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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn. By the amendment filed September 10th, 2026 claims 1-21 are pending with claim 16 being amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist et al. (US-8918203), hereafter Gilchrist in view of Takahashi et al. (US 12159798) hereafter Takahashi.
With regards to claim 1, Gilchrist discloses a robot apparatus (transfer robot 130), comprising: a lower arm (155UA) configured to rotate about a first rotational axis (SX), an upper arm (155UB) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, the first rotational axis (Col. 6, L21-24); a first end effector (155EA) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, a second rotational axis (EXA) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis a second end effector (155EB) rotatably coupled to the upper arm at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (EXB) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; wherein the robot apparatus is configured to operate in a dual substrate handling mode (2H) or a single substrate handling mode (2I, 2J) within a mainframe without colliding into walls of the mainframe and wherein, to operate in the dual substrate handling mode, the robot apparatus is configured to: extend the first end effector into a first processing chamber and extend the second end effector into a second processing chamber (Col. 6, L11-13), wherein the first processing chamber and the second processing chamber are separated by a first pitch(θ’); perform a retraction process to retract the first end effector and the second end effector into a mainframe (atmospherically sealed section 110) wherein a distance between the first end effector and the second end effector bounded by the first pitch throughout the retraction process (end effectors are separated by a pitch θ that is equal to θ; Col. 5, L54-57; Col. 5, L60-63; the phrase “bounded by” is taken to mean that the end effectors cannot exceed the first pitch); and fold the first end effector and the second end effector inward within a sweep diameter defined by a width of the mainframe (Fig. 2G).
Gilchrist does not disclose a first end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm and second end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe.
However, Takahashi discloses a robot apparatus (Abstract; Annotated Fig. 1), comprising: a lower arm (LA) configured to rotate about a first rotational axis (A1); an upper arm (UA) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, the first rotational axis; a first end effector (31) directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, a second rotational axis (A3) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and a second end effector (32) directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (A2) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robot apparatus disclosed by Gilchrist with the robot apparatus as disclosed by Takahashi in order to reduce costs and downtime by simplifying the robot apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
907
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Gilchrist and Takahashi disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are each positioned with respect to a common substrate transfer plane (Col. 9, L24-31).
With regards to claim 3, Gilchrist and Takahashi disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector is positioned with respect to a first substrate transfer plane, and wherein the second end effector is positioned with respect to a second substrate transfer plane vertically offset from the first substrate transfer plane (Col. 14, L24-30)
With regards to claim 8, Gilchrist and Takahashi disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses a motion driving assembly (150), wherein the motion driving assembly comprises at least one of a 4-theta motor driving assembly, a 3-theta motor driving assembly, or a distributed motor driving assembly (Col. 6, L52-56).
With regards to claim 16, Gilchrist discloses a method (Abstract) comprising: extending, by a robot apparatus (transfer robot 130) operating in a dual substrate handling mode (2H) within a mainframe without colliding into walls of the mainframe, a first end effector (155EA) into a first processing chamber to retrieve a first substrate (Fig. 2H), wherein the first end effector is rotatably coupled to a lower arm (155UA) at, and configured to rotate about, a first rotational axis (EXA) that is spaced away from a second rotational axis (SX) about which the lower arm is configured to rotate; extending, by the robot apparatus, a second end effector (155EB) into a second processing chamber to retrieve a second substrate (Fig 2G), wherein the first processing chamber and the second processing chamber are separated by a first pitch (θ’); and wherein the second end effector and rotatably coupled to an upper arm (155UB) at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (EXB) that is spaced away from the second rotational axis; retracting, by the robot apparatus, the first end effector and the second end effector into a mainframe (atmospherically sealed section 110) while maintaining a distance between the first end effector and the second end effector bounded by the first pitch throughout retraction (end effectors are separated by a pitch θ that is equal to θ’; Col. 5, L54-57; Col. 5, L60-63; the phrase “bounded by” is taken to mean that the end effectors cannot exceed the first pitch); and folding, by the robot apparatus, the first end effector and the second end effector inward within a sweep diameter defined by a width of the mainframe (Col 6, L10-11; Fig. 2G).
Gilchrist does not disclose a first end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm and second end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe.
However, Takahashi discloses a robot apparatus (Abstract; Annotated Fig. 1), comprising: a lower arm (LA) configured to rotate about a first rotational axis (A1); an upper arm (UA) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, the first rotational axis; a first end effector (31) directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, a second rotational axis (A3) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and a second end effector (32) directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (A2) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robot apparatus disclosed by Gilchrist with the robot apparatus as disclosed by Takahashi in order to reduce costs and downtime by simplifying the robot apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the mainframe be rectangular to reduce operating costs by minimizing the distance the robot apparatus has to traverse.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist and Takahashi as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 12080570) hereafter Tao.
With regards to claim 4, Gilchrist discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the robot apparatus is further configured to: extend the first end effector into a first load lock chamber and extend the second end effector into a second load lock chamber (Col. 6, L32-35), and retract the first end effector and the second end effector from the first and second load lock chambers and into the rectangular mainframe (Col. 6, L32-35). Gilchrist does not disclose the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber being separated by a second pitch less than the first pitch.
However, Tao discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Abstract) with processing chambers (P51, P52) separated by a first pitch (D4, best seen in Fig 2) and load lock chambers (LL1, LL2) separated by a second pitch (D4’, best seen in Fig. 3), wherein the second pitch is less than the first pitch (Col. 7. L37-39). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to separate the load lock chambers of Gilchrist in the manner disclosed by Tao in order to increase throughput with a minimal increase to the apparatus footprint (Tao Col. 2, L48-51)
With regards to claim 5, Gilchrist, Takahashi and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 4 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are independently extended into, and independently retracted from, the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber, respectively (Col 9, L31-34).
With regards to claim 6, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 4 as outlined above. Gilchrist does not directly disclose wherein the first end effector is extended into the first load lock chamber at a first time and the second end effector is extended into the second load lock chamber at a second time after the first time to perform coordinated extension and retraction.
However, Gilchrist discloses coordinating operation of the robot apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the end effectors operate at first and second times to increase throughput by not having one arm block the movement of the other arm.
With regards to claim 7, Gilchrist, Takahashi and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 4 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are simultaneously extended into, and simultaneously retracted from, the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber, respectively (Col. 7, L39-45).
With regards to claim 9, Gilchrist discloses an electronic device processing system (Abstract), comprising: a mainframe (atmospherically sealed section 110); a first load lock chamber (135), and a second load lock chamber (140) attached to a first side of the rectangular mainframe, first processing chamber and a second processing chamber attached to a second side of the rectangular mainframe, first processing chamber (PM1) and a second processing chamber (PM2) attached to a second side of the rectangular mainframe, wherein a third port (180) of the first processing chamber and a fourth port of the second processing chamber are spaced apart horizontally (Fig. 1) by a second pitch (θ’); and a robot apparatus (transfer robot 130) housed within the mainframe, the robot apparatus comprising: a lower arm (155UA) configured to rotate about a first rotational axis (SX); an upper arm (155UB) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, the first rotational axis (Col. 6, L21-24); a first end effector (155EA) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, a second rotational axis (EXA) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; a second end effector (155EB) rotatably coupled to the upper arm at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (EXA) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; wherein the robot apparatus is configured to operate in a dual substrate handling mode (2H) or a single substrate handling mode (2I, 2J) within a mainframe without colliding into walls of the mainframe and wherein to operate in the dual substrate handling mode the robot apparatus is configured to: extend the first end effector into the first processing chamber and extend the second end effector into the second processing chamber (Col. 6, L11-13); retract the first end effector and the second end effector into the rectangular mainframe while maintaining a distance between the first end effector and the second end effector bounded by the second pitch throughout retraction (end effectors are separated by a pitch θ that is equal to θ’; Col. 5, L54-57; Col. 5, L60-63; the phrase “bounded by” is taken to mean that the end effectors cannot exceed the first pitch), and fold the first end effector and the second end effector inward within a sweep diameter defined by a width of the mainframe (Fig. 2G). Gilchrist does not disclose a first end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm and second end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe.
However, Takahashi discloses a robot apparatus (Abstract; Annotated Fig. 1), comprising: a lower arm (LA) configured to rotate about a first rotational axis (A1); an upper arm (UA) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, the first rotational axis; a first end effector (31) directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, a second rotational axis (A3) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and a second end effector (32) directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (A2) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robot apparatus disclosed by Gilchrist with the robot apparatus as disclosed by Takahashi in order to reduce costs and downtime by simplifying the robot apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the mainframe be rectangular to reduce operating costs by minimizing the distance the robot apparatus has to traverse. Gilchrist and Takahashi do not disclose wherein a first port of the first load lock chamber and a second port of the second load lock chamber are spaced apart horizontally by a first pitch wherein second pitch that is greater than the first pitch.
However, Tao discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Abstract) with processing chambers (P51, P52) separated by a first pitch (D4, best seen in Fig 2) and load lock chambers (LL1, LL2) separated by a second pitch (D4’, best seen in Fig. 3), wherein the second pitch is less than the first pitch (Col. 7. L37-39). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to separate the load lock chambers of Gilchrist in the manner disclosed by Tao in order to increase throughput with a minimal increase to the apparatus footprint (Tao Col. 2, L48-51).
With regards to claim 10, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are each positioned with respect to a common substrate transfer plane (Col. 9, L24-31).
With regards to claim 11, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector is positioned with respect to a first substrate transfer plane, and wherein the second end effector is positioned with respect to a second substrate transfer plane vertically offset from the first substrate transfer plane (Col. 14, L24-30)
With regards to claim 12, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the robot apparatus is further configured to: extend the first end effector into a first load lock chamber and extend the second end effector into a second load lock chamber (Col. 6, L32-35); and retract the first end effector and the second end effector from the first and second load lock chambers and into the rectangular mainframe (Col. 6, L32-35).
With regards to claim 13, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are independently extended into, and independently retracted from, the first load lock chamber and second load lock chamber, respectively (Col 9, L31-34).
With regards to claim 14, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Gilchrist does not directly disclose wherein the first end effector is extended into the first load lock chamber at a first time and the second end effector is extended into the second load lock chamber at a second time after the first time to perform coordinated extension and retraction.
However, Gilchrist discloses coordinating operation of the robot apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the end effectors operate at first and second times to increase throughput by not having one arm block the movement of the other arm.
With regards to claim 15, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 12 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first and second end effectors are simultaneously extended into, and simultaneously retracted from, the first and second load lock chambers, respectively (Col. 7, L39-45).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist and Takahashi as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Tao.
With regards to claim 17, Gilchrist and Takahashi disclose all the elements of claim 16 as outlined above. Gilchrist and Takahashi do not disclose extending, by the robot apparatus, the first end effector into a first load lock chamber to retrieve a first substrate and extend the second end effector into a second load lock chamber to retrieve a second substrate, wherein the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber are separated by a second pitch that is less than the first pitch; and after retrieving the first and second substrates from the first and second load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber, retracting the first end effector and the second end effector from the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber and into the rectangular mainframe.
However, Tao discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Abstract) with processing chambers (P51, P52) separated by a first pitch (D4, best seen in Fig 2) and load lock chambers (LL1, LL2) separated by a second pitch (D4’, best seen in Fig. 3), wherein the second pitch is less than the first pitch (Col. 7. L37-39). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to separate the load lock chambers of Gilchrist in the manner disclosed by Tao in order to increase throughput with a minimal increase to the apparatus footprint (Tao Col. 2, L48-51)
With regards to claim 18, Gilchrist, Takahashi, and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 17 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are simultaneously extended into, and simultaneously retracted from, the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber, respectively (Col. 7, L39-45).
With regards to claim 19, Gilchrist, Takahashi, Hudgens and Tao disclose all the elements of claim 17 as outlined above. Gilchrist does not directly disclose wherein the first end effector is extended into the first load lock chamber at a first time and the second end effector is extended into the second load lock chamber at a second time after the first time to perform coordinated extension and retraction.
However, Gilchrist discloses coordinating operation of the robot apparatus. It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the end effectors operate at first and second times to increase throughput by not having one arm block the movement of the other arm.
With regards to claim 20, Gilchrist, Takahashi, Hudgens and Tao discloses all the elements of claim 17 as outlined above. Gilchrist further discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are simultaneously extended into, and simultaneously retracted from, the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber, respectively (Col. 7, L39-45).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist and further in view of Takahashi and Tao.
With regards to claim 21, Gilchrist discloses a robot apparatus (transfer robot 130), comprising: a lower arm (155UA) configured to rotate about a first rotational axis (SX), an upper arm (155UB) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, the first rotational axis (Col. 6, L21-24); a first end effector (155EA) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, a second rotational axis (EXA) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis a second end effector (155EB) rotatably coupled to the upper arm at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (EXB) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; wherein the robot apparatus is configured to operate in a dual substrate handling mode (2H) or a single substrate handling mode (2I, 2J) within a mainframe without colliding into walls of the mainframe and wherein, to operate in the dual substrate handling mode, the robot apparatus is configured to: extend the first end effector into a first processing chamber and extend the second end effector into a second processing chamber (Col. 6, L11-13), wherein the first processing chamber and the second processing chamber are separated by a first pitch(θ’); perform a retraction process to retract the first end effector and the second end effector into a mainframe (atmospherically sealed section 110) wherein a distance between the first end effector and the second end effector bounded by the first pitch throughout the retraction process (end effectors are separated by a pitch θ that is equal to θ; Col. 5, L54-57; Col. 5, L60-63; the phrase “bounded by” is taken to mean that the end effectors cannot exceed the first pitch); and fold the first end effector and the second end effector inward within a sweep diameter defined by a width of the mainframe (Fig. 2G).
Gilchrist does not disclose a first end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm and second end effector directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe.
However, Takahashi discloses a robot apparatus (Abstract; Annotated Fig. 1), comprising: a lower arm (LA) configured to rotate about a first rotational axis (A1); an upper arm (UA) rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, the first rotational axis; a first end effector (31) directly and rotatably coupled to the lower arm at, and configured to rotate about, a second rotational axis (A3) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and a second end effector (32) directly and rotatably coupled to the upper arm at, and configured to rotate about, a third rotational axis (A2) that is spaced away from the first rotational axis; and that the robot apparatus is in a rectangular mainframe (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the robot apparatus disclosed by Gilchrist with the robot apparatus as disclosed by Takahashi in order to reduce costs and downtime by simplifying the robot apparatus. Gilchrist and Takahashi do not disclose extend the first end effector into a first load lock chamber and extend the second end effector into a second load lock chamber, the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber being separated by a second pitch less than the first pitch; and retract the first end effector and the second end effector from the first load lock chamber and the second load lock chamber and into the rectangular mainframe.
However, Tao discloses a substrate processing apparatus (Abstract) with processing chambers (P51, P52) separated by a first pitch (D4, best seen in Fig 2) and load lock chambers (LL1, LL2) separated by a second pitch (D4’, best seen in Fig. 3), wherein the second pitch is less than the first pitch (Col. 7. L37-39). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to separate the load lock chambers of Gilchrist in the manner disclosed by Tao in order to increase throughput with a minimal increase to the apparatus footprint (Tao Col. 2, L48-51).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The applicant’s disqualification of Hudgens (US20210407837) as prior art is accepted. New grounds of rejection have been presented above.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Gilchrist and Takahashi do not teach “the robot apparatus is configured to operate in a dual substrate handling mode or a single substrate handling mode within a rectangular mainframe without colliding into walls of the rectangular mainframe” or “fold the first end effector and the second end effector inward within a sweep diameter defined by a width of the rectangular mainframe" is not persuasive. By the applicant’s own admission these functional limitations “arise[s] from the dimensional constraints of a rectangular mainframe.” Takahashi discloses a rectangular mainframe as outlined above. Additionally changes in dimensions are considered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (MPEP 2144.04. IV.A). Furthermore the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
