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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8 it appears that the term “whereby” should be “thereby”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata (US-20190054613-A1) in view of Takahachi (JP-2010069552-A) (see also applicant provided machine language translation.)
PNG
media_image1.png
871
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, Shibata teaches a substrate conveyor (101) robot Comprising:
A robot arm (62) including a holder (64) Configured to hold a Substrate (W) and arranged in a free end of the robot arm (62); (see Figure 1)
an up-and-down driving mechanism (1) including a stationary part (46) including a guide rail (10) extending in an upward/downward direction (see Figure 2 and 3 and paragraph) ([0020] a guide rail extending in a vertical direction is provided), and an up-and-down mover (47)
configured to move upward and downward along the guide rail (10) [0020 the elevating/lowering drive mechanism has a fixed portion to which a guide rail]
whereby moving the robot arm (62) upward and downward; ([0020] elevating/lowering portion which is driven to be elevated/lowered along the guide rail)
a guide rail cover (19) (see Figure 3) arranged on a lateral side of the
guide rail (10) to cover an upper part of the guide rail (10) that is
exposed toward the lateral side when the up-and-down mover (47)
moves downward and included in the up-and-down mover ([0020] guide rail cover which is provided to the elevating/lowering portion for covering an upper portion of the guide rail exposed when the elevating/lowering portion is lowered),
wherein
the robot arm (62) includes a base link (4) that is connected
to the up-and-down mover turnably in a horizontal direction ([0020] robot arm has a base portion link which is connected to the elevating/lowering portion to be turned),
and is arranged at a height equal to the guide rail cover (19)
in the upward/downward direction (as stated in Claim 3 of Shibata), upper end the guide rail cover is equal to a height of an upper surface of the fixed portion), and a free-end side link
that is connected to the base link (4) turnably in the
horizontal direction, and includes one or more arm parts
having the free end ([0020] a link member which is connected to the base portion link to be turned and including the distal end portion) (see also figure 1)
Regarding claim 1, Shibata differs from the invention as claimed because it does not teach and a rotation center of the base link is spaced away from
the guide rail cover as viewed from a top side so that the
shortest distance between the guide rail cover and the
rotation center of the base link is greater than the maximum
turn radius of the base link with the upper part of the
guide rail being covered by the guide rail cover in a lowered
position of the up-and-down mover.
However, Takahachi teaches, a rotation center of the base link (2) is spaced away from
the guide rail cover (20) as viewed from a top side so that the
shortest distance between the guide rail cover (20) and the
rotation center of the base link (2) is greater than the maximum
turn radius of the base link (2) with the upper part of the
guide rail (21a) being covered by the guide rail cover (20) in a lowered
position of the up-and-down mover (131). (See for instance Figures 7 and 8). Takahachi teaches that spacing away the rotation center is useful because it allows for much more freedom of rotation (see paragraph [023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the support of Shibata so that the rotation center is spaced apart as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the robot arm of Shibata with more freedom of rotation.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shibata as modified by Takahashi teaches that the shortest distance between the guide rail cover and the rotation center of the base link is greater than the maximum turn radius of the base link in a raised position.
Regarding claim 3, Shibata as modified by Takahashi teaches that the up-down mover includes a support that is arranged on a bottom side of the robot arm to turnably support the robot arm (20), (Shibata, Figure 3 above) that extends horizontally, and when Shibata is modified to include the distances taught by Takahashi the combination includes an up-and-down mover that includes a support that extends from a guide rail cover side of the up-and-down mover and a length of the support in the first direction is greater than the shortest distance between the guide rail cover and the rotation center of the base link.
Regarding claim 4, Shibata does not teach that the movable side case (20) includes an L shape with a lower case part that extends in the upward/downward direction, and an upper case part that protrudes from an upper part of the lower case (5) part toward one side of the first direction of the horizontal directions away from the guide rail (10) and includes the support, which is arranged on the bottom side of the robot arm (62) to turnably support the robot arm; (Note: As seen in Figure 3 the side case moves upward and downward along a track to keep the support rail away from the robot arm.) However, applying the teaching of Takahashi to the support of Shibata would result in the L shape and
the rotation center of the base link is positioned on a side opposite to the guide rail with respect to a center of the upper-case part in the first direction as viewed from the top side. (Note: As seen in Figure 1 of Takahashi the pivot point of the base link is located far from the guide rail to ensure large radius movement around the guide rail.)
Regarding claim 5, Shibata as modified by Takahashi teaches
The substrate conveyor robot according to claim 4, wherein the rotation center of the base link (4) is spaced away from the guide rail cover (19) so that an outermost edge of a movement range of the base link (4) overlaps a footprint area of the lower-case part (5) on a rotation center side of the base link (4) with respect to the guide rail cover (19) as viewed from the top side. (Note: As seen in Figure 1 the configuration prevents the rotating base from protruding, allowing the robot to operate in confined spaces.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shibata in view of Takahashi does not teach that a width of a part of the upper case (5) part that protrudes from the lower-case part (5) in the second direction is smaller than a width of the lower-case part (5) in the second direction as viewed from the top side. (Note: In figure 1 the robot arm protrudes the lower layer to ensure the robot arm not collide with its surrounding.) However, the Federal Circuit has held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an upper-case part that is narrower than the lower-case part to use less materials and save space.
Claim 7,
The substrate conveyor robot according to claim 4, the combination of Shibata in view of Takahashi teaches wherein
the base link (4) includes both end edges in a direction in which the base link extends including a close-side edge located close to the rotation center as viewed from the top side; (Note: In figure 1, the base (63) have two main defining ends. and
the shortest distance between the rotation center and an edge of the upper-case part (5) opposite to a guide-rail-side edge of the upper-case part (5) is not greater than the shortest distance between the rotation center and the close-side edge of the base link (4) as viewed from the top side. (Note: In Figure 1, The case part stays within the footprint of the base link.)
Claim 8,
The substrate conveyor robot according to claim 1, wherein the free-end side link (65 & 66) is positioned at a height different from the guide rail cover (19) in the upward/downward direction. (Note: In Figure 1 the free-end side link lies on a different horizontal plane.)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shibata in view of Takahashi teaches all elements of claim 9 as discussed above with reference to the rejection of claim 1. For those limitation not previous discussed, Shibata teaches the robot compartment configured to accommodate the substrate robot (see Figure 1 Shibata.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. References ‘161, ‘366, ‘613 ‘709 and ‘502 cited on the 892 discloses a system and method for
an assembly with arms and/or wheels for picking up an item.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAUREAN LLOYD MCMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM - 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/TM/
Patent Examiner AU 3652
/RUTH ILAN/Acting Supervisor, Art Unit 3600
Prosecution Insights