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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13th, 2026 has been entered. By the amendment claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1, 9 and 16 being amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on February 13th, 2026 and March 26, 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 8 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 or a single substrate handling mode (no structure preventing the apparatus from being used in this manner) within a rectangular mainframe without colliding into walls of the rectangular 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).
Claim(s) 4-7 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 discloses 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 discloses 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 discloses 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).
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist in view of Takahashi, Tao and Hudgens (US 20210407837).
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: 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. 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).
Gilchrist and Takahashi do not disclose that the robot apparatus operates in a dual substrate handling mode within a rectangular mainframe within colliding into walls of the rectangular mainframe.
However, Hudgens discloses that robot apparatuses are commonly used in both a single mode and a dual mode (P067). Therefore, 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 robot apparatus operate in two modes based on throughput needs (MPEP 2143.I.D).
With regards to claim 10, Gilchrist, Takahashi ,Tao, and Hudgens, 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, Tao and Hudgens 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, Tao and Hudgens 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, Tao and Hudgens 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, Tao and Hudgens 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, Tao and Hudgens 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist in view of Takahashi and Hudgens.
With regards to claim 16, Gilchrist discloses a method (Abstract) comprising: extending, by a robot apparatus (transfer robot 130), 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.
Gilchrist and Takahashi do not disclose that the robot apparatus operates in a dual substrate handling mode within a rectangular mainframe within colliding into walls of the rectangular mainframe.
However, Hudgens discloses that robot apparatuses are commonly used in both a single mode and a dual mode (P067). Therefore, 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 robot apparatus operate in two modes based on throughput needs (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilchrist Takahashi and Hudgens as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Tao.
With regards to claim 17, Gilchrist, Takahashi and Hudgens 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, Hudgens 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).
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. For the apparatus claims there is no structure in the claims that would render the device disclosed by Gilchrist and Takahashi unable to be operated in two modes as recited (MPEP 2114.II) In the method claims, the use of two modes is known in the art from Hudgens as outlined above.
Conclusion
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