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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW 110148168, filed on 12/22/2021.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, lines 19-20, "when an abnormal is detected" should read "when an abnormality is detected".
On page 1, line 22, "to detect an abnormal…" should read "to detect an abnormality..".
On page 1, line 25, "12 inches wafers" should read "12 inch wafers."
On page 1, line 26, "6 inches wafers" should read "6 inch wafers".
On page 2, lines 3-4, "place other than the end effect" should read "place other than the end effector".
On page 2, line 8, "without above drawbacks" should read "without the above drawbacks".
On page 2, line 14, "precisely detection" should read "precise detection".
On page 3, line 22, "3mm" should read "3 mm".
On page 4, line 19, "second sot" should read "second slot".
on page 5, lines 15-16, "6 inches wafer" should read "6 inch wafers".
On page 6, line 9, the main body is incorrectly labelled 20, instead of 10.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tan et al (U.S. No. 20130213169).
Regarding claim 1, Tan et al teaches an end effector (106), which is connected to a wafer transfer robot (104) (Abstract), comprising:
A main member (106) having a first room thereof (Paragraph 0070, lines 2-6);
A sensor (108) received in the first room to sense vibration of the main member (106) (Paragraph 0032, lines 1-3; paragraph 0052, lines 1-5; Fig. 1A, elements 106, 108); and
A lid fixed to the main member to cover the sensor (108) (Paragraph 0070, lines 2-6);
Whereby the sensor (108) transmits a vibration signal to a central controller when the main member (106) is vibrating (Paragraph 0052, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Tan et al teaches the main member (506) is provided with threaded holes on the bottom of the third room (524) while the lid (508) is provided with bores accordingly; a plurality of screws (530) are inserted into the bores and screwed into the threaded holes respectively (Paragraph oo43, lines 7-9; Fig. 5B, elements 508, 524, 530).
Regarding claim 6, Tan et al teaches a top of the lid (526) is no higher than the side of the main member (506) (Paragraph 0043, lines 1-5; Fig. 5B, elements 506, 526, 532).
Regarding claim 7, Tan et al teaches the main member (306) is provided with a holding device (324) for holding a wafer carried by the end effector (Paragraph 0036, lines 6-9; Fig. 3A, elements 306, 324).
Regarding claim 8, Tan et al teaches the holding device (324) has a frictional pad to provide the wafer with friction (Paragraph 0038, lines 6-8).
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al in virtue of Morris et al (US 20200412123).
Tan et al fails to teach a main member with a second room. Morris et al teaches a main member that further has a second room (502), and the second room (502) is communicated with the first room (501); a wire is received in the second room (502) and connected to the sensor (582); the lid (50h) covers the wire as well (Paragraph 0080, lines 3-5; paragraph 0130, lines 1-6; Fig. 1, elements 501, 502, 200; Fig. 10, elements 582, 50h, 502). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Morris et al to facilitate the creation of a second room to house the sensor as taught by Morris et al.
Tan et al fails to teach a main member with a third room. Morris et al teaches a main member (100) that further has a third room (10), and the first (501) and the second (502) room are provided on a bottom of the third room (10); the lid (100) is received in the third room (10) (Paragraph 0080, lines 3-5; Fig. 1, elements 100, 10, 501, 502, 110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Morris et al to facilitate the creation of a third room that communicates with the first and second rooms as taught by Morris et al.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al in virtue of Morimura (US 20170348772).
Tan et al fails to teach the thickness of the main member. Morimura teaches a thickness of the sensor (46b) that is no greater than a thickness of the main member (46a) (Fig. 2, elements 46a, 46b). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Morimura to facilitate the creation of a sensor with a thickness that does not prevent the main member from entering narrow spaces as taught by Morimura.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al in virtue of Takano (US 10777439).
Tan et al fails to teach a holding device with a sucker. Takano teaches a holding device that has a sucker (275), and the sucker (275) has a channel (272); the main member (181) is provided with an airway (149c), and the airway (149c) is covered by the lid (200c) as well; the airway (149c) is connected to the channel of the sucker (272), whereby air in the sucker (275) is pumped out through the channel (272) and the airway (149c) (Column 8, lines 52-53; column 5, lines 9-14; Fig. 2, elements 200c, 149c, 181; Fig. 3, elements 200, 275, 272). 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 to include the teaching of Takano to facilitate the creation of a holding device that uses a vacuum force to hold the wafer as taught by Takano.
PNG
media_image1.png
613
1085
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tan et al fails to teach an airway within the third room. Takano teaches an airway (149c) that is provided on the bottom of the third room (141), and the airway is covered by the lid (200c) as well; a sucker is provided on the main member (181) and connected to the airway (149c), whereby air in the sucker (275) is pumped out through the airway (149c) (Column 8, lines 52-53; column 5, lines 9-14; Fig. 2, elements 200c, 149c, 181; Fig. 3, elements 200, 275, 272). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the teaching of Takano to facilitate the creation of an airway that allows the pump to communicate with the main member as taught by Takano.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651