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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 was entered into the file after the mailing date of the Non-final rejection on 01/03/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the first Non-final rejection on 01/03/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (1) the motivation to combine is inadequate as Stevens teaches a device that achieves the same as the claimed invention and (2) one skilled in the art would not have been led to have started with Logue as Stevens discussed disadvantages of Logue. A teaching, suggestion, or motivation is required when starting with a primary reference and combining a secondary reference to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, but a teaching, suggestion, or motivation is not required to teach the primary reference into the secondary reference. In this case, the non-final rejection meets the burden of a prima facie case of obviousness as a motivation is provided for the teachings of the secondary reference Stevens when applied to Logue. The applicant’s first argument, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Stevens in view of Logue, is not required to meet burden for a prima facie case of obviousness. The applicant’s second argument, that Stevens discusses the disadvantages of Logue, does not impact the established motivation provided for the teachings of the Stevens into the primary reference Logue.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant describes an “outer circumferential support part” that includes a “first outer circumferential support part” and a “second outer circumferential support part”. The overall “outer circumferential support part” is potentially confusing in claims including the other outer circumferential support parts. Recommended amendment is to rename the “outer circumferential support
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites the limitation "a second outer circumferential support part" in line 2. Parent claim 2 already recites “a second outer circumferential support part”. It is unclear whether applicant is attempting to refer to the already introduced second outer circumferential support part or introduce a third outer circumferential support part.
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 & 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logue (US Patent 3,523,706) in view of Stevens (US Patent 6,322,166).
Regarding Claim 1, Logue teaches a robot hand with a contactless holding part that has a first air jet port (12) that radially jets air from a center toward an outer circumference (Col. 2 In. 65-71) and contactlessly holds the wafer through radial flowing of the air jetted from the first air jet port (12) and generation of a negative pressure due to the air (Fig 1, Fig 1A, Col. 2 In. 65-71). Logue teaches projections (19) that limit lateral movement of the wafer through direct contact but does not teach an outer circumferential support part that has a second air jet port that is disposed to be oriented toward the center of the wafer. However, Stevens discloses a robot arm having an outer circumferential support part (42) that has a second air jet port (56) that is disposed to be oriented toward a center of the wafer held by the contactless holding part and jets air (86) toward an outer circumferential edge of the wafer, the outer circumferential support part (42) supporting the wafer without movement of the wafer by the air jetted from the second air jet port (Col. 5 In. 20-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to replace the projections (19) of the robot hand of Logue with a second air jet port oriented toward the center of the wafer that jets air toward an outer circumferential edge of the wafer to horizontally stabilize said wafer and provide a desirable method of supporting a substrate in a substantially noncontacting manner (Col. 3, In 17-23, Stevens).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Logue further teaches a robot hand where a contactless holding part includes multiple grooves (14) that extend in a radial direction in such a manner that one ends are located on a central side and other ends do not reach the outer circumference, the multiple grooves being radially disposed around a center of a holding surface that contactlessly holds the wafer, the first air jet port is disposed at the one ends of the grooves and jets the air to the grooves (Fig 1, Fig 1A, Col. 2 In. 65-71). Logue teaches the grooves (14) become shallower toward the other ends as shown in the figure 1A below. The depth of the groove (14) from the holding surface closest to the center is shown as Depth 1 in the figure below. As the grooves (14) extend toward the outer circumference of the holding surface, the grooves decrease in depth (become shallower) shown as Depth 2 in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Logue teaches projections (19) that limit lateral movement of the wafer through direct contact but does not teach outer circumferential support parts with air jet ports disposed to be opposed to each other. However, Stevens discloses the outer circumferential support part has at least a first outer circumferential support part (40, Top arm, 42b & 42a attached, Fig 2A) and a second outer circumferential support part (40, Bottom arm, 42c & 42d attached, Fig 2A) disposed to be opposed to each other (Col. 5 In. 20-25), and the first outer circumferential support part and the second outer circumferential support part each have at least two of the second air jet ports (56).
Claims 1-3, 5, & 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logue in view of Stevens.
Regarding Claim 1, Logue teaches a robot hand with a contactless holding part that has a first air jet port (12) that radially jets air from a center toward an outer circumference (Col. 2 In. 65-71) and contactlessly holds the wafer (16) through radial flowing of the air jetted from the first air jet port (12) and generation of a negative pressure due to the air (Fig 1, Fig 1A, Col. 2 In. 65-71). Logue teaches projections (19) that limit lateral movement of the wafer through direct contact but does not teach an outer circumferential support part that has a second air jet port that is disposed to be oriented toward the center of the wafer. However, Stevens discloses a robot arm having an outer circumferential support part (42) that has a second air jet port (56) that is disposed to be oriented toward a center of the wafer held by the contactless holding part and jets air (86) toward an outer circumferential edge of the wafer, the outer circumferential support part (42) supporting the wafer without movement of the wafer by the air jetted from the second air jet port (Col. 5 In. 20-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to replace the projections (19) of the robot hand of Logue with a second air jet port oriented toward the center of the wafer that jets air toward an outer circumferential edge of the wafer to horizontally stabilize said wafer and provide a desirable method of supporting a substrate in a substantially noncontacting manner (Col. 3, In 17-23, Stevens).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Logue further teaches a robot hand where a contactless holding part includes multiple grooves (14) that extend in a radial direction in such a manner that one ends are located on a central side and other ends do not reach the outer circumference, the multiple grooves being radially disposed around a center of a holding surface that contactlessly holds the wafer, the first air jet port is disposed at the one ends of the grooves and jets the air to the grooves (Fig 1, Fig 1A, Col. 2 In. 65-71). Logue teaches the grooves (14) become shallower toward the other ends as shown in the annotated figure 1A above. The depth of the groove (14) from the holding surface closest to the center is shown as Depth 1 in the annotated figure 1A above. As the grooves (14) extend toward the outer circumference of the holding surface, the grooves decrease in depth (become shallower) shown as Depth 2 in the annotated figure 1A above.
Logue teaches projections (19) that limit lateral movement of the wafer through direct contact but does not teach outer circumferential support parts with air jet ports disposed to be opposed to each other. However, Stevens discloses the outer circumferential support part has at least a first outer circumferential support part (42a, Fig 2A) and a second outer circumferential support part (42c, Fig 2A) disposed to be opposed to each other (Col. 5 In. 20-25), and the first outer circumferential support part and the second outer circumferential support part each have a second air jet port (56).
The combination does not teach at least two second air jet ports for each outer circumferential support part. However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the contactless robot hand of the combination with additional second jet ports to each outer circumferential support part to allow for a more distributed flow across the circumference of the wafer.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 2 as described above, Logue further teaches the contactless holding part comprising a first surface (Annotated Fig 1A above) and the grooves are depressions formed in the first surface (Fig 1A, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 2 as described above, Logue further teaches the grooves (14) are disposed symmetrically around the first air jet port (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Stevens further the outer circumferential support part (42) comprises a wall (62) extending from a first surface of the contactless holding part (Fig 3A), a side surface of the wall being arced (Fig 3A), a center of the arc being in the direction of the center of the contactless holding part (Fig 4A); the second air jet port being positioned in the side surface of the wall (Fig 3A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 2 as described above, Stevens further teaches the first outer circumferential support part and a second outer circumferential support part each comprise a wall (62, Fig 3A) extending from a first surface of the contactless holding part (Fig 3A), a side surface of each wall being arced (Fig 3A), a center of the arcs being in the direction of the center of the contactless holding part (Fig 2A); the second air jets port (56) being positioned in the side surface of the walls (Fig 3A).
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above, Logue further teaches the grooves (14) oriented away from the projections (19; Fig 1) and where air jetted does not interfere with the projections (Fig 1). Therefore, after the replacement of the projections of Logue with the outer circumferential support part of Stevens, the combination teaches the other ends of the grooves are oriented in directions in which the walls of the outer circumferential support part do not exist; whereby air jetted from the first air jet port does not go toward the walls and does not interfere with the air jetted from the second air jet ports of the outer circumferential support part.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 8 as described above, Stevens further teaches the outer circumferential support part has at least a third outer circumferential support part (43b) and a fourth outer circumferential support part (43d) disposed to be opposed to each other (Fig 2A); the third outer circumferential support part and a fourth outer circumferential support part each comprise a wall (62, Fig 3A) extending from a first surface of the contactless holding part (Fig 3A), a side surface of each wall being arced (Fig 3A), a center of the arcs being in the direction of the center of the contactless holding part (Fig 2A), the third outer circumferential support part and the fourth outer circumferential support part each have at least one of the second air jet ports (56, Fig 3A; Fig 2A), the second air jets port being positioned in the side surface of the walls of third outer circumferential support part and a fourth outer circumferential support part (Fig 3A).
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 10 as described above, Logue further teaches the grooves (14) oriented away from the projections (19; Fig 1) and where air jetted does not interfere with the projections (Fig 1). Therefore, after the replacement of the projections of Logue with the outer circumferential support part of Stevens, the combination teaches the other ends of the grooves are oriented in directions in which the walls of the outer circumferential support part do not exist; whereby air jetted from the first air jet port does not go toward the walls and does not interfere with the air jetted from the second air jet ports of the outer circumferential support part.
Regarding claim 12, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, Logue further teaches the contactless holding part comprising a first surface (Annotated Fig 1A above);
the contactless holding part includes multiple grooves (14) that extend in a radial direction in such a manner that one ends are located on a central side and other ends do not reach the outer circumference (Fig 1), the multiple grooves being radially disposed around a center of a holding surface that contactlessly holds the wafer (16, Fig 1), the grooves become shallower toward the other ends (Annotated Fig 1A above), the first air jet port is disposed at the one ends of the grooves and jets the air to the grooves (Fig 1, Fig 1A, Col. 2 ln. 65-71). Logue further teaches the grooves (14) are oriented away from the projections (19; Fig 1) and where air jetted does not interfere with the projections (Fig 1). Therefore, after the replacement of the projections of Logue with the outer circumferential support parts of Stevens, the combination teaches the other ends of the grooves are oriented in directions in which first protruding part, a second protruding part, and a third protruding part do not exist. Stevens further teaches the outer circumferential support part (381) comprises a first protruding part (342a, Fig 7), a second protruding part (342b, Fig 7), and a third protruding part (342c, Fig 7); the first protruding part, a second protruding part, and a third protruding part each have at least one of the second air jet ports (56, Fig 3A) formed in a respective side surface of each protruding part (Fig 3A); the second air jet ports in the first protruding part, a second protruding part, and a third protruding part are disposed at equal intervals about the center of the contactless holding part (Fig 7; Col. 6 ln. 56-65);
Claims 4 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logue & Stevens in view of Olsson (US Patent 3,438,668).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, the combination does not teach a circular plate as part of the contactless holding part as claimed. However, the contactless lifter of Olsson teaches a circular plate (35) positioned adjacent the first surface and positioned over the first air jet port (41; Fig 6), the circular plate being spaced from the first air jet port (41) at the location of the grooves (45; Fig 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the contactless robot hand of the combination with the circular plate of Olsson to direct the air or other flow gas outwards to spread across the wafer and act as a stop against an object lifted by the robot hand (Col. 3, ln. 36-49).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 5 as described above, the combination does not teach the grooves to widen into a fan shape. However, the contactless lifter of Olsson teaches grooves (45) formed into a fan shape through widening of the side of the other end (Fig 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the contactless robot hand of the combination by widening the side of the other end of the grooves to spread the pressured air more evenly across the held wafer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logue & Stevens in view of Harvey (PGPub US 2008/0129064 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the limitations of claim 12 as described above, Stevens further teaches a gas distribution assembly (29, Fig 29) which includes separate forks for vertical gas conduits (50) and horizontal gas conduit (52). The combination does not teach individual control of the first and second air jet ports. However, the semiconductor wafer Bernoulli wand of Harvey teaches the amount of air ejected from a first air jet port and the amount of air ejected from a second air jet port can be individually controlled ([0006] ln 6-12) by a gas interface (36, Fig 2A; [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to improve the contactless robot hand of the combination by replacing the gas distribution assembly of Stevens with the gas interface of Harvey to individually control the air jet ports to control rotational and lateral biasing of the wafer ([0007] ln 9-13; [0008] ln 8-13).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4, M-Fr.
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