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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0037, line 5, reference number 609 is mentioned. However, it is not shown in the corresponding figures.
Reference numbers 331 and 333 are found in Fig. 6, but are not found in the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 1, "disposed in a in complimentary shaped depression" should read "disposed in a complimentary shaped depression".
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim A (U.S. Patent No. 8276959).
Regarding claim 1, Kim A teaches a robotic end effector (101) (Abstract), comprising:
An end effector blade (102) (Column 4, lines 62-63), and
A plurality of wafer support pads (210) disposed on the surface (136) of said blade (102) (Column 6, lines 30-32; Fig. 4A, elements 136, 210);
Wherein each of said plurality of wafer support pads (210) includes a pad body having a central protrusion (202) and having first and second fasteners disposed on opposing sides of said central protrusion (202) (Column 7, lines 27-31; Fig. 4A, elements 202, 210, 124). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
585
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kim A teaches each of said wafer support pads (210) is disposed in a complimentary shaped depression (120) on the surface (136) of said blade (102) (Column 6, lines 30-32; Fig. 4A, elements 102, 120).
Regarding claim 3, Kim A teaches a first fastener (250) that extends through a first aperture in said pad body (230), and wherein second fastener (250) extends through a second aperture in said pad body (230). Additional details are provided in the figure below. (Column 7, lines 33-35; Fig. 4B; Fig. 5A, elements 230, 250).
PNG
media_image2.png
755
954
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kim A teaches said pad body (210) and said central protrusion (202) form an integral construct (Column 7, lines 27-31; Fig. 4A, elements 202, 210).
Regarding claim 5, Kim A teaches said pad body (230) and said central protrusion (221) are discrete components, wherein said pad body (230) is equipped with a central aperture, and wherein said central protrusion (221) extends through said central aperture (Column 7, lines 62-67, Column 8, line 1; Fig. 5A, elements 230, 221).
Regarding claim 11, Kim A teaches an end effector blade (102) having a planar surface, wherein said pad body (210) has first and second major surfaces (230, 240), and wherein said first major surface (230) of said pad body (210) is parallel to the planar surface (136) of said end effector blade (102) (Fig. 4A, elements 210, 136, 102; Fig. 5A, elements 230, 240).
Regarding claim 12, Kim A teaches an end effector blade (102) having a planar surface, wherein said pad body (210) has first and second major surfaces (220, 230), and wherein said first major surface (220) of said pad body (210) is coplanar with the planar surface (136) of said end effector blade (102) (Fig. 4B, elements 220, 230, 136, 102).
Regarding claim 13, Kim A teaches a said second major surface (240) of said pad body (210) that is counterbored (241) (Fig. 5A, elements 240, 241).
Regarding claim 14, Kim A teaches said first and second major surfaces (230, 240) of said pad body (210) are parallel (Fig. 5A, elements 230, 240).
Regarding claim 15, Kim A teaches said second major surface (240) of said pad body (210) is planar (Fig. 5A, element 240).
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hiester et al (US 20170040205).
Regarding claim 16, Hiester et al teaches a robotic end effector (200) (Paragraph 0016, lines 1-2; Fig. 2, element 200), comprising:
An end effector blade (200) having a plurality of apertures (204) therein (Paragraph 0016, lines 2-3; Fig. 2, elements 200, 204); and
A plurality of wafer support pads (300) disposed on the surface of said blade (200) (Paragraph 0016, lines 3-5; Fig. 3, element 300; Fig. 5);
Wherein each of said plurality of wafer support pads (300) includes a rounded head (304) disposed on a shaft (308), and wherein said shaft (308) rotatingly engages one of said plurality of apertures (Paragraph 0016, lines 7-8; Fig. 3, elements 304, 308).
Regarding claim 17, Hiester et al teaches said shaft (308) is cylindrical in shape (Fig. 3, element 308).
Regarding claim 18, Hiester et al teaches said head (304) is convex (Fig. 3, element 304).
Regarding claim 19, Hiester et al teaches said head (304) includes a cylindrical portion which terminates in a convex portion (Paragraph 0016, lines 8011; Fig. 3, element 304). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
502
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20, 21, 22, 23 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Pergande et al (US 9412638).
Regarding claim 20, Pergande et al teaches a robotic end effector (100) (Column 2, lines 61-63), comprising:
An end effector blade (103) (Column 3, lines 11-14); and
A plurality of wafer support pads (108) disposed on said end effector blade (103) (Column 3, lines 33-34; Fig. 3, element 103, 108);
Wherein each of said plurality of wafer support pads (201) includes (a) a base plate (204), (b) a protrusion mount receptacle (216) disposed on said base plate (204), (c) a protrusion mount (117) which releasably engages said protrusion mount receptacle (216), and (d) a protrusion (218) mounted on said protrusion mount (117) such that said protrusion (218) extends above the first surface of said blade (203) (Column 7, lines 32-43; Fig. 3, element 117; Fig. 4A, elements 201, 204, 216, 218).
Regarding claim 21, Pergande et al teaches each of said plurality of wafer support pads (108) is disposed within a recess (108c) on said end effector blade (103) (Column 3, lines 43-47; Fig. 3, elements 108, 108c, 103).
Regarding claim 22, Pergande et al teaches each recess (108c) is complimentary in shape to the wafer support pad (108) disposed within it (Column 6, lines 43-47; Fig.34A, elements 108, 108c, 103).
Regarding claim 23,Pergande et al teaches said protrusion mount (117) releasably engages said protrusion (108a) (Column 3, lines 47-50; Fig. 3, elements 108a, 117).
Regarding claim 24, Pergande et al teaches said protrusion mount (117) is equipped with a plurality of laterally extending fingers (Column 3, lines 28-30; Fig. 3, element 117). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
306
451
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Pergande et al teaches said base plate (204) is equipped with first and second apertures (220) having first and second threaded fasteners (222) which extend therethrough (Column 4, lines 52-54, Column 5, lines 11-15; Fig. 4A, elements 204, 220, 222; Fig. 4B, elements 220, 222).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Ain view of Kim B (US 20190193238).
Regarding claim 6, Kim A fails to teach a central protrusion with multiple portions.
Kim B teaches a wafer pad comprising said central protrusion which comprises first (300) and second (100a) portions, wherein said first portion (300) has a first annular peripheral surface (Paragraph 0025, lines 1-2, 6-7; Fig. 1A, elements 100a, 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kim B to facilitate the creation of a central protrusion that may prevent the pad from bending when polishing wafers as taught by Kim B (Paragraph 0052, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Kim A fails to teach a second portion that is concentric with the first.
Kim B teaches said second portion (100a) has a second annular peripheral surface that is concentric with said first annular peripheral surface (Paragraph 0025, lines 3-9; Fig. 1A, elements 100a, 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kim B to facilitate the creation of two concentric surfaces that can be used to position the wafer pad on the top surface of platen as taught by Kim B (Paragraph 0051, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Kim A teaches a said second portion (202) that is equipped with a convex wafer contact surface (Column 7, lines 27-31; Fig. 4A, element 202).
Regarding claim 9, Kim fails to teach a rounded contact surface.
Kim B teaches said wafer contact surface (100) is rounded (Fig. 1A, elements 100a, 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kim B to facilitate the creation of a rounded contact surface that reduces abrasion of the polishing pad as taught by Kim B(Paragraph 0052, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Kim A fails to teach a first surface with a larger diameter.
Kim B teaches said first annular peripheral surface (300) has a larger diameter than said second annular peripheral surface (100a) (Fig. 1A, elements 100a, 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Kim B to facilitate the creation of two surfaces with differing diameters which allow for accurate alignment of the wafer pad with the platen as taught by Kim B (Paragraph 0051, lines 5-6).
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pergande in view of Gonzalez (US 2020071756).
Regarding claim 25, Pergande fails to teach a protrusion mount with slots. Gonzalez teaches a protrusion mount receptacle has a central aperture which is equipped with a plurality of peripherally disposed slots (36), and wherein said laterally extending fingers (50) rotatingly engage said peripherally disposed slots (36) (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 before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Gonzalez to facilitate the creation of a plurality of slots designed to receive fingers as taught by Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 26, Pergande fails to teach slots with an opening. Gonzalez teaches each of said peripherally disposed slots (36) has an opening therein (Fig. 3, elements 36, 50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Gonzalez to facilitate the creation of slots with openings as taught by Gonzalez.
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 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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 3651
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654