Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/399,622

SUBSTRATE GRIPPER AND METHOD FOR MOVING A SUBSTRATE USING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Examiner
BURKMAN, JESSICA LYNN
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Absolics Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
161 granted / 197 resolved
+29.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
224
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 197 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 This is a response to an amendment filed February 12th, 2026. By the amendment claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-15 are pending with claims 1, 3 and 8 being amended and claims 2, 4 and 7 being canceled. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on June 1st, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0071033 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 23th, 2025 has been considered by the examiner. 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, 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 216902876) further in view of Suzuki (JP 2015233065), hereafter Suzuki ‘065. With regards to claim 1, Chen discloses a substrate gripper for moving a glass or ceramic substrate (Abstract; can be used for glass or ceramic substrates, MPEP 2115) the substrate gripper comprising: a frame (body 120); a plurality of pad holes (through holes 125, 126) connected to the frame; and a plurality of suction pads disposed on the frame and connected to the pad holes, wherein the suction pad has a contact surface (central suction disc portion 141) which comes into contact with one surface of a target substrate when the target substrate is mounted, the suction pad comprises: a first suction pad (140) having a first suction pad contact surface (141) at a first height (H1) in a state of not supporting the target substrate; and a second suction pad (150) having a second suction pad contact surface (Not labeled separately, similar to 161 of suction portion 160) at a second height (H2) in a state of not supporting the target substrate, and the first height is greater than the second height based on the frame (Fig. 2); the first suction pad comprises a bellows-type vacuum pad (Fig. 2). Chen does not directly disclose a horizontal gripping force of the second suction pad is greater than a horizontal gripping force of the first suction pad, and a horizontal gripping force of the substrate gripper with respect to the target substrate relative to the number of suction pads comprised in the substrate gripper is 0.1 N/one suction pad or more. However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate horizontal gripping force depending on the type of substrate being gripped in order to avoid damaging the substrate. Chen does not disclose the second suction pad comprises a flat-type vacuum pad. However, Suzuki ‘065 discloses that the second suction pad comprises a flat-type vacuum pad (Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have one of the suction pads disclosed by Chen be a flat-type pad as disclosed by Suzuki ‘065 in order to more securely hold the substrate. With regards to claim 3, Chen and Suzuki ‘065 discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Chen and Suzuki ‘065 do not directly disclose wherein the horizontal gripping force of the substrate gripper with respect to the target substrate relative to a sum of an area of the first suction pad contact surface and an area of the second suction pad contact surface is 10 mN/mm2 or more. With regards to claims 5, Chen and Suzuki '065 discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Chen does not disclose wherein: the pad hole connected to the first suction pad is connected to a first flow path; the pad hole connected to the second suction pad is connected to a second flow path; and the first flow path and the second flow path are controlled independently from each other. However, Suzuki ‘065 discloses a substrate gripper (Abstract) wherein the pad hole connected to the first suction pad (50) is connected to a first flow path (via valve 54); the pad hole connected to the second suction pad (52) is connected to a second flow path (via valve 58); and the first flow path and the second flow path are controlled independently from each other (P027-029). 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 suction pads disclosed by Chen be connected to different flow paths and be independently controlled in the manner disclosed by Suzuki ‘065 in order to be able to handle multiple sizes of substrate. With regards to claim 6, Chen and Suzuki discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Chen does not disclose wherein a cross-sectional shape of the frame is a polygonal shape, and the frame is symmetric with respect to a center thereof based on the cross-sectional shape. However, Suzuki ‘065 discloses wherein a cross-sectional shape of the frame is a polygonal shape, and the frame is symmetric with respect to a center thereof based on the cross-sectional shape (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose a polygon shape as disclosed by Suzuki ‘065 depending on the shape of the substrate. With regards to claim 8, Chen and Suzuki ‘065 discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Chen and Suzuki doesn’t disclose wherein the flat-type vacuum pad comprises a circular-type pad or an oval-type pad. However, this is a simple change in shape and is therefore rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on cost constraints (MPEP 2144.04.IV.B.). With regards to claim 9, Chen discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Chen does not directly disclose wherein the frame comprises a first coupling portion, and a protruding finger which is detachably coupled to the first coupling portion and protrudes outward of the frame based on a center of the frame, and the first suction pad is disposed on the protruding finger. However, Suzuki ‘065 discloses a protruding finger support arm (46). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a protruding finger as disclosed by Suzuki ‘065 depending on the shape of the substrate. Suzuki ‘065 does not disclose wherein the frame comprises a first coupling portion, where the protruding figure is detachably coupled to the first coupling portion and protrudes outward of the frame based on a center of the frame. However, making something detachable is considered to be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make maintenance easier (MPEP 2144.04.V. C.). With regards to claim 11, Chen and Suzuki ‘065 disclose all the elements of claim 9 as outlined above. Chen and Suzuki ‘065 do not directly disclose wherein the protruding finger has lower tensile strength than the frame. However, 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 finger have a lower tensile strength than the frame in order to not damage the substrate by giving the gripper structure more flexibility. With regards to claims 14-15, Chen and Suzuki discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Chen further discloses method of transferring a substrate (Abstract), which is a method of transferring a target substrate using the substrate gripper according to claim 1 (See rejections above), the method comprising: a first operation in which the first suction pad and the target substrate come into contact with each other; and a second operation in which the second suction pad and the target substrate come into contact with each other; wherein the first operation comprises making an inside of the first suction pad as a vacuum to suction the target substrate; and the second operation comprises making an inside of the second suction pad as a vacuum to suction the target substrate (P55, L10-14). Claim(s) 10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Suzuki ‘065 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al., (US 20190308276) hereafter Suzuki '276. With regards to claim 10, Chen and Suzuki ‘065 disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Chen and Suzuki ‘065 do not disclose wherein the frame comprises a second coupling portion, and a recessed finger which is detachably coupled to the second coupling portion and is recessed inward of the frame based on a center of the frame, and the second suction pad is disposed on the recessed finger. However, Suzuki ‘276 discloses a frame (PL) with recessed fingers (not labeled separately by having holes H2’) recessed inward (Fig. 13). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention add recessed fingers as disclosed by Suzuki ‘276 to the device disclosed by Chen and Suzuki ‘065 in order to reduce gripper size while increasing the number of suction points to avoid damaging the substrate. Suzuki ‘276 does not disclose wherein the frame comprises a first coupling portion, where the protruding figure is detachably coupled to the first coupling portion and protrudes outward of the frame based on a center of the frame. However, making something detachable is considered to be obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make maintenance easier (MPEP 2144.04.V. C.). With regards to claim 12, Chen, Suzuki ‘065 and Suzuki ‘276 disclose all the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. Chen Suzuki ‘065 and Suzuki ‘276 do not directly disclose wherein the recessed finger has lower tensile strength than the frame. However, 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 finger have a lower tensile strength than the frame in order to not damage the substrate by giving the gripper structure more flexibility. With regards to claim 13, Chen and Suzuki ‘065 and Suzuki ‘276 disclose all the elements of claim 10 as outlined above. Chen does not directly disclose wherein a difference between the first height and the second height is 30 mm or less based on the frame. However, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an appropriate height difference based on the thickness of the substrate in order to more securely hold the substrate. Response to Arguments The applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The type of substrates being moved does not impart patentability (MPEP 2115). Furthermore, Suzuki is only used for the details of the suction pads. This is a simple substitution of known elements (MPEP 2143.I.B). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 12, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596060
A method for sampling a solid object, and a system configured to sample a solid object
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589412
APPARATUS FOR DRY GRANULAR MIXTURES SEPARATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583030
REGENERATION TREATMENT METHOD OF WASTE SHELL-MOLD AND SYSTEM THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12584269
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF LAUNDRY SORTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569860
SPIRAL SEPARATOR AND APPARATUS THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.2%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 197 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month