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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the other" in line 20, the limitation “the other” in lines 21-22 and the limitation “the other” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 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 USC 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 1-4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YOSHIDA et al. (US 2019/0181027 A1) (“Yoshida”).
Referring to claims 1 and 10: Yoshida teaches a substrate conveying robot comprising:
a substrate holding hand 13; and
an arm 12 to move the substrate holding hand; wherein
the substrate holding hand comprising:
a frame 31;
a blade 32 supported by the frame;
a pair of front supports 33 provided on a tip end side of the blade to support a substrate W; and
a pair of rear supports 33 provided on a base end side of the blade to support the substrate; wherein
the frame, the pair of front supports, and the pair of rear supports are provided in a V-shape (FIG. 2).
Referring to claim 2: Yoshida teaches the frame 31 includes a pair of side walls;
one of the pair of side walls (the upper wall in FIG. 2) is arranged on a first line connecting a base end of the frame, one of the pair of front supports, and one of the pair of rear supports, and extends along the first line; and
the other of the pair of side walls (the lower wall in FIG. 2) is arranged on a second line connecting the base end of the frame, the other of the pair of front supports, and the other of the pair of rear supports, and extends along the second line.
Referring to claim 3: Yoshida teaches the frame has a width (on its right side in FIG. 2) smaller than a width of a base end of the blade in a direction parallel to a direction in which the pair of front supports are aligned.
Referring to claim 4: Yoshida teaches a frame outer component 22 arranged on an outside of the frame in the direction parallel to the direction in which the pair of front supports are aligned (since 22 is shown above and below 31 in FIG. 2).
Referring to claim 6: Yoshida teaches the frame includes a pair of side walls; and
the frame outer component is arranged on an outside of each of the pair of side walls in the direction parallel to the direction in which the pair of front supports are aligned (FIG. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, alone.
Yoshida teaches sensors 41, 42, 43, a controller 15 to control the operation (and therefore the speed) of the arm 12 (which includes the frame outer component 22), and the frame outer component includes a joint drive unit 63 that causes the joint to rotate (thereby controlling speed). Yoshida does not specifically teach the frame outer component includes at least one of a sensor amplifier for a sensor or a speed controller for an air cylinder. 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 frame outer component taught by Yoshida to include at least one of a sensor amplifier for a sensor or a speed controller for an air cylinder with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure improved transmission of data and/or since such a modification (to include an air cylinder) would only require a simple substitution of one known element (namely, a drive system) for another to obtain predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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. SUGAWARA et al. (US 2018/0029237 A1) teaches a robot system (FIG. 1) comprising an arm and a hand, where the hand comprises a frame (unlabeled in FIG. 26, where “20” is located), a blade 7, front and rear supports (also unlabeled in FIG. 26), where the frame and the four supports are generally V-shaped.
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
12 May 2026
Prosecution Insights