DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on (10/1/2018), is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
After several rounds of office actions last Non-Final office action responding to a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 mailed on was 3/19/2025. Claims 1, 5-18 and 22-26 were examined. This office action is in response to Applicants submission of 9/19/2025. Claims 1, 5-18 and 22-26 are being examined. Claims were amended.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation stated in the last office action stands but is not being repeated for simplicity.
Response to Amendment and arguments
Applicant’s recent arguments dated 9/19/2025 are related to latest amendments. It is however noted that “access opening” to allow clear substrate support pins and continuous open region as claimed and according to Fig 1A is disclosed by Kim. As discussed in the rejection the limitations added do not change the scope of the claims.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-18, 22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg et al (US 20150086316) in view of Kim et al (KR 10-2008-0068319) and Pohl et al (US 20170133260).
Greenberg et al disclose a substrate handling apparatus comprising:
a forked structure (Fig 6A-6C) including a first support portion (606) and a second support portion (607); a first active support element (605A) and a second active support element (605B) disposed on the forked structure, and a plurality of passive support elements (642) disposed on the forked structure. The passive support elements are support pads including additional pads (642). Active support elements are suction elements (605A and 605B) connected to a vacuum system (Fig 1-120). Regarding the issue of passive support elements location along a length of support portion, Greenberg et al disclose that passive support elements could have any suitable shape, number and location (Para 49). Therefore, their optimization by one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious. Greenberg et al disclose active support elements and passive support elements do not overlap (Fig 6A, 6b and 6C).
First and second active support elements are disclosed at 605A and 605B. Similarly, third passive point of contact is disclosed at 642.
The limitation of first and second access opening as shown through Fig 2 appears to be a semi-circular type of cutout to allow access to support pins 204a-204c. The fork structure of Greenberg et al includes such opening included in its wide opening (wide rectangular opening in Fig 6A). There is nothing to suggest that this fork could not work with standard substrate support including the one disclosed in Fig 2 of the instant specification.
Several amendment including the latest on the same subject requires the active support elements between the first access opening and second access opening and first access opening between a first pair of passive support elements (corresponding to 110a and 110b of Fig 2) and the second access opening between a second pair of passive support elements (corresponding to 110a and 110b of Fig 2).
Regarding the first it is noted that the active support elements are 605a and 605b. It is noted that these are not drawn to scale, however their central points would be between the between 606 and 607. Greenberg stated that passive support elements (contact pads) may be located on any place on the base (See para [0030-0031, 0037-0038, 0048-0049]).
Regarding the second, the access opening in the drawing appears to sit by the side of lower pads. Greenberg discloses similar structure considering that contact pads could be located anywhere on the base.
Nevertheless, Kim et al disclose an end effector having a shape to include first and second access openings on opposite sides of an active support element (suction element). Kim continuous to discloses as before latest amendments to claims 1, 17 and 18.
It is also noted that in Greenberg all the elements contact pads, active elements (suction points) and access opening work together to transfer substrates.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the forked structure includes a first access opening and a second access opening to provide a substrate carried on the forked structure mechanical contact to at least three substrate contact points of the support structure”, it is noted that this points to support structure on the stage and is not part of the claimed fork structure.
Having support pins to contact at least three points on the substrate is however common. For example, Pohl et al disclose substrate load/unload using a robot end effector and show three support pins (Fig 1A 103A, 103B and 103C).
Having such a support in Greenberg et al for load/unload and processing of substrates would have been obvious.
It would have been obvious to have a structure to provide two separate access points as being an alternative and obvious variation.
Claims 10, 11 and 12 are directed to a support structure where a substrate could be placed using the forked structure. However, a chuck in a process tool or wafer transportation device (FOUP) were well known to be served by a forked structure of the type as disclosed also in Fig 4.
Regarding claim 13 the forked structure is shown coupled to a mechanical arm (Fig 4).
Claims 14, 15 and 16 are directed to substrates transferred by the forked structure. It is noted that these claims also do not properly limit claim 1 on which they depend.
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
These claims are also rejected under this statute since there may be a potential of some claims being interpreted differently. These claims are either directed to contents of the apparatus or other support structure from where substrates may be removed or stored.
Claims 6-7 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg et al (US 20150086316) in view of Kim et al (KR 10-2008-0068319), Pohl et al (US 20170133260) and Pergande et al (US 20140265392).
Greenberg et al do not explicitly disclose that the passive support element pads are textured or electrically insulating.
Pergande et al disclose that the friction coefficient of the surface of the pads is controlled by texture and the pads may be comprised of insulating materials like polymers, ceramic or glass (Para 24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used texturing and choice of conventional materials for supporting pads so as not allow substrates moving on the forked structure or otherwise getting damaged.
Claims 1, 5, 8-18, 22 and 25-26 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram-Goble et al (US 20150255322), Kim et al (KR 10-2008-0068319) and Pohl et al (US 20170133260).
Ingram-Goble et al disclose a substrate handling apparatus comprising:
a forked structure (Fig 5, 8 and 11) including a first support portion (Fig 6A-642) and a second support portion (121); a first active support element (190) and a second active support element (190) disposed on the forked structure, and a plurality of passive support elements (120) disposed on the forked structure. The passive support elements are support pads including additional pads. Active support elements are suction elements (190) connected to a vacuum system (180). Ingram-Goble et al disclose passive support elements along support portion (Fig 5 120). Regarding passive and active support elements not overlapping, it is merely a rearrangement of parts. There is nothing in the specification to suggest that they cannot work successfully when not separated.
Mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
First and second active support elements are disclosed at 190. Similarly, third passive point of contact is disclosed at 120. It is noted that center of gravity of the substrate when sitting over the forked structure is at the center of the substrate and is clearly above the active support elements and between them.
The limitation of first and second access opening as shown through Fig 2 appears to be a semi-circular type of cutout to allow access to support pins 204a-204c. The fork structure of Greenberg et al includes such opening included in its wide opening (wide rectangular opening in Fig 6A). There is nothing to suggest that this fork could not work with standard substrate support including the one disclosed in Fig 2 of the instant specification.
Additional amendment (dated 12/27/2022) on the same subject requires the active support elements between the first access opening and second access opening and first access opening between a first pair of passive support elements (corresponding to 110a and 110b of Fig 2) and the second access opening between a second pair of passive support elements (corresponding to 110a and 110b of Fig 2).
Regarding the first, it is noted that the active support elements are 190 and are between the access opening which are included in the whole opening between arms 121.
Regarding the second, the access opening is between the passive support elements on either side on arm 121.
It is also noted that in Ingram-Goble et al all the elements contact pads, active elements (suction points) and access opening work together to transfer substrates.
Nevertheless, Kim et al disclose an end effector having a shape to include first and second access openings on opposite sides of an active support element (suction element).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the forked structure includes a first access opening and a second access opening to provide a substrate carried on the forked structure mechanical contact to at least three substrate contact points of the support structure”, it is noted that this points to support structure on the stage and is not part of the claimed fork structure.
Having support pins to contact at least three points on the substrate is however common. For example, Pohl et al disclose substrate load/unload using a robot end effector and show three support pins (Fig 1A 103A, 103B and 103C).
Having such a support in Ingram-Goble et al for load/unload and processing of substrates would have been obvious.
It would have been obvious to have a structure to provide two separate access points as being an alternative and obvious variation.
Claims 10, 11 and 12 are directed to a support structure where a substrate could be placed using the forked structure. As discussed above these claims do not a properly limit independent claim1. However, a chuck in a process tool or wafer transportation device (FOUP) were well known to be served by a forked structure of the type as disclosed in Fig 1.
Regarding claim 13 the forked structure is shown coupled to a mechanical arm (Fig 1).
Claims 14, 15 and 16 are directed to substrates transferred by the forked structure. It is noted that these claims also do not properly limit claim 1 on which they depend.
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
However, warped substrates can be handled by the disclosed fork structure as disclosed in Fig 3 and 4.
Claims 6-7 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingram-Goble et al (US 20150255322) in view of Kim et al (KR 10-2008-0068319), Pohl et al (US 20170133260) and Pergande et al (US 20140265392).
Ingram-Goble et al do not explicitly disclose that the passive support elements the pads are textured or electrically insulating.
Pergande et al disclose that the friction coefficient of the surface of the pads is controlled by texture and the pads may be comprised of insulating materials like polymers, ceramic or glass (Para 24).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used texturing and choice of conventional materials for supporting pads so as not allow substrates moving on the forked structure or otherwise getting damaged.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Furuichi et al (US 20150246447) discloses an end effector with suction to hold substrate on its suction pads (Fig 2 and description).
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 RAM N KACKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1436. The examiner can normally be reached 09:00 AM-05:00 PM.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 5712721435. 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.
RAM N. KACKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1716
/RAM N KACKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716