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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merry et al. (US Publication 2014/0156070; hereinafter Merry) in view of Andersen et al. (EP 3933355 A; hereinafter Andersen).
With regards to claims 1, 10, and 16, Merry teaches a system (FIG. 1), a vibration sensor assembly, and a method comprising:
a substrate transfer device (108) comprising one or more moveable members (110, 112, 114; [0024]; FIG. 1) and a controller (including 118; [0025]);
a vibration sensor assembly coupled to a first member of the one or more moveable members ([0032-0033], the vibration sensor assembly comprising:
an accelerometer (140, 141) configured to detect vibration of the substrate transfer device ([0033-0034]); and
a processing device (119) communicatively coupled to the accelerometer ([0033]), wherein the processing device is to:
receive vibration data from the accelerometer, wherein the vibration data is indicative of the vibration of the substrate transfer device ([0033, 0035-0037]);
determine at least one vibration frequency peak of the vibration data ([0055]), wherein the at least one vibration frequency peak corresponds to at least one critical frequency associated with the substrate transfer device ([0055]).
However, Merry is silent regarding the processing device disposed on the first member.
When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious (Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 [189 USPQ 449] (1976)). In this particular case, Merry teaches the processing device 119 without specifying the placement of the processing device. Thus, a simple rearrangement of the processing device performing the same function would yield no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the placement of the processing device as taught by Merry to another location including the location as claimed with reasonable expectation of performing the same function as originally intended.
Furthermore, Merry, as modified, is silent (italicized portions highlight features not taught) regarding the processing device is to: determine at least one vibration frequency peak of the vibration data, wherein the at least one vibration frequency peak corresponds to at least one critical frequency associated with the substrate transfer device; determine that the at least one vibration frequency peak exceeds a threshold magnitude; and responsive to determining that the at least one vibration frequency peak exceeds the threshold magnitude, cause a data signal indicative of the at least one vibration frequency peak to be wirelessly transmitted to the controller, wherein the data signal comprises a portion of the vibration data in frequency domain, the portion corresponding to the at least one vibration frequency peak.
Andersen teaches a system for monitoring an operating condition via measurement of vibration (abstract). Andersen further teaches a processing device (including 13) is to:
determine at least one vibration frequency peak of the vibration data ([0043]), wherein the at least one vibration frequency peak corresponds to at least one critical frequency associated with the substrate transfer device ([0050, 0055-0056]);
determine that the at least one vibration frequency peak exceeds a threshold magnitude ([0061-0063]); and
responsive to determining that the at least one vibration frequency peak exceeds the threshold magnitude, cause a data signal indicative of the at least one vibration frequency peak (measured by 12; FIG. 3) to be wirelessly transmitted ([0112]; FIG. 3) to the controller (a part of 14; [0057-0058, 0065-0066, 0112]; FIG. 3), wherein the data signal comprises a portion of the vibration data (“narrow individual predetermined frequency band”) in frequency domain ([0048, 0060, 0069-0072]; FIG. 5 shows the frequency spectrum of a recording sensing signal after Fourier transform operation for converting from time domain to frequency domain ([0048]) and FIG. 6 shows narrow individual predetermined frequency band), the portion corresponding to the at least one vibration frequency peak ([0060]; FIG. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of the processing device to monitor critical frequency specifics to such device as taught by Andersen to the system and processing device as taught by Merry to monitor vibration levels for alerting, triggering maintenance ([0066, 0068]; Andersen).
With regards to claim 2, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches (citations to Andersen) the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: receive the data signal indicative of the at least one vibration frequency peak exceeding the threshold magnitude ([0062-0064]); and perform a corrective action based on the data signal ([0066, 0068]).
With regards to claim 3, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches (citations to Andersen) the system of claim 2, wherein the corrective action comprises preparing for display on a graphical user interface (GUI) a notification of one or more of (i) the at least one vibration frequency peak exceeding the threshold magnitude or (ii) a preventive maintenance operation of the substrate transfer device corresponding to the critical frequency ([0044]).
With regards to claims 4 and 11, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches (citations to Merry) the system of claim 1 and the vibration sensor assembly of claim 10, respectively, wherein the vibration sensor assembly further comprises: a power source coupled to the accelerometer and the processing device, wherein the power source is configured to electrically power the accelerometer and the processing device (it is well known that a robot would require a power source to power its respective motor/controller/components including sensors; also [0035] suggests that power is necessary to power necessary components for signal processing).
With regards to claims 5 and 17, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches (citations to Andersen) the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 16, respectively, wherein the threshold magnitude is associated with a segment of a usable lifetime of a component ([0068]) of the substrate transfer device .
With regards to claims 6, 12 and 18, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches the system of claim 1, the vibration sensor assembly of claim 10, and the method of claim 16, respectively, wherein the substrate transfer device (108; Merry) is disposed within a substrate transfer chamber (102; [0034, 0043]; FIG. 1; Merry), and wherein the data signal is periodically transmitted to the controller via wireless while a transfer port of the substrate transfer chamber is open ([0044]; Andersen).
With regards to claims 7, 13, and 19-20, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches (citations to Andersen) the system of claim 1, the vibration sensor assembly of claim 10, and the method of claim 16, respectively, wherein to determine the at least one vibration frequency peak of the vibration data, the processing device is to:
apply a mathematical transform operation to the vibration data to transform the vibration data from time domain to frequency domain ([0034]),
wherein the processing device is further to cause a portion of the vibration data corresponding to a vibration event to the controller responsive to the vibration frequency peak exceeding the threshold magnitude to be transmitted ([0065-0066]).
With regards to claims 8 and 14, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches (citations to Merry) the system of claim 1 and the vibration sensor assembly of claim 10, respectively, wherein the substrate transfer device comprises a substrate- handling robot ([0023-0024]), and wherein the first member (114) is a wrist member of the substrate-handling robot ([0024]; FIG. 2).
With regards to claims 9 and 15, Merry, as combined with Andersen, teaches the system of claim 1 and the vibration sensor assembly of claim 10, respectively, wherein the vibration sensor assembly further comprises a data transmitter to transmit the data signal to the controller ([0112]; FIG. 3; Andersen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Remarks on pages 8-9, Applicant argues that Andersen does not teach the limitation of “wherein the data signal comprises a portion of the vibration data in frequency domain, the portion corresponding to at least one vibration frequency peak” as required by the amended claims. Andersen teaches that after a Fourier transform operation is performed on a set of vibration data, "the sensing signal 18 is thus presented having a certain pattern in the frequency domain, i.e. having peaks at certain locations." (Andersen, para. [0048]). In other words, the vibration data is presented in the frequency domain. Andersen further teaches "comparing, for each of the plurality of narrow individual predetermined frequency bands 61-65 of the frequency spectrum, the maximal magnitude 71-75 of the frequency spectrum within the specific frequency bands 61-65 with a corresponding individual threshold value 21-25, and triggering an alert when any of said maximal magnitudes 71-75 of the frequency spectrum exceeds a corresponding individual threshold value 21-25." (Andersen, para. [0099]). However, Andersen does not teach or suggest "cause a data signal indicative of the at least one vibration frequency peak to be wirelessly transmitted to the controller, wherein the data signal comprises a portion of the vibration data in frequency domain, the portion corresponding to the at least one vibration frequency peak" as recited in amended claim 1. Rather, Andersen merely teaches triggering an alert when the magnitude of a vibration frequency is exceeded. The alert itself does not include "a portion of the vibration data in frequency domain."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument because Merry, as combined with Andersen, does teach the amended limitation. It is agreed that Andersen does teach triggering an alert when maximal magnitude of the frequency spectrum within any of said frequency bands exceeds a corresponding individual threshold value ([0065]) as mentioned by Applicant. However, that is one method step among other steps taught by Andersen. Specifically, Andersen teaches wherein the data signal comprises a portion of the vibration data (“narrow individual predetermined frequency band”) in frequency domain ([0048, 0060, 0069-0072]; FIG. 5 shows the frequency spectrum of a recording sensing signal after Fourier transform operation for converting from time domain to frequency domain ([0048]) and FIG. 6 shows narrow individual predetermined frequency band), the portion corresponding to the at least one vibration frequency peak ([0060]; FIG. 6). Thus, Andersen is considered to teach the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights