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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/14/2022, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chintalapati et al (WO 2010081003), Dibella et al (WO 2008134041) and Nishihara et al (JP H1022360).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/14/2022, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16, 17, 18 and 19 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kurokawa et al (JP 2001189367).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/14/2022, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dibella et al (WO 2008134041), Choy et al (US 9401300) and Kent (US 20080257095).
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurokawa et al (JP 2001189367 A).
Regarding claim 16, Kurokawa et al teaches a robotic end effector (10) (Page 2, paragraph 9), comprising:
An end effector blade (22) having a plurality of apertures (29) therein (Page 3, paragraph 5; Page 4, paragraph 3; Fig. 3, element 22; Fig. 6, element 29); and
A plurality of wafer support pads (28a, 28b) disposed on the surface of said blade (22) (Page 4 paragraph 3; Fig. 5, elements 28a, 28b);
Wherein each of said plurality of wafer support pads (28a, 28b) includes a rounded head disposed on a shaft (39), and wherein said shaft (39) rotatingly engages one of said plurality of apertures (29) (Page 3, paragraph 15; Page 4, paragraph 1; Fig. 6, elements 34, 35, 39).
Regarding claim 17, Kurokawa et al teaches said shaft (39) is cylindrical in shape (Page 4, paragraph 3; Fig. 6, element 39).
Regarding claim 18, Kurokawa et al said head (35) is convex (Page 4, paragraph 2; Fig. 6, elements 34, 35).
Regarding claim 19, Kurokawa et al teaches said head includes a cylindrical portion (34) which terminates in a convex portion (35) (Page 4, paragraph 2; Fig. 6, elements 34, 35).
Claim(s) 20, 21, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dibella et al (WO 2008134041).
Regarding claim 20, Dibella et al teaches a robotic end effector (64) (Page 5, paragraph 5), comprising:
An end effector blade (8) (Page 6, paragraph 4; Fig. 3A, element 8); and
A plurality of wafer support pads (22) disposed on said end effector blade (8) (Page 6, paragraph 4; Fig. 3A, elements 22);
Wherein each of said plurality of wafer support pads includes (a) a base plate (4), (b) a protrusion mount receptacle disposed on said base plate (4), (c) a protrusion mount (27) which releasably engages said protrusion mount receptacle, and (d) a protrusion (22) mounted on said protrusion mount (27) such that said protrusion (22) extends above a first surface of said blade (8) (Page 11, paragraph 5; Fig. 10A, elements 27, 22; Fig. 10C, elements 22, 27; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Dibella et al teaches each of said plurality of wafer support pads (22) is disposed within a recess on said end effector blade (Fig. 10A, element 22; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
326
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding 22, Dibella et al teaches each recess is complimentary in shape to the wafer support pad (22) disposed within it (Fig. 10A, element 22).
Regarding claim 23, Dibella et al teaches said protrusion mount (27) releasably engages said protrusion (22) (Page 11, paragraph 5; Fig. 10A, elements 22, 27; Fig. 10C, elements 22, 27).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chintalapati et al (WO 2010081003) in view of Dibella et al (WO 2008134041) and Nishihara et al (JP H1022360).
Regarding claim 1, Chintalapati et al teaches a robotic end effector (200) (Page 3, paragraph 13; Fig. 2, element 200), comprising:
An end effector blade (202) (Page 5, paragraph 6; Page 6, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, element 202), and
A plurality of wafer support pads (204, 206, 208) disposed on the surface of said blade (202) (Page 6, paragraph 1; Fig. 2, elements 202, 204, 206, 208);
Wherein each of said plurality of wafer support pads (204, 206, 208) includes a pad body (500) having a central protrusion (504) (Page 7, paragraph 2; Fig. 5, elements 502, 504).
Chintalapati et al does not teach fasteners. Dibella et al teaches a wafer transfer device wherein first and second fasteners are disposed on opposing sides of the pad (22) (Page 11, paragraph 3; Fig. 8, elements 22, 24, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Dibella et al in Chintalapati et al to facilitate the creation of fasteners that can secure the pad to the end effector blade as taught by Dibella et al (Page 11, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Chintalapati et al fails to teach a depression on the blade. Dibella et al teaches a wafer transport device wherein each of said wafer support pads (22) is disposed in a complimentary shaped depression on the surface of said blade (8) (Fig. 10A, element 22; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Dibella et al in Chintalapati et al to facilitate the creation of a receptacle that allows the position of the pad to be altered as taught by Dibella et al (Page 11, paragraph 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
326
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Chintalapati et al fails to teach fasteners. Dibella et al teaches a wafer transport device wherein the first fastener extends through a first aperture (24) in said pad body (22), and wherein the second fastener extends through a second aperture (26) in said pad body (22) (Page 11, paragraph 3: Fig. 8, elements 22, 24, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Dibella et al in Chintalapati et al to facilitate the creation of fasteners that can secure the pad to the end effector blade as taught by Dibella et al (Page 11, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 4, Chintalapati et al further teaches said pad body (502) and said central protrusion (504) form an integral construct (Page 7, paragraph 1; Fig. 5, elements 502, 504).
Regarding claim 5, Chintalapati et al fails to teach a central aperture. Nishihara et al teaches a wafer transfer device wherein said pad body (24) and said central protrusion (21) are discrete components, wherein said pad body (24) is equipped with a central aperture, and wherein said central protrusion (21) extends through said central aperture (Page 4, paragraph 11; Fig. 5, elements 21, 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Nishihara et al in Chintalapati et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement that prevents the protrusion from becoming displaced blade as taught by Nishihara et al (Page 5, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 6, Chintalapati et al further teaches said central protrusion (504) comprises first and second portions, wherein said first portion has a first annular peripheral surface (Fig. 5, element 504; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Chintalapati et al further teaches said second portion has a second annular peripheral surface that is concentric with said first annular peripheral surface (Fig. 5, element 504; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
397
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Chintalapati et al further teaches said second portion is equipped with a convex wafer contact surface (504) (Fig. 5, element 504; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image5.png
357
599
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Chintalapati et al further teaches said wafer contact surface (504) is rounded (Page 7, paragraph 2; Fig. 5, element 504).
Regarding claim 10, Chintalapati et al further teaches said first annular peripheral surface has a larger diameter than said second annular peripheral surface (Fig. 5, element 504; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
569
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Chintalapati et al teaches said end effector blade (202) has a planar surface, wherein said pad body (502) has first and second major surfaces, and wherein said first major surface of said pad body is parallel to the planar surface of said end effector blade (202) (Fig. 5, element 202; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image6.png
357
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Chintalapati et al fails to teach a pad body that is coplanar with the blade. Dibella et al teaches a wafer support device wherein said end effector blade (8) has a planar surface, wherein said pad body (27) has first and second major surfaces, and wherein said first major surface of said pad body (27) is coplanar with the planar surface of said end effector blade (8) (Fig. 10A, elements 8, 27; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Dibella et al in Chintalapati et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement that can accommodate various flat work pieces as taught by Dibella et al (Page 11, paragraph 5).
PNG
media_image7.png
326
529
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Chintalapati et al fails to teach a counterbored surface. Dibella et al teaches a second surface that has apertures (24, 27) (Page 11, paragraph 3: Fig. 8, elements 22, 24, 26). Dibelle et al fails to teach the apertures being counterbored. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create counterbored apertures since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 14, Chintalapati et al teaches said first and second major surfaces of said pad body (502) are parallel. (Fig. 5, element 502; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image8.png
445
780
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Chintalapati et al teaches said second major surface of said pad body (502) is planar (Fig. 5, element 502; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
397
624
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dibella et al in view of Kent (US 20080257095).
Regarding claim 24, Dibella et al fails to teach a mount with fingers. Kent teaches an end effector mount wherein the mount (203) is equipped with a plurality of laterally extending fingers (209, 211) (Paragraph 0031, lines 7-10; Fig. 8, elements 203, 209, 211).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Kent in DIbella et al to facilitate the creation of fingers that can properly engage with the mount receptacle and adjust the orientation of the end effector as needed as taught by Kent (Paragraph 0037, lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 25, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dibella et al in view of Kent in further view of Choy et al (US 9401300).
Regarding claim 25, Dibella et al in view of Kent fails to teach a mount receptacle with a central aperture. Choy et al teaches a substrate gripper wherein the protrusion mount receptacle (218) has a central aperture (234) which is equipped with a plurality of peripherally disposed slots (232), and wherein said laterally extending fingers rotatingly engage said peripherally disposed slots (232) (Paragraph 0019, lines 4-8; Fig. 2, elements 32, 50; Fig. 3, elements 32, 36, 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Choy et al in combination with Dibella et al and Kent to facilitate the creation of a protrusion mount that can securely attach to the gripper as taught by Choy et al (Column 3, lines 34-52).
Regarding claim 26, Dibella et al in view of Kent fails to teach a mount receptacle with slots. Choy et al teaches a substrate gripper wherein each of said peripherally disposed slots (232) has an opening therein (Fig. 2B, elements 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the teachings of Choy et al in combination with Dibella et al and Kent to facilitate the creation of slots that can allow the gripper to readily attach and detach from the slots as taught by Choy et al (Column 3, lines 54-61).
Regarding claim 27, Dibella et al further teaches said base plate (4) is equipped with first and second apertures (28, 29) having first and second threaded fasteners which extend therethrough (Page 11, paragraph 5; Fig. 10B, elements 4, 28, 29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:00am to 4:30pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
