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 Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: While claim 5 is not indefinite, the phrase “the two inner jaws are synchronous” is awkward. The examiner suggests “the movement of the two inner jaws is synchronous”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "unlubricated guide and puck". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10, 12, and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one arms cam" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "edge clamps" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 recites the limitation "wedge clamp’s fasteners". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fasteners". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-6, 9, and 10 are rejected for their dependence upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 12, 13 recites the limitation "the fastening". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klem (US Patent 4,813,732).
Regarding claim 11, Klem teaches a wedge clamp, suitable for fastening to an end effector capable of handling semiconductor wafers (2), comprising: a housing (11); a cam (15) movably mounted within the housing (Fig 2) and capable of depressing fully into the housing and of decompressing at least partially outside of the housing; a spring (25) loadably pressuring the cam, wherein the spring is fully loaded upon the depressing and is unloaded during the decompressing (Fig 2; Col. 4 ln 8-11). Klem teaches an enclosed housing (11) which restricts a cam to fully depress into the housing (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches wherein the spring (25) is fastened about the fastening (Fig 2). The fastening shown below in the annotated Figure 5 and the spring are both about the same end effector.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches wherein the fastening comprises a screw. Klem teaches screws shown in the annotated Figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the spring loading results from a circumferential edge of the semiconductor wafer (Col. 4 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the spring loading results from a contraction of the end effector (Col. 4 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches a cam travel path into which the movable mounting (25) occurs (Fig 2, Col. 4 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 16 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the cam travel path is sunk within the housing (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 17 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the cam travel path uses an unlubricated guide (Fig 1) and puck (20). While Klem does not positively recite an unlubricated guide, lubrication is not necessary for every sliding guide. The lubrication requirement is based on a host of characteristics of the moving system including but not limited to material, speed and intended longevity.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the cam (15) comprises a puck (20).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the wedge clamp (15 located on top; Fig 2) is paired with a second wedge clamp (15 located on bottom; Fig 2).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klem (US Patent 4,813,732).
Regarding claim 1, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches an end effector capable of handling a semiconductor wafer (2), comprising: an inner jaw (16) at least mechanically associated with a robotic base (Col. 1 ln 13-15); two outer arms (15) associated with the inner jaw (16) via at least one arms cam (20); a plurality of wedge clamps, wherein one of the plurality of wedge clamps (20) are respectively fastened to an inner jaw (16) proximally to the robotic base (Fig 4), and wherein two of the plurality of wedge clamps (20) are respectively fastened to each of the outer arms (15) distally from the robotic base (Fig 3), and wherein each of at least one of the distal and the proximal wedge clamps comprises: a spring (25); a cam (20) loaded on the spring; and a cam travel path into which the cam is slidably associated (Fig 2; Col. 4 ln 8-11); wherein a contraction of the inner jaw (16) and a consequent arms camming of the outer arms applies pressure to a circumferential edge of the semiconductor wafer such that the circumferential edge depresses each of the cams along its respective cam travel path and against its respective one of the springs, thereby loading the cams to grip the semiconductor wafer within the plurality of edge clamps (Col. 4 ln 8-11). Klem does not teach two inner arms. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the robotic base includes a servo motor (14) to drive at least the two inner jaws (16).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the two inner jaws (16) and the two outer arms in conjunction comprise a fork shape (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches all four of the wedge clamps comprise the spring (25) and the cam (20; Fig 3 & Fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the two inner jaws (16) are synchronous (Col. 4 ln 8-11).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches each of the wedge clamps is angled (20; Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches each of the springs (25) is loaded about a respective one of its wedge clamp's fasteners (Fig 2). The fastening shown below in the annotated Figure 5 and the spring are both about the same end effector.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 7 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the fasteners comprise screws. Klem teaches screws shown in the annotated Figure 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches each of the cam travel paths is sunk within the wedge clamp (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, the wafer handling effector of Klem teaches the two outer jaws are capable of being rotated 180 to 360 degrees by the robotic base (Col. 1, ln 34-42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 6,540,468 discloses a wafer end effector with four movable arms to grip the wafer.
US Patent 6,283,701 discloses a wafer end effector with a wedge clamping device using springs and pucks to clamp the wafer in place.
US Patent 8,998,561 discloses a wafer gripping device grabbing the rim of a wafer using three arms controlled by motors and springs.
PGPub US 2011/0211936 A1 discloses a wafer end effector with a wedge clamp comprising springs and cams to clamp the wafer end during travel.
JP 11163113 A discloses a wafer end effector with four movable arms to align and pick up wafer pieces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 730-4.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654 /Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights