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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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: first detector and second detector in claim 1 which are implemented as a robot controller in Fig. 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 8-9, 12, 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hine (US 2002/0068992).
As per claim 1, Hine discloses robot system comprising:
a robot configured to support and transfer a substrate using a hand (see at least para. 49 for robot 26 for handling semiconductor wafers; see at least para. 55 for end effector 48 includes fingers 52a and 52b);
a target configured to be placed, instead of the substrate, on a substrate support in which the substrate is placed before or after transfer by the robot (see at least para. 62 and 68 for target 46 that is same size and configuration as workpieces handled by the robot is placed within a cassette as would a workpiece to be processed);
a sensor provided on the hand and configured to detect the target in a non-contact manner while facing the target (see at least para. 58 for sensor 50 on the distal end of the end effector being a reflective sensor);
a first detector configured to control the robot such that the sensor faces the target along a first direction, and detect a position of the target in the first direction based on a detection result of the sensor facing the target along the first direction and a position of the sensor (control system 58; see at least para. 60 and 69-70 for using the reflective sensor to determine z-axis height to be aligned under target by moving vertically along the z direction); and
a second detector configured to control the robot to move the sensor along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and detect a position of the target in the second direction based on a change in the detection result of the sensor due to movement along the second direction and the position of the sensor (control system 58; see at least para. 71-75 for after determining z coordinates moving the end effector in a clockwise or counterclockwise motion, which is in the x and y direction, about the z-axis to search for a pattern under the target in order to determine the x and y coordinates of the target).
As per claim 2, Hine further discloses wherein the second detector controls the robot to move the sensor along the second direction after the position of the target in the first direction is detected by the first detector (see at least para. 71 for after determining z coordinates, moving the end effector in a clockwise or counterclockwise motion about the z-axis).
As per claim 3, Hine further discloses wherein the second detector recognizes an outline of the target based on the change in the detection result of the sensor due to the movement along the second direction, and detects the position of the target in the second direction based on a position of the sensor when the outline is recognized (see at least para. 75 for determining the x and y coordinates of the target based on the robot position when detecting transition points 64 corresponding to boundary lines 62, equivalent to the outline, while performing the clockwise or counterclockwise search motion).
As per claim 4, Hine further discloses wherein, when viewed from a perspective facing the target along the first direction, the outline includes a first line and a second line that are non-parallel to each other and each intersects the second direction, and the second detector recognizes the first line and the second line based on the detection result of the sensor moving along the second direction, and detects a position of the target in a third direction perpendicular to both the first and second directions based on a position of the sensor when the first line is recognized and a position of the sensor when the second line is recognized (see at least Fig. 6 and para. 75 for example pattern 60 on the bottom of target with two perpendicular lines that run along the x and y direction which is used to determine x and y coordinates of the target while performing the clockwise or counterclockwise search motion).
As per claim 8, Hine further discloses wherein the target has a first surface and a second surface aligned along the second direction and each intersecting the first direction, and the first line and the second line are positioned between the first surface and the second surface (see at least Fig. 11-12 for square target which have a pair of parallel vertical faces along the x direction and a pair of parallel vertical faces along the y direction as it is a three-dimensional object and wherein the pattern would be on the horizontal face located between any pair of parallel vertical faces).
As per claim 9, Hine further discloses wherein the robot includes a multi-joint arm connected to the hand, and the multi-joint arm is configured to change a position of the hand in the first direction, a position of the hand in the second direction, and a posture of the hand around an axis perpendicular to both the first and second directions, through rotation of one or more joints (see at least para. 79 and Figs. 1 and 10 for a multi-link arm assembled with multiple joints that translates along the z-axis using shaft 34 and is capable of moving the distal end of the effector in a pitch and/or roll motion).
As per claim 12, Hine further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to output a signal indicating a distance to the target in a state of facing the target, and the first detector detects the position of the target in the first direction based on the signal output from the sensor facing the target along the first direction and the position of the sensor (see at least para. 70 for proximity sensor).
As per claim 19, Hine further discloses wherein the substrate support is provided inside a cassette accommodating the substrate, the robot system further comprises a target base capable of being placed on the substrate support inside the cassette instead of the substrate, and the target is provided on the target base to be placed at a position detectable by the sensor from an outside of the cassette in a state where the target base is supported by the substrate support (see at least Fig. 11 and para. 49 for a plurality of shelves within a cassette which hold target 46; target base is the bottom surface of target 46; see least Fig. 11 for target 46 overhangs outside of the shelf and cassette to allow robot to sense pattern).
As per claim 21, Hine discloses a calibration tool configured to specify a positional relationship between a robot and a cassette based on a detection result of a sensor that is provided on a hand of the robot and detects a target in a non-contact manner while facing the target, the robot supporting a substrate using the hand being introduced into and removed from the cassette along a horizontal first direction, the calibration tool comprising:
a target base capable of being introduced into and removed from the cassette along the first direction instead of the substrate (see at least para. 62 and 68 and Fig. 1 for target 46 that is same size and configuration as workpieces handled by the robot is placed horizontally within a cassette as would a workpiece to be processed; target base is the bottom surface of target 46), and
the target provided on the target base so as to be placed at a position detectable by the sensor from an outside of the cassette in a state where the target base is accommodated in the cassette (see least Fig. 11 for target 46 overhangs outside of the shelf and cassette to allow robot to sense pattern),
wherein, when viewed from a perspective facing the target along the first direction, an outline of the target includes a first line and a second line that are non-parallel to each other and each intersects the horizontal direction (see at least Fig. 6 and para. 75 for example pattern 60 on the bottom of target with two perpendicular lines that run along the x and y direction which is used to determine x and y coordinates of the target while performing the clockwise or counterclockwise search motion).
As per claim 22, Hine discloses a calibration method of specifying a positional relationship between a robot and a substrate support where a substrate is placed before or after transfer by the robot based on a detection result of a sensor provided on a hand of the robot that supports and transfers the substrate using the hand, the calibration method comprising:
placing a target on the substrate support (see at least para. 62 and 68 for target 46 that is same size and configuration as workpieces handled by the robot is placed within a cassette as would a workpiece to be processed);
controlling the robot such that the sensor faces the target in a non-contact manner along a first direction, and detecting a position of the target in the first direction based on a detection result of the sensor facing the target in the non-contact manner along the first direction and a position of the sensor (see at least para. 60 and 69-70 for using the reflective sensor to determine z-axis height to be aligned under target by moving vertically along the z direction), and
controlling the robot to move the sensor along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and detecting a position of the target in the second direction based on a change in the detection result of the sensor due to movement along the second direction and the position of the sensor (see at least para. 71-75 for after determining z coordinates moving the end effector in a clockwise or counterclockwise motion, which is in the x and y direction, about the z-axis to search for a pattern under the target in order to determine the x and y coordinates of the target).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10-11, 13-18, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM 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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619