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 .
Supplemental
Election/Restriction
Upon further review and consideration to the latest filed remarks made on 02/20/2026, a supplemental Election/Restriction processed herewith.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9 & 17-20, drawn to a computer readable medium & method of transferring substrates, classified in G05B.
II. Claims 10-16, drawn to a lift assembly, classified in B23Q.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Group I and II are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06).
In the instant case, the different inventions as disclosed and suggested by Group I does not require nor disclose the particular of Group II. Even though, Group II might appear to disclose some linking limitations, considering the dependent claims appears to be distinguished from Group I. For example, Group I does not require to have a lift assembly with first, second, and third motors, drive shafts, and support blocks; which are required by Group II.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group I does not require nor suggest the particular of Group II, for example Group I does not require to have a lift assembly with first, second, and third motors, drive shafts, and support blocks; which are required by Group II.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Josh Monahan on 03/19/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claim1-9 & 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-16 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “183”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda (U.S. Pat. No. 2019/0105745).
Regarding claim 1: Takeda discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a plurality of operations to be conducted (Fig. 13 & paragraph 0003; “SCARA…robots are controlled independently”), the plurality of operations comprising:
detecting a fault condition (Fig. 7B; via any condition out of the upper/lower limit values);
determining a first position of a first support frame along a first movement range (Fig. 1; via the workpiece placement in the downstream step and the position of the robot arm at “set lower limit value”; paragraph 0089; “control from the state S2 to the state S4, the workpieces W1 and W2 are conveyed”);
determining a second position of a second support frame along a second movement range (Figs. 2C & 7B; via robotic arms movement in respect to W and F), the second movement range overlapping with the first movement range by an overlap range (via at the “reference point”);
determining if the first position is in an inside condition or an outside condition, the inside condition is within the overlap range, and the outside condition is outside of the overlap range, see for example (Fig. 7B; via if the robotic arm is out or beyond the upper/lower set limit values & paragraph 0092); and
moving the first support frame and the second support frame respectively to a first retracted position and a second retracted position, see for example (Figs. 2C & 7A; showing different movements of robotic arms in respect with the support frames W & F).
regarding claim 2: wherein if the first position is in the outside condition, the moving comprises:
moving the second support frame to the second retracted position; and
after the second support frame reaches the second retracted position, moving the first support frame to the first retracted position, see for example (Figs.7A & 7B; via the movements of the robotic arms in respect to the W & F).
Regarding claim 3: wherein if the first position is in the inside condition, the moving comprises:
simultaneously moving the first support frame and the second support frame until the first position is in the outside condition;
halting the moving of the first support frame;
moving the second support frame to the second retracted position; and
after the second support frame reaches the second retracted position, moving the first support frame to the first retracted position, see for example (Figs.7A & 7B; via the movements of the robotic arms simultaneously in respect to each other’s along with the movements of the arms in respect to the W & F).
Regarding claim 4: wherein the first movement range is between a first end linear position and a second end linear position of the first support frame, and the second movement range is between a first end linear position and a second end linear position of the second support frame, see for example (Fig. 7A; via the shown movement ranges of the robotic arms between the upper limit value and the lower limit value).
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) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda (U.S. Pat. No. 2019/0105745) in view of Zhu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0141498).
Regarding claim 17: Takeda discloses a method of transferring, comprising:
detecting a fault condition (Fig. 7B; via any condition out of the upper/lower limit values);
determining a first position of a first support frame along a first movement range (Fig. 1; via the workpiece placement in the downstream step and the position of the robot arm at “set lower limit value”; paragraph 0089; “control from the state S2 to the state S4, the workpieces W1 and W2 are conveyed”);
determining a second position of a second support frame along a second movement range (Figs. 2C & 7B; via robotic arms movement in respect to W and F), the second movement range overlapping with the first movement range by an overlap range (via at the “reference point”); and
determining if the first position is in an inside condition or an outside condition, the inside condition is within the overlap range, and the outside condition is outside of the overlap range, see for example (Fig. 7B; via if the robotic arm is out or beyond the upper/lower set limit values & paragraph 0092).
Takeda does not disclose the steps of moving a first substrate into a chamber;
raising a second support frame relative to a first support frame to engage the first substrate, the first support frame comprising a first shaft and a plurality of first arms, the second support frame comprising a second shaft and a plurality of second arms;
lowering the second support frame relative to the first support frame to land the first substrate on a first substrate support, nor lowering the first support frame and the second support frame respectively to a first retracted position and a second retracted position.
However, Zhu discloses similar method including the steps of moving a first substrate into a chamber;
raising a second support frame relative to a first support frame to engage the first substrate, the first support frame comprising a first shaft and a plurality of first arms, and the second support frame comprising a second shaft and a plurality of second arms;
lowering the second support frame relative to the first support frame to land the first substrate on a first substrate support, and lowering the first support frame and the second support frame respectively to a first retracted position and a second retracted position, see for example (Figs. 1 & 3; via substrates 107 in chamber 130, while moving first and second support frames 198 & 199 relative to each other’s in respect to the substrates 107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Takeda’s method by replacing the robotic arms moving mechanism with another using a substrate withing a chamber while moving first and second support frames relative to the substrate, as suggested by Zhu, in order to come up with an improved system for processing and adjusting uniformly the movements of elements (paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 18: Zhu further comprising:
raising the first support frame in a direction away from the first retracted position (Fig. 1; via movement of support frame 198);
moving a second substrate into the chamber (via substrates 107 into chamber 130);
raising the second support frame relative to the first support frame and in a direction away from the second retracted position to engage the second substrate (via the movements of support frame 199 in respect to support frame 198); and
lowering the second support frame relative to the first support frame to land the second substrate on a second substrate support, see for example (Fis. 1 & 3; via the movements of support frames 198/199 in respect to the shown substrates 107 and its support surface).
Regarding claim 19: Zhu further comprising:
raising the first support frame into a processing position;
processing the first substrate and the second substrate; and
lowering the first support frame, see for example (Fig. 1; via motor 164 “which is configured to independently raise, lower, and/or rotate the cassette 1030 using the second support frame 199, and to independently raise and lower the lift pins 189 using the first support frame 198).
Regarding claim 20: Zhu discloses that the raising of the second support frame to engage the first substrate comprises:
the plurality of second arms raising a plurality of lift pins that engage the first substrate, see for example (Fig. 1; via motor 164 “which is configured to independently raise, lower, and/or rotate the cassette 1030 using the second support frame 199, and to independently raise and lower the lift pins 189 using the first support frame 198).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5: the prior art of record fails to disclose the combination of the claimed computer readable medium comprising among other features the use of a first position to be a linear position of a first support block that supports a first shaft of the first support frame, such that linear movement of the support block moves the first support frame, see for example (filed specification, paragraph 0060 & Figs. 3-4; via the linear movement of first support block 330 along the first drive shaft 321 to move first support frame 199 as shown in Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights