DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed November 7, 2025 for the above identified patent application.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,850,742. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim a method of transporting a substrate with a robotic device having the same structural features, including the wrist members being rotated at a nonlinear rate and moveable along respective paths that do not overlap.
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.
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudgens et al. (USPub 2014/0154038) in view of Muthukamatchi et al. (USP 2017/0368680).
Referring to Figure 1B, Hudgens teaches rotating a first upper arm (118) of a first arm assembly of a robot about a first axis (122), wherein the rotating of the first upper arm causes, by a first drive system (175,146), a first end effector (128) of the first arm assembly to move in a first radial direction extending from the first axis along a first path, wherein responsive to rotation of the first upper arm, the first drive system is configured to rotate a first wrist member (124) of the first arm assembly coupled between the first upper arm and the first end effector at a first rate; and rotating a second upper arm (120) of a second arm assembly of the robot about the first axis (122), wherein the rotating of the second upper arm causes, by a second drive system (188,156), a second end effector (134) of the second arm assembly to move in a second radial direction extending from the first axis along a second path, wherein responsive to rotation of the second upper arm, the second drive system is configured to rotate a second wrist member (130) of the second arm assembly coupled between the second upper arm and the second end effector at a second rate, wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are disposed on different planes.
With respect to the limitation defining the first end effector and the second end effector do not overlap in any operating position, Hudgens discloses “In another aspect, swapping a first substrate (e.g., 105A) with a second substrate (e.g., 105B) at a chamber (e.g., 105B) can be carried out in a manner by independently rotating the first forearm 118, first wrist member 124, second forearm 120, and second wrist member 130 such that during a swap motion profile, the second substrate 105B is never positioned vertically underneath the first substrate 105A.” Further, Hudgens discloses that preventing the second substrate from being positioned vertically underneath the first substrate will avoid contamination of the second substrate. Section [0058] of written description, and elsewhere.
Hudgens does not disclose the first and second drive arrangements being configured to rotate the first and second wrist members at a nonlinear rate. However, it was known to configure the drive arrangements as claimed. For example, Muthukamatchi teaches a similar transport device having a first wrist member (210) rotatably connected to a first upper arm (206), a second wrist member (212) rotatably connected to a second upper arm (208), a first drive arrangement (250/252/254) for driving the first wrist member at a first nonlinear rate, and a second drive arrangement (270/272/273) for driving the second wrist member at a second nonlinear rate. Muthukamatchi illustrates the first and second drive arrangements in Fig 2F having a belt arrangement with oblong pulleys to produce a nonlinear movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing of the claimed device to modify the first and second drive arrangements of Hudgens with a belt arrangement having oblong pulleys, as taught by Muthukamatchi, motivation being to provide the wrist members with a predetermined nonlinear movement to perform a particular operation.
Claim 9: Hudgens teaches the first arm assembly is moved between a retracted position and an extended position, wherein the first end effector is closer to the first axis when the first arm assembly is in the retracted position than when the first arm assembly is in the extended position.
Claim 10: Hudgens teaches the second arm assembly is moved between a retracted position and an extended position, wherein the second end effector is closer to the first axis when the second arm assembly is in the retracted position than when the second arm assembly is in the extended position.
Claim 12: Hudgens teaches the first upper arm is rotated in a clockwise direction to cause the first arm assembly to extend along the first path.
Claim 13: Hudgens teaches the first upper arm is rotated in a counterclockwise direction to cause the first arm assembly to retract along the first path.
Claim 14: Hudgens teaches the second upper arm is rotated in a counterclockwise direction to cause the second arm assembly to extend along the second path.
Claim 15: Hudgens teaches the second upper arm is rotated in a clockwise direction to cause the second arm assembly to retract along the second path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if applicant overcomes the above double patenting rejection by filing a terminal disclaimer.
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hudgens et al. (USPub 2014/0154038) does not teach the specific arm arrangement configured to prevent the first and second end effectors from overlapping (claim 1); and does not teach the end effectors having the claimed splay angle (claim 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the prior art to Blank et al. (USPub 2014/0154033) teaching a substrate transfer device configured to prevent a first substrate from passing over a second substrate.
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 WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618