DETAILED ACTION
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 abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is one run-on sentence and it is too short. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (US 9,254,566 B2) (“Hashimoto”).
Referring to claims 1 and 12: Hashimoto teaches a substrate conveying robot 1 comprising:
a substrate holding hand (FIG. 2); and
an arm 4, 5 to move the substrate holding hand; wherein
substrate holding hand comprising:
a frame 6, 7;
a plurality of blades 9, 10, 12, 13 supported by the frame and to support substrates W;
a plurality of substrate detection sensors 16 provided so as to correspond to the plurality of blades to detect a presence of the substrates (column 7, lines 27-38); and
a sensor support member 8, 11 to support the plurality of substrate detection sensors, the sensor support member including a positioner 14, 15 to collectively position the plurality of substrate detection sensors with respect to the plurality of blades.
Referring to claim 2: Hashimoto teaches the sensor support member is provided in common for the plurality of substrate detection sensors, and further includes a fixing portion to fix the sensor support member; and the positioner is provided in the fixing portion (FIG. 2).
Referring to claim 3: Hashimoto teaches the positioner is operable to allow a position of the fixing portion to be adjusted along a direction toward the blades (column 7, lines 27-34).
Referring to claim 6: Hashimoto teaches the plurality of substrate detection sensors are positioned with respect to the plurality of blades by fixing the fixing portion to the frame (column 7, lines 27-38; FIG. 2).
Referring to claim 7: Hashimoto teaches the plurality of blades are arranged in a stacked manner along a vertical direction perpendicular to main surfaces of the blades; and
the sensor support member includes a plurality of plate-shaped sensor placement portions 8, 11 stacked along the vertical direction so as to correspond to the plurality of blades stacked along the vertical direction (FIG. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto, alone.
Referring to claim 8: Hashimoto teaches each of the plurality of sensor placement portions includes a way to allow each of the substrate detection sensors to be fastened and fixed (FIG. 2). Hashimoto does not specifically teach each of the plurality of sensor placement portions includes a second hole to allow each of the substrate detection sensors to be fastened and fixed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connection between the plurality of sensor placement portions and each of the substrate detection sensors to include a second hole with a reasonable expectation of success since forming a connection with a hole and a fastener is very well known in the art and modifying the connection taught by Hashimoto in this manner would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claims 9 and 10: Hashimoto does not specifically teach each of the plurality of plate-shaped sensor placement portions includes a third hole to allow wiring extending from each of the substrate detection sensors to be inserted therethrough or a guide groove to guide the wiring inserted from the third hole. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each of the plurality of plate-shaped sensor placement portions taught by Hashimoto to include a third hole to allow wiring extending from each of the substrate detection sensors to be inserted therethrough and a guide groove to guide the wiring inserted from the third hole with a reasonable expectation of success since it is well known that components are either wired or wireless, so one would be choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cameron et al. (US 7,179,044 B2) teaches a system comprising a robot 20, an arm 22, 26, a substrate holding hand 24 and an object sensor 58 that is used to identify whether substrates are stored at a storage site. Yoshida et al. (US 9,455,171 B2) teaches a robotic system comprising an arm 2, substrate holders 11 on hand 10 and a substrate detection sensor 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
07 May 2026
Prosecution Insights