated to duplicate the suction means in order to increase the suction force applied to the substrate.
Consider claim 2.  Barker teaches that the sub assembly is moveable in a movement direction (X) parallel to a main extension direction of the main assembly.
Consider claim 3.  Barker teaches that the sub assembly is moveable in a horizontal direction (X).
Consider claim 4.  Barker teaches that the sub assembly is moveable relative to the main assembly by means of a rail system (see fig. 4).
Consider claim 5.  Barker teaches that the sub assembly has a fork shape (see fig. 2).
Consider claim 6.  Barker teaches that the suction means are equally dispensed over the main assembly to control a warpage of the substrate (see fig. 2).
Consider claim 7.  Barker teaches that the suction means are only arranged along edges of the main assembly to contact the substrate only in touching areas along edges of the substrate (contacts bottom edge of substrate).
Consider claim 8.  Barker teaches that spacer means (vertical lift of 42A, see paragraph [0067]) are arranged at the main assembly to equally straighten the substrate in cooperation with the suction means.
Consider claim 9.  Barker teaches that the main assembly and/or the sub assembly comprise(s) fastening means (see paragraphs [0042] and [0043]) for the substrate.
Consider claim 10.  Barker teaches that the main assembly and/or the sub assembly are/is plate shaped with a reinforcement against deflection (see figs. 4 and 5A) and/or a recess.
Consider claim 11.  Barker teaches an interface to a robot (13) for lifting the handling system relative to the substrate container (see robot B in figs. 3A and 3B), wherein the interface is arranged at the main assembly.
Consider claim 13.  Barker teaches a module comprising the substrate container (FOUP, see fig. 2) and the handling system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the handling system is configured to fetch the substrate out of the substrate container (see fig. 8).
Consider claim 14.  Barker teaches that the substrate container comprises fixtures to individually hold single substrates of a staple of substrates (see fig. 8).
Consider claim 15.  Barker teaches that the substrate container comprises a lateral opening (see fig. 8) to fetch the substrate in a movement direction parallel to a main extension direction of a main assembly.
Consider claim 16.  Barker teaches a robot (13) connected to a robot interface at the handling system to move the handling system relative to the substrate container (see robot B in figs. 3A and 3B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Barker’s device does not straighten the substrate, but rather aligns a notch or flat on the substrate.  This argument is not persuasive.  Barker’s suction means reads on the claim limitation “…is configured to fasten the substrate on the main assembly and straighten the substrate while the substrate is retained on the main assembly” as broadly recited, since it is capable of orienting the substrate in a desired alignment.  No special definition of the term “straighten” could be found in the disclosure.  Thus, the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant further argues that Barker’s device does not straighten any warpages.  This argument is not persuasive.  Applicant is arguing limitations not found in the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D SNELTING whose telephone number is (571)270-7015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.



/JONATHAN SNELTING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652