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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 and 8 are currently pending and are being hereby examined herein. Claims 1 and 8 are amended. Claim 7 is cancelled.
Effective Filing Date
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of JP 2021-082040 filed on 14 May 2021 was received on 17 April 2024. Additionally, this application is the national stage entry of PCT/JP2021/029661 filed 11 August 2021.
Response to Amendment / Remarks
Any reference to the prior office action refers to the Final Rejection dated 23 December 2025.
Applicant's arguments, filed 6 March 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 from the prior office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitation(s) that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“detector” introduced in Claim 1.
“calculator” introduced in Claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
See at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0028] of the specification, detector 110 is a sub-component of controller 101 (i.e., a computer) or equivalents thereof.
See at least FIG. 1 and paragraph [0028] of the specification, calculator 111 is a sub-component of controller 101 (i.e., a computer) or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “a detector configured to detect rotation angles of the rotatable joints of the articulated arm in different postures, a number of the different postures is greater than or equal to a number of the plurality of arms of the articulated arm”; in view of the specification, this is a computer (see also interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)) and does not contain a light source. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to recite “wherein the detector comprises a sensor configured to detect the at least one protrusion passing through the sensing area of the sensor as the articulated arm extends and contacts, wherein the sensor includes a light source and a light receiving sensor arranged opposite to each other”. There does not appear to be support in the originally filed disclosure for the detector comprising a sensor including a light source and a light receiving sensor (see at least FIG. 1: detector 110 is part of controller 101). The detector (computer) receives data from the separate light source and light receiving sensor (see FIG. 3). For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner provides the following suggestion as one possible option that would overcome the rejection: “wherein the transfer device further comprises a sensor configured to detect the at least one protrusion passing through the sensing area of the sensor as the articled arm extends and contacts, wherein the sensor includes a light source and a light receiving sensor arranged opposite to each other”. Claims 2-6 are rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. Appropriate corrections are required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “a detector configured to detect rotation angles of the rotatable joints of the articulated arm in different postures, a number of the different postures is greater than or equal to a number of the plurality of arms of the articulated arm”; in view of the specification, this is a computer (see also interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know how a computer (the detector) could comprise “a light source and a light receiving sensor arranged opposite to each other”. Claims 2-6 are rejected for being dependent on Claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will assume “wherein the transfer device further comprises a sensor configured to detect the at least one protrusion passing through the sensing area of the sensor as the articled arm extends and contacts, wherein the sensor includes a light source and a light receiving sensor arranged opposite to each other”. Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0018446 (Yin et al., hereinafter Yin) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,162,713 (Mohri et al., hereinafter, Mohri).
Regarding Claim 1, Yin discloses A transfer device (see at least abstract: a wafer transport apparatus) comprising:
an articulated arm including a plurality of arms connected by rotatable joints, the articulated arm configured to be extensible and contractible by rotating the rotatable joints (see at least [0056], [0066], and FIG. 3: robot 330 has transfer arm 330A; moves with radial extension/retraction motion);
a detector configured to detect rotation angles of the rotatable joints of the articulated arm in different postures, a number of the different postures is greater than or equal to a number of the plurality of arms of the articulated arm (see at least [0059], [0067], [0070], [0072], [0079], [0081], [0150], FIG. 3, and FIG. 12: “the substrate transport robot 330 may have desired position determining devices (e.g. such as position or motor encoders 331) that are connected to the controller 11091 and send suitable signals to the controller 11091 enabling the controller 11091 to define both positional coordinates and momentum defining parameters of the end effector center 395C in any desired reference system associated with the robot 330”; “the detection of the leading and trailing edges at the transitions 425-428 are resolved by the controller 11091, with e.g. position data from the encoders 331, to establish the location Xc, Yc of the end effector reference point 395C”; “The encoders 331 of the substrate transport robot 330 are connected to the controller 11091 to identify relative or absolute movement of the robot motors effecting movement. Further, controller 11091 is programmed to convert the encoder data and (in combination with geometry information of the robot, programmed in the controller) generate the position coordinates and inertial parameters of the end effector center 395C”; “The sensors 199A, 199B are configured to detect the transitions 421-422 of the substrate past the respective sensor 199A, 199B as well as the transitions 425-428 of the datum features past the respective sensor 199A, 199B on the fly during motion 499 of the end effector 395”; at least four different postures relating to the datum features and fewer than four arms);
a calculator configured to calculate an expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms… (see at least [0058]-[0059], [0069], [0071]-[0073], [0079], [0081]-[0082], [0113], [0139], and [0164]: “the thermal expansion and/or contraction of the robot 330 is also determined such that the centering of the substrate S is performed based on the thermal expansion and/or contraction of at least the robot 330”; “Further, controller 11091 is programmed to convert the encoder data and (in combination with geometry information of the robot, programmed in the controller) generate the position coordinates and inertial parameters of the end effector center 395C”; “each of the supplemental datum feature 401, 402′ is supplemental to another of the datum features and provides for a respective unique deterministic solution for determining the end effector reference point 395C location Xc, Yc that can be combined and averaged as described herein to increase the accuracy of the location determination”; “predicts the expanded (or contracted) link lengths”; see equation 1 and equation 2); and
a transfer controller configured to correct a transfer position of the articulated arm based on the expansion amounts of the plurality of arms calculated by the calculator (see at least [0077], [0080], [0091], [0096], and [0113]: “corrected transport robot position is calculated using a kinematic model 1920 that is corrected for the expanded link lengths”),
wherein at least one protrusion protruding in a horizontal direction is formed on at least one supporting portion of a fork of the articulated arm for supporting a substrate (see at least [0066], [0069], FIG. 4A, and FIG. 4C: “the one or more datum features 401, 402 are shaped and positioned on, for example, the end effector 395 or at any other suitable location of the substrate transport apparatus 330”; “there may be more or less than two datum features 401, 402”), and
wherein the detector comprises a sensor configured to detect the at least one protrusion passing through the sensing area of the sensor as the articled arm extends and contacts (see at least [0066]-[0067], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4A: “In one aspect, referring to FIGS. 3 and 4A, the one or more datum features 401, 402 are shaped and positioned on, for example, the end effector 395 or at any other suitable location of the substrate transport apparatus 330 so as to be detected by automatic substrate or wafer centering sensors, such as one or more of sensors 199A, 199B, during motion 499 (e.g. on the fly) of the substrate transport 330 transfer arm 330A past the sensor(s) 199A, 199B”; “The sensors 199A, 199B are configured to detect the transitions 421-422 of the substrate past the respective sensor 199A, 199B as well as the transitions 425-428 of the datum features past the respective sensor 199A, 199B on the fly during motion 499 of the end effector 395”),
wherein the sensor includes a light source and a light receiving sensor arranged opposite to each other (see at least [0062] and FIG. 3: “the sensors 199A, 199B may be of any suitable type, such as a through beam or reflectance sensor, capable of detecting the presence of the substrate 315 as the substrate is moved past the sensors by the substrate transport robot 330. In the exemplary embodiment, sensors 199A, 199B may each have a beam source and detector that generates an appropriate signal when it detects or fails to detect the beam”), and
wherein the detector is configured to detect the rotation angles of the rotatable joints at a time when the light emitted from the light source is blocked by the at least one protrusion (see at least [0071]-[0073], [0079], and FIG. 4A: “The transitions 425-428 detected by one or more of the sensor(s) 199A, 199B as the datum features 401, 402 pass by the respective sensor 199A, 199B are measured as the end effector positions reported by the substrate transport robot 330 encoders 331 at the instants that the respective sensors 199A, 199B detect each transition 425-428”).
Yin at least suggests a calculator configured to calculate an expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms based on the rotation angles of the rotatable joints in each posture detected by the detector (see at least [0163]-[0164]: “The positions of the flags F1-F4 sensed by but one of the sensors 199A, 199B are used as inputs to analytical equations from the SCARA arm kinematics to determine the associated thermal expansion of the respective SCARA arm links 23201, 23202, 23203 as noted above”).
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner also introduces Mohri, in the same field of correcting errors in robot positioning, and therefore analogous art, to teach calculate an expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms based on the rotation angles of the rotatable joints in each posture (see at least columns 3-4, column 8, and FIG. 5: a system of equations including angles between the arms is solved to determine arm length errors).
Combining Mohri with Yin (the combination is using the teachings of Mohri of calculating unknown arm length variation using a system of equations, to calculate arm expansion amounts based on the angles and position of the flag / datum features available in Yin) would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art, with motivation of using a known technique to determine arm variation amounts that enable control with high accuracy (see at least Mohri column 1).
Regarding Claim 2, the Yin and Mohri combination teaches Claim 1. As previously discussed (see rejection for Claim 1), Yin discloses the calculator calculates the expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms / the rotation angles of the rotatable joints in each posture are detected by the detector. Furthermore, Mohri further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) …calculates the expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms based on lengths of the plurality of arms in a non-expansion state where the plurality of arms are not expanded, an extended/contracted distance of the articulated arm in each posture in the non-expansion state, and the rotation angles of the rotatable joints… (see at least columns 3-4: the length error of the arms can be solved by measuring differences between two points, lengths without the error and angles are part of equations).
Regarding Claim 3, the Yin and Mohri combination teaches Claim 2. As previously discussed (see rejection for Claim 1), Yin discloses the calculator calculates the expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms / the rotation angles of the rotatable joints in each posture are detected by the detector. Furthermore, Mohri further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) …calculates the expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms by solving a relational equation that indicates a relationship between the extended/contracted distance of the articulated arm, the lengths of the plurality of arms in the non-expansion state, the rotation angles of the rotatable joints, and the expansion amounts of the plurality of arms, by way of applying the extended/contracted distance of the articulated arm and the rotation angles of the rotatable joints… in each posture to the relational equation and using the expansion amounts of the plurality of arms in the relational equation for each posture as unknown values (see at least columns 3-4: equations (1)-(6)).
Regarding Claim 4, the Yin and Mohri combination teaches Claim 2. As previously discussed (see rejection for Claim 1), Yin discloses the calculator calculates the expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms / the rotation angles of the rotatable joints in each posture are detected by the detector. Furthermore, Mohri further teaches (with the same motivation to combine as Claim 1 / as part of the same combination as Claim 1) …calculates the expansion amount of each of the plurality of arms by applying the rotation angles of the rotatable joints in each posture…to a relational equation for calculating the expansion amounts of the plurality of arms from the extended/contracted distance of the articulated arm in each posture, the lengths of the plurality of arms in the non-expansion state, and the rotation angles of the rotatable joints in each posture (see at least columns 3-4: equations (1)-(6)).
Regarding Claim 5, the Yin and Mohri combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yin further discloses wherein the different postures are postures in which the articulated arm is extended/contracted by different distances (see at least [0067], FIG. 3, and FIG. 4A: the arm 330A is different amounts extended/contracted for each transition of the datum features 425-428 to pass sensors 199A, 199B).
Regarding Claim 6, the Yin and Mohri combination teaches Claim 1. Furthermore, Yin further discloses wherein the sensor is provided at a chamber for performing substrate processing (see at least FIG. 3: sensor 199B and 199A are at substrate processing module 325), and the calculator calculates an expansion amount of the chamber (see at least [0048], [0077]-[0080], [0096], [0110], and [0167]-[0183]: “In one aspect, thermal effects on the substrate processing module 325 (and the components there such as substrate holding station 315) are also compensated for by, for example, storing a configurable scale in the controller 11091 that relates thermal expansion/contraction of the substrate processing module 325 to the thermal/contraction of the substrate transport apparatus 330. In one aspect, the value of thermal expansion/contraction of the substrate processing module 325 is estimated by the controller based on the known value of the thermal expansion/contraction of the substrate transport apparatus 330 as described herein. For example, the thermal expansion/contraction of the arm 330A may serve as a temperature sensor to estimate the substrate processing module 325 expansion/contraction, the correlation of which may be indicated in the configurable scale”; “In one aspect ΔX(T), ΔY(T) may be used to determine the thermal effect on the substrate processing module 325 as described herein”; “In one aspect, the actual value of the processing temperature need not be known to compensate for the thermal expansion of the substrate transport arm 330A as the temperature compensation effect is achieved by, for example, naturally detecting the relative deviations of transitions 425-428 at the processing temperature from the corresponding location values of transitions 425-428 at the calibration temperature”). In view of Yin and Mohri, the calculator calculates an expansion amount of the chamber based on lengths of the plurality of arms in a non-expansion state, the calculated expansion amounts of the plurality of arms, and the rotation angles of the rotatable joints detected by the detector would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to one having ordinary skill in the art. In view of the existing combination, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the thermal expansion/contraction of the arm 330A may be accurately calculated based on lengths of the plurality of arms in a non-expansion state, the calculated expansion amounts of the plurality of arms, and the rotation angles of the rotatable joints detected by the detector (e.g., by summing the calculated expansion amounts of each the plurality of arms which are calculated based on lengths of the plurality of arms in a non-expansion state and the rotation angles of the rotatable joints detected by the detector). Then using that length as a temperature sensor would result in the substrate processing module expansion/contraction (see at least Yin [0077]).
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ROBYN MORFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6109. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/A.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights