Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/197,525

ABNORMALITY DETECTION METHOD AND TRANSFER DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 15, 2023
Examiner
MARU, TEMESGEN MALLEDE
Art Unit
3655
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-52.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
16
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
60.0%
+20.0% vs TC avg
§102
20.0%
-20.0% vs TC avg
§112
7.5%
-32.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement . The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 15, 2023 and January 29, 2025 were considered by the examiner. 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, 5-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JUNNOSUKE et al. (J apanese P atent No. 6489034B2) . Regarding claim 1 , JUNNOSUKE discloses an abnormality detection method for a transfer device including an arm having a substrate holder configured to hold a substrate an elevating mechanism configured to raise and lower the arm, a position detector configured to detect a position of the substrate holder, a suction hole formed at the substrate holder, and a pressure detector configured to detect a pressure of a suction passage communicating with the suction hole ( paras. [0016] - [ 0020]; Fig. 1, elevating mechanism 23, substrate holder 25; Fig. 2 , suction holes 27; Fig. 3, pressure detector 31; Fig. 4, position detector 43, controller 4) , the abnormality detection method comprising: controlling the arm to move the substrate holder to a position below the substrate placed on a placing part ( para. [0022]; Fig. 6 ); controlling the elevating mechanism to raise the arm and the substrate holder ( para. [0022]; Fig. 7 ); detecting contact between the substrate and the substrate holder based on a pressure change detected by the pressure detector ( para. [0037 ]); detecting, by using the position detector, a position of the substrate holder at the time of detecting the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder ( para. [0039] ); and detecting an abnormal state of the transfer device based on the detected position ( paras. [0040] - [ 0043]) . Regarding claim 2 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1. JUNNOSUKE further discloses, when the detected position is outside a predetermined threshold range, the state of the transfer device is determined to be abnormal ( para. [0040]; checking current receiving height with allowable range ). Regarding claim 3 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 2. JUNNOSUKE further discloses, the predetermined threshold range is set based on previously detected positions ( para. [0040], comparing with calculated average of prior week ). Regarding claim 5 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1. JUNNOSUKE further discloses, the transfer device transfers a substrate in an atmospheric pressure atmosphere ( para. [0046]; apparatus 1 is provided in the atmosphere ). Regarding claim 6 , JUNNOSUKE discloses a transfer device comprising: an arm having a substrate holder configured to hold a substrate ( para. [0016]; Fig. 2, substrate holder 25 ); an elevating mechanism configured to raise and lower the arm ( para. [0015]; Fig. 1; elevating mechanism 23 ); a position detector configured to detect a position of the substrate holder ( para. [0020], Fig. 4; position detector 43 ); a suction hole and a suction passage formed in the substrate holder ( para. [0016]; Fig. 2, suction holes 27 ); a pressure detector configured to detect a pressure in the suction path ( para. [0017]; Fig. 3; pressure detector 31 ); and a controller ( para. [0019]; Fig. 4; controller 4 ), wherein the controller is configured to control the arm to move the substrate holder to a position below the substrate placed on a placing part ( para. [0022]; Fig. 6 ), control the elevating mechanism to raise the arm and the substrate holder ( para. [0022]; Fig. 7 ), detect contact between the substrate and the substrate holder based on a pressure change detected by the pressure detector ( para. [0037] ), detect a position of the substrate holder at the time of detecting the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder by using the position detector ( para. [0039] ), and detect an abnormal state of the transfer device based on the detected position ( paras. [0040] - [ 0043] ). Regarding claim 7 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 6. JUNNOSUKE further discloses, when the detected position is outside a predetermined threshold range, a state of the transfer device is determined to be abnormal ( para. [0040]; checking current receiving height with allowable range ). Regarding claim 8 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 7. JUNNOSUKE further discloses the predetermined threshold range is set based on previously detected positions ( para. [0040], comparing with calculated average of prior week ). Regarding claim 10 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 6. JUNNOSUKE further discloses the transfer device transfers a substrate in an atmospheric pressure atmosphere ( para. [0046]; apparatus 1 is provided in the atmosphere ). 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. Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNNOSUKE et al. (J apanese P atent No. 6489034B2 ) in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10840122) . Regarding claim 4 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 1 . JUNNOSUKE further discloses detecting the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder by using a pressure detector and sensing a change in pressure . However, JUNNOSUKE does not disclose the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder is detected when the pressure detected by the pressure detector is lower than or equal to a predetermined reference pressure. Kobayashi discloses detecting the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder, the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder is detected when the pressure detected by the pressure detector is lower than or equal to a predetermined reference pressure (col. 7 line 66 to col. 8, line 9; Fig. 8 ). JUNNOSUKE and Kobayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both involved in the field wafer transfer and using vacuum wafer holders . 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 JUNNOSUKE to incorporate the teachings in Kobayashi of detecting the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder, when the pressure detected by the pressure detector is lower than or equal to a predetermined reference pressure to improve vacuum attraction of the wafer with the smallest necessary attracting force in a shortest necessary evacuation time. Regarding claim 9 , JUNNOSUKE discloses all the limitations of claim 6. JUNNOSUKE further discloses detecting the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder by using a pressure detector and sensing a change in pressure . However, JUNNOSUKE does not disclose the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder is detected when the pressure detected by the pressure detector is lower than or equal to a predetermined reference pressure . Kobayashi discloses the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder is detected when the pressure detected by the pressure detector is lower than or equal to a predetermined reference pressure (col. 7 line 66 to col. 8, line 9; Fig. 8 ). JUNNOSUKE and Kobayashi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both involved in the field wafer transfer and using vacuum wafer holders. 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 JUNNOSUKE to incorporate the teachings in Kobayashi of detecting the contact between the substrate and the substrate holder, when the pressure detected by the pressure detector is lower than or equal to a predetermined reference pressure to improve vacuum attraction of the wafer with the smallest necessary attracting force in a shortest necessary evacuation time. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mori et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5191218) discloses a vacuum attraction holding device that detects contact with wafer when sensed pressure in the suction passageway becomes lower than a predetermined pressure. Mori also discloses by using this detection method it is possible to accomplish the vacuum attraction of the wafer with a smallest necessary attracting force and in a shortest necessary evacuation time. (col. 6, lines 15-37). Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10825664) discloses a method of detecting a contact between a wafer a nd an electrostatic chuck by using a pressure sensor, and detecting contact when the pressure on the line becomes less than or equal to a predetermined value (col. 19, lines 10-21; Fig 2). SHINJI (Japanese Application Publication No. 2003266266A) discloses a suction holding member for lifting a wafer that uses a pressure sensor and a predetermined pressure val u e to detect when a wafer is contacted by the holding member when the sensed pressure is equal to or less than the predetermined pressure (para. [0025]; Fig. 2-3). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TEMESGEN M. MARU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0039 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday -Friday 8:00AM-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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacob Scott can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3415 . 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. /TEMESGEN M. MARU/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655 /JACOB S. SCOTT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 15, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599061
CROP PICK-UP HEADER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month