Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 20-26, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation:
but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor
it is unclear if the “but one independently controllable motor” is a single motor or any one motor, for the purpose of examination the examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean “a first motor”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor
it is unclear if the “but one independently controllable motor” is a single motor or any one motor, for the purpose of examination the examiner is interpreting the limitation to mean “a first motor”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
a coupling that couples each arm in the first pair of SCARA arms simultaneously and substantially continuously to the at least one independently controllable motor by a coupling
it is unclear if the “a coupling that couples” and “motor by a coupling” refers to the same coupling or a different coupling, for the purpose of examination the examiner is interpreting the limitation as a typo with the correct form “a coupling that couples each arm in the first pair of SCARA arms simultaneously and substantially continuously to the at least one independently controllable motor by THE coupling”.
Claim 26 recites the term:
"substantially"
is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term:
"substantially"
is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what stationary means in the context of “the other one of the crank links remains substantially stationary with respect to the support”. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation “substantially stationary” to mean that the movement of the other one of the cranks links is substantially less than the movement of the one of the crank links driven to rotate the to cause movement of its respective transmission.
Regarding Claims 2-10, 21-25, and 34:
the claims are rejected for depending from a rejected claim
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 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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 27-32, and 34-36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being ANTICIPATED by Saeki et al. (US 20060210387 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Saeki discloses:
A substrate transport apparatus comprising:
a frame (22 & 44) [0067];
at least two SCARA arms (26 & 28) housed within the frame when the at least two SCARA arms are in a retracted configuration (Fig. 3) [0066 & 0067], each of the SCARA arms including at least one end effector (26C & 28C) for holding a substrate (W) thereon (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 5) [0070]; and
a drive section (32 & 34) having at least one independently controllable motor (32 & 34) having a stator (32A & 34A) substantially linearly distributed arcuately around and proximate to a periphery of the frame (Fig. 3) [0068], but one independently controllable motor (34) of the at least one independently controllable motor being simultaneously connected to each of the at least two SCARA arms through a drive link (30 & 92 & 94A & 94B & 96 & 98 & 100 & 102 & 104A & 104B), the but one independently controllable motor being configured to apply an eccentric driving force to rotate the drive link to extend and retract each of the at least two SCARA arms substantially independent of each other [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083].
Regarding Claim 2, Saeki discloses:
the drive link comprises a driving member (92) operably coupled to the but one independently controllable motor (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4) and a first and second driven members (94A & 94B) rotatably coupled to the driving member at one end and rotatably coupled to a respective one of the arms at the other opposite end [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083].
Regarding Claim 3, Saeki discloses:
the drive link is configured such that as one of the at least two SCARA arms is extended the other one of the at least two SCARA arms remains substantially in a retracted configuration (Fig. 2) [0083 & 0084 & 0085 & 0086 & 0087 & 0088].
Regarding Claim 4, Saeki discloses:
the frame comprises a housing of a transfer chamber [0067], the stator of each of the at least one independently controllable motor being integrated into walls of the housing (Fig. 3) [0068].
Regarding Claim 5, Saeki discloses:
the at least one independently controllable motor comprises at least two independently controllable motors (32 & 34) each having a ring shaped stator (32A & 34A) integrated in a stacked arrangement into the walls of the housing (Fig. 3) [0068].
Regarding Claim 7, Saeki discloses:
the at least one independently controllable motor comprises two independently controllable motors (32 & 34) simultaneously connected to each of the at least two SCARA arms (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4) such that the at least two SCARA arms are rotated as a unit as the two independently controllable motors rotate in the same direction [0067 & 0068 & 0069].
Regarding Claim 8, Saeki discloses:
a shoulder joint (50A & 52A) of each of the at least two SCARA arms is positioned off of a center of rotation of the at least one independently controllable motor (Fig. 3) to effect a greater reach for arms of a predetermined size (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Saeki discloses:
the at least one end effector of each of the at least two SCARA arms is constrained to be longitudinally aligned along a path of extension and retraction [0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083 & 0084 & 0085 & 0086 & 0087 & 0088].
Regarding Claim 27, Saeki discloses:
A substrate transport apparatus comprising:
a frame (22 & 44) [0067];
a drive section (32 & 34) connected to the frame (Fig. 3) [0068] including at least a first and a second independently controllable motors (32 & 34); and
an articulated arm (26 & 28) including an arm link (26A & 26B & 28A & 28B) and an end effector (26C & 28C) for holding a substrate (W) thereon (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 5) [0070], the arm link being rotatably joined (50A & 52A) at a first end of the arm link to a rotor (32B) of the first independently controllable motor and rotatably coupled (66A & 86A) at a second opposite end of the arm link to the end effector (Fig. 3); and
drivingly coupled (30 & 92 & 94A & 94B & 96 & 98 & 100 & 102 & 104A & 104B) at the first end of the arm link to the second independently controllable motor by a drive coupling [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083].
Regarding Claim 28, Saeki discloses:
the end effector is connected to the first independently controllable motor by a transmission such that the end effector is constrained to be longitudinally aligned along a path of extension and retraction [0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083 & 0084 & 0085 & 0086 & 0087 & 0088].
Regarding Claim 29, Saeki discloses:
the drive coupling is configured such that the articulated arm is extended or retracted by rotating the first and second independently controllable motors in opposite directions [0067 & 0068 & 0069 & 0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083 & 0084 & 0085 & 0086 & 0087 & 0088].
Regarding Claim 30, Saeki discloses:
the drive coupling is configured such that the articulated arm is extended or retracted by rotating the first and second independently controllable motors in the same direction [0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0073 & 0074 & 0075 & 0076 & 0077 & 0078 & 0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083 & 0084 & 0085 & 0086 & 0087 & 0088].
Regarding Claim 31, Saeki discloses:
the drive coupling comprises:
a first transmission member (94A & 94B) fixedly coupled to the first end of the arm link; a second transmission member (100) connected to the first transmission member, the second transmission member being fixedly coupled to the second independently controllable motor for driving the first transmission member [0080 & 0086 & 0116 & 0119].
Regarding Claim 32, Saeki discloses:
the connection between the first and second transmission members comprises a belt (102).
Regarding Claim 34, Saeki discloses:
each of the at least first and second independently controllable motors is integrated into the frame which houses the articulated arm when the articulated arm is in a substantially retracted position (Fig. 3) [0066 & 0067 & 0068].
Regarding Claim 35, Saeki discloses:
each of the at least first and second independently controllable motors includes a stator substantially linearly distributed arcuately around and proximate to a periphery of the housing (Fig. 3) [0068].
Regarding Claim 36, Saeki discloses:
A substrate transport apparatus comprising:
a frame (22 & 44) [0067];
a drive section (32 & 34) connected to the frame and including at least one independently controllable motor (32 & 34);
at least two substrate transport arms (26 & 28) connected to the frame (Fig. 3 & Fig. 22) and comprising arm links (26A & 26B & 26C & 28A & 28B & 28C) arranged for supporting and transporting substrates (W) (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 22) [0070]; and
a compact mechanical motion switch (92 & 94A & 94B) coupled to the at least one independently controllable motor (Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 22) and the at least two substrate transport arms (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 5& Fig. 22), the mechanical motion switch including:
a pivoting member (92) rotatably driven by the at least one independently controllable motor about a first axis [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083],
a first and second drive link (92A & 92B) distinct from the arm links of the at least two substrate transport arms, each drive link being rotatably coupled at one end to the pivoting member at a respective first joint and rotatably coupled at a second opposite end to a respective upper arm link of the at least two substrate transport arms at a respective second joint (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 22), where the first drive link crosses over the second drive link (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5 & Fig. 22), and
wherein a distance between the first axis and the respective first joint is substantially equal to a distance from the respective first joint to the respective second joint (Fig. 22).
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being ANTICIPATED by Okuno et al. (US 20020144782 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Okuno discloses:
A substrate transport apparatus comprising:
a drive section having at least two independently controllable motors [0060 & 0067];
an articulated arm including a first SCARA arm (220) being a three-link (230 & 240 & 244) three-joint (223 & 241 & 246) arm configured to extend in a first direction and a second SCARA arm (220) being a three-link (231 & 243 & 245) three-joint (225 & 242 & 247) arm configured to extend in a second direction substantially opposite the first direction, each of the first and second SCARA arms having an end effector (244 & 245) for holding a substrate (W) thereon (Fig. 6); and
a coupling (232) operably coupling each of the first and second SCARA arms to each other and to a respective one of the at least two independently controllable motors substantially continuously (Fig. 6);
the coupling being configured so that relative movement between the at least two independently controllable motors effects extension and retraction of a respective one of the first and second SCARA arms substantially independent of each other [0051 & 0052 & 0053 & 0054 & 0055 & 0056 & 0057 & 0064 & 0070 & 0071 & 0072 & 0073].
Regarding Claim 12, Okuno discloses:
the coupling includes a parallelogram linkage between an arm segment (216 & 223) of the first SCARA arm and a corresponding arm segment (217 & 224) of the second SCARA arm, the parallelogram linkage being configured so that the arm segment of the first SCARA arm and the corresponding arm segment of the second SCARA arm remain substantially parallel during extension and retraction of the first and second SCARA arms [0065 & 0076 & 0078].
Regarding Claim 13, Okuno discloses:
each SCARA arm further includes an upper arm (230 & 231) rotatably coupled to a forearm (240 & 243) where the forearm is rotatably coupled to the end effector and the arm segment comprises the upper arm [0065].
Regarding Claim 15, Okuno discloses:
the at least two independently controllable motors comprise a first motor for effecting extension and retraction of the first SCARA arm and a second motor for effecting extension and retraction of the second SCARA arm [0060 & 0067].
Regarding Claim 16, Okuno discloses:
the first and second SCARA arms are rotated as a unit when the first and second motors are rotated in the same direction (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Okuno discloses:
the coupling is further configured such that a shoulder joint of a respective one of the first and second SCARA arms travels in an arcuate path around a center of rotation of the at least two independently controllable motors when the respective one of the first and second SCARA arms is extended and retracted (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Okuno discloses:
a shoulder joint of each of the first and second SCARA arms is positioned off of a center of rotation of the at least two independently controllable motors to effect a greater reach for arms of a predetermined size (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 19, Okuno discloses:
the end effector of each of the first and second SCARA arms is constrained to be longitudinally aligned along a path of extension and retraction (Fig. 6).
Claims 27-32, 34, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being ANTICIPATED by Bacchi et al. (US 5741113 A).
Regarding Claim 27, Bacchi discloses:
A substrate transport apparatus comprising:
a frame (11 & 12);
a drive section (50 & 52) connected to the frame including at least a first (52) and a second (50) independently controllable motors (Fig. 2); and
an articulated arm (14 & 22 & 30) including an arm link (22) and an end effector (30) for holding a substrate thereon (Fig. 7B), the arm link being rotatably joined (62) at a first end of the arm link to a rotor (80) of the first independently controllable motor (52) and rotatably coupled (84 & 86) at a second opposite end of the arm link to the end effector (Fig. 2); and
drivingly coupled at the first end of the arm link to the second independently controllable motor by a drive coupling (56 & 58 & 62 & 68).
Regarding Claim 28, Bacchi discloses:
the end effector is connected to the first independently controllable motor by a transmission (60 & 66 & 86 & 90) such that the end effector is constrained to be longitudinally aligned along a path of extension and retraction (100).
Regarding Claim 29, Bacchi discloses:
the drive coupling is configured such that the articulated arm is extended or retracted by rotating the first and second independently controllable motors in opposite directions (Fig. 10) [Column 5 Lines 38-67 & Column 10 Lines 29-67 & Column 11 Lines 1-67].
Regarding Claim 30, Bacchi discloses:
the drive coupling is configured such that the articulated arm is extended or retracted by rotating the first and second independently controllable motors in the same direction (Fig. 10) [Column 5 Lines 38-67 & Column 10 Lines 29-67 & Column 11 Lines 1-67].
Regarding Claim 31, Bacchi discloses:
the drive coupling comprises:
a first transmission member (62) fixedly coupled to the first end of the arm link;
a second transmission member (58) connected to the first transmission member, the second transmission member being fixedly coupled to the second independently controllable motor (50) for driving the first transmission member (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 32, Bacchi discloses:
the connection between the first and second transmission members comprises a belt (68).
Regarding Claim 34, Bacchi teaches:
each of the at least first and second independently controllable motors is integrated into the frame which houses the articulated arm when the articulated arm is in a substantially retracted position (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 35, Bacchi teaches:
each of the at least first and second independently controllable motors includes a stator substantially linearly distributed arcuately around and proximate to a periphery of the housing (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2).
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. (US 20060210387 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Saeki does not teach:
the stator of each of the at least one independently controllable motor is located outside a vacuum environment of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a motor stator located outside of a sterile vacuum environment to facilitate maintenance in the system without requiring compromising the sterile environment as well as providing a system that does not require penetrations through the housing into the sterile environment for power cables by locating the articles requiring a power supply outside of the housing thereby preventing additional points of failure since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that motor stators with rotors located in a sterile environment with stators located outside the sterile environment were well known in the art the at the time of invention.
Regarding Claim 10, Saeki does not teach:
the at least one end effector of each of the at least two SCARA arms comprises at least two side by side spaced apart end effectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an end effector which has two side by side spaced apart end effectors in order to increase the operating capacity of each SCARA arm thereby increasing throughput in the system since the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that end effectors having multiple substrate supports for carrying multiple substrates thereon were well known in the art at the time of invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuno et al. (US 20020144782 A1) in view of Saeki et al. (US 20060210387 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Okuno does not teach:
a frame for housing the articulated arm when the articulated arm is in a retracted configuration, each of the at least two independently controllable motors being integrated into the frame and including a stator substantially linearly distributed arcuately around and proximate to a periphery of the frame.
Saeki teaches:
a frame (22 & 44) [0067] for housing the articulated arm when the articulated arm is in a retracted configuration (Fig. 3) [0066 & 0067], each of the at least two independently controllable motors (32 & 34) being integrated into the frame and including a stator substantially linearly distributed arcuately around and proximate to a periphery of the frame (Fig. 3) [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions which are driven by two independently controllable motors, the SCARA arms being connected to one another by a coupling configures so that relative movement between the motors effects extension and retraction of a respective one of the first and second SCARA arms substantially independent of each other taught by Okuno with the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in a first direction which are independently actuatable relative to one another by a single drive motor and a frame for housing the articulated arm when the articulated arm is in a retracted configuration, each of the at least two independently controllable motors being integrated into the frame and including a stator substantially linearly distributed arcuately around and proximate to a periphery of the frame taught by Saeki in order to provide a containment means for preventing contamination to the carried substrates thereby preventing losses in productivity due to contamination.
Claim(s) 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeki et al. (US 20060210387 A1) in view of Okayama et al. (US 6742977 B1).
Regarding Claim 20, Saeki teaches:
A substrate transport apparatus comprising:
a drive section (32 & 34) having at least one independently controllable motor (32 & 34);
an articulated arm (26 & 28) operably connected to the at least one independently controllable motor [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083], the articulated arm including a first pair of SCARA arms (26 & 28) extendable in a first direction (Fig. 2), each arm in the first pair of SCARA arms having an end effector (26C & 28C) for holding a substrate (W) thereon (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 5) [0070];
a coupling (30 & 92 & 94A & 94B & 96 & 98 & 100 & 102 & 104A & 104B) that couples each arm in the first pair of SCARA arms simultaneously and substantially continuously to the at least one independently controllable motor by the coupling (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 & Fig. 5) [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083]; and
the coupling being configured so that but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor effects an extension and retraction of one arm in the first pair of arms substantially independent of the extension and retraction of another different arm in the first pair of arms [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083].
Saeki does not teach:
the articulated arm including a first pair of SCARA arms and a second pair of SCARA arms;
a coupling that couples each arm in the first and second pair of SCARA arms simultaneously and substantially continuously to the at least one independently controllable motor by a coupling; and
but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor effects a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of one arm in each of the first and second pair of arms substantially independent of the coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of another different arm in each of the first and second pair of arms.
Okayama teaches:
A substrate transport apparatus (T2) comprising:
a drive section (110 & 111 & 112 & 113 & 114 & 115) having at least one independently controllable motor (115);
an articulated arm (101 & 104) operably connected to the at least one independently controllable motor (Fig. 18), the articulated arm including a first pair of SCARA arms (101 & 104) extendable in opposite directions (Fig. 16 & Fig. 18), each arm in the first and second pair of SCARA arms having an end effector (107) for holding a substrate (U) thereon (Fig. 16);
a coupling (108 & 109 & 110 & 111 & 112 & 113 & 114 & 118 & 119) that couples each arm in the first pair of SCARA arms simultaneously and substantially continuously to the at least one independently controllable motor by the coupling (Fig. 17 & Fig. 18 & Fig. 22); and
the coupling being configured so that but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor effects a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms [Column 23 Lines 54-63 & Column 26 Lines 11-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in a first direction which are independently actuatable relative to one another by a single drive motor taught by Saeki with the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions with a coupling that couples the SCARA arms to a single drive motor in order to effect simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms taught by Okayama in order to provide a transfer apparatus with increased capacity and increased range for servicing multiple substrate processing chambers positioned both adjacent to and opposite to one another thereby increasing throughput in the system.
Regarding Claim 21, Saeki teaches:
the first pair of SCARA arms is spaced apart side by side (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2).
Saeki does not teach:
the articulated arm including a first pair of SCARA arms and a second pair of SCARA arms.
Okayama teaches:
pair of SCARA arms are spaced apart side by side (Fig. 16) and coupled to the but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor in order to effect a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms [Column 23 Lines 54-63 & Column 26 Lines 11-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in a first direction which are independently actuatable relative to one another by a single drive motor taught by Saeki with the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions with a coupling that couples the SCARA arms to a single drive motor in order to effect simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms taught by Okayama in order to provide a transfer apparatus with increased capacity and increased range for servicing multiple substrate processing chambers positioned both adjacent to and opposite to one another thereby increasing throughput in the system.
Regarding Claim 22, Saeki teaches:
at least one independently controllable motor includes at least two independently controllable motors (32 & 34), the articulated arm being mounted on a support (24) fixedly mounted to one of the at least two independently controllable motors (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4) [0066 & 0069].
Regarding Claim 23, Saeki teaches:
the first pair of SCARA arms includes a first and second SCARA arm.
Saeki does not teach:
the second pair of SCARA arms includes a third and fourth SCARA arm.
Okayama teaches:
pair of SCARA arms are spaced apart side by side (Fig. 16) and coupled to the but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor in order to effect a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms [Column 23 Lines 54-63 & Column 26 Lines 11-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in a first direction which are independently actuatable relative to one another by a single drive motor taught by Saeki with the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions with a coupling that couples the SCARA arms to a single drive motor in order to effect simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms taught by Okayama in order to provide a transfer apparatus with increased capacity and increased range for servicing multiple substrate processing chambers positioned both adjacent to and opposite to one another thereby increasing throughput in the system.
Regarding Claim 24, Saeki teaches:
the first and second SCARA arms are coupled together to independently extend and retract the first and second SCARA arms [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083].
Saeki does not teach:
the first and third SCARA arms are coupled together to simultaneously extend and retract and the second and fourth SCARA arms are coupled together to simultaneously extend and retract.
Okayama teaches:
the first pair of SCARA arms includes a first and third SCARA arms (101 & 104) or a second and fourth SCARA arms (101 & 104), coupled together and to the but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor in order to effect a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first and third SCARA arms or the second and fourth SCARA arms [Column 23 Lines 54-63 & Column 26 Lines 11-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in a first direction which are independently actuatable relative to one another by a single drive motor taught by Saeki with the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions with a coupling that couples the SCARA arms to a single drive motor in order to effect simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first and third SCARA arms or the second and fourth SCARA arms taught by Okayama in order to provide a transfer apparatus with increased capacity and increased range for servicing multiple substrate processing chambers positioned both adjacent to and opposite to one another thereby increasing throughput in the system.
Regarding Claim 25, Saeki teaches:
the coupling includes a first link (94A) coupled at one end to the but one independently controllable motor (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4) and at the other end to a first transmission coupling the first or third SCARA arm to the first link (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2) and a second link (94B) coupled at one end to the but one independently controllable motor (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 3 & Fig. 4) and at the other end to a second transmission coupling the second or fourth SCARA arm to the second link (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2) [0079 & 0080 & 0081 & 0082 & 0083].
Saeki does not teach:
the first link coupled at the other end to a first transmission coupling the first and third SCARA arms to the first link and the second link coupled at the other end to a second transmission coupling the second and fourth SCARA arms to the second link
Okayama teaches:
the first pair of SCARA arms includes a first and third SCARA arms (101 & 104) or a second and fourth SCARA arms (101 & 104), coupled together and to the but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor in order to effect a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first and third SCARA arms or the second and fourth SCARA arms [Column 23 Lines 54-63 & Column 26 Lines 11-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in a first direction which are independently actuatable relative to one another by a single drive motor taught by Saeki with the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions with a coupling that couples the SCARA arms to a single drive motor in order to effect simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first and third SCARA arms or the second and fourth SCARA arms taught by Okayama in order to provide a transfer apparatus with increased capacity and increased range for servicing multiple substrate processing chambers positioned both adjacent to and opposite to one another thereby increasing throughput in the system.
Regarding Claim 26, Saeki teaches:
the first and second links comprise articulated links each having a drive link and a crank link, the articulated links being configured such that as one of the crank links rotates to cause movement of its respective transmission the other one of the crank links remains substantially stationary with respect to the support so that a respective first SCARA arm or the second SCARA arm remain in a retracted configuration (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2 & Fig. 9 & Fig. 10 & Fig. 12 & Fig. 14 & Fig. 22 & Fig. 24A & Fig. 24B & Fig. 24C & Fig. 24D & Fig. 24E).
Saeki does not teach:
the articulated arm including a first pair of SCARA arms and a second pair of SCARA arms;
Okayama teaches:
A substrate transport apparatus (T2) comprising:
a drive section (110 & 111 & 112 & 113 & 114 & 115) having at least one independently controllable motor (115);
an articulated arm (101 & 104) operably connected to the at least one independently controllable motor (Fig. 18), the articulated arm including a first pair of SCARA arms (101 & 104) extendable in opposite directions (Fig. 16 & Fig. 18), each arm in the first and second pair of SCARA arms having an end effector (107) for holding a substrate (U) thereon (Fig. 16);
a coupling (108 & 109 & 110 & 111 & 112 & 113 & 114 & 118 & 119) that couples each arm in the first pair of SCARA arms simultaneously and substantially continuously to the at least one independently controllable motor by the coupling (Fig. 17 & Fig. 18 & Fig. 22); and
the coupling being configured so that but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor effects a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms [Column 23 Lines 54-63 & Column 26 Lines 11-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in a first direction which are independently actuatable relative to one another by a single drive motor taught by Saeki with the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including a pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions with a coupling that couples the SCARA arms to a single drive motor in order to effect simultaneous extension and retraction of each of the first pair of arms taught by Okayama in order to provide a transfer apparatus with increased capacity and increased range for servicing multiple substrate processing chambers positioned both adjacent to and opposite to one another thereby increasing throughput in the system.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bacchi et al. (US 5741113 A) in view of Okayama et al. (US 6742977 B1).
Regarding Claim 33, Bacchi does not teach:
the connection between the first and second transmission members comprises a magnetic coupling.
Okayama teaches:
the connection between the first and second transmission members comprises a magnetic coupling [Column 26 Lines 18-37].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the transport apparatus having an articulated arm including an arm link and an end effector rotatably connected and longitudinally extendable in a first direction with a drive coupling utilizing transmission members to effect longitudinal motion in the system taught by Saeki with the articulated arm including an arm link and an end effector rotatably connected and longitudinally extendable in a first direction with a drive coupling utilizing transmission members to effect longitudinal motion in the system where the connection between the first and second transmission members comprises a magnetic coupling taught by Okayama in order to provide a transfer apparatus with a transmission assembly which has a motion transmission system which has an increased positive connection with less flaccidity in the connection in order to prevent misalignment due to stretching or slipping in the drive members.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026/05/04 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 1 and 20, especially as it relates to the limitation of “but one”:
Applicants assertion that “but one” is not indefinite is not persuasive as the applicant has provided multiple definitions of “but” from Merriam-Webster and not identified what definition of “but” is intended in the limitation and therefore remains indefinite.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1, especially as it relates to the limitation of “a frame; at least two SCARA arms housed within the frame when the at least two SCARA arms are in a retracted configuration, each of the SCARA arms including at least one end effector for holding a substrate thereon; and a drive section having at least one independently controllable motor having a stator substantially linearly distributed arcuately around and proximate to a periphery of the frame”:
Applicants assertion that frame members 22 and 44 are separate housings is not persuasive as nothing in the limitation requires a shape or unitary construction of the frame.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 27, especially as it relates to the limitation of “an articulated arm including an arm link and an end effector for holding a substrate thereon, the arm link being rotatably joined at a first end of the arm link to a rotor of the first independently controllable motor and rotatably coupled at a second opposite end of the arm link to the end effector; and drivingly coupled at the first end of the arm link to the second independently controllable motor by a drive coupling”:
Applicants arguments are not persuasive as there is nothing in the limitations requiring a particular structure for the joining of the arm link to the rotor of the first independently controlled motor nor is there any limitations requiring a particular structure which drivingly couples the first end of the arm link to the second independently controllable motor nor any limitations directed to the structure of the drive coupling.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 36, especially as it relates to the limitation of “the mechanical motion switch including a pivoting member rotatably driven by the at least one independently controllable motor about a first axis, a first and second drive link distinct from the arm links of the at least two substrate transport arms, each drive link being rotatably coupled at one end to the pivoting member at a respective first joint and rotatably coupled at a second opposite end to a respective upper arm link of the at least two substrate transport arms at a respective second joint, where the first drive link crosses over the second drive link, and wherein a distance between the first axis and the respective first joint is substantially equal to a distance from the respective first joint to the respective second joint”:
Applicant’s assertion that the distance between the first axis and the respective first joint is substantially equal to the distance from the respective first joint to the respective second joint is not persuasive as the applicants arguments rely on a definition for the first joint and second joint which are not outlined in the rejection, additionally the applicants arguments rely on choosing arbitrary points on the first joint and second joint which are neither specified in the claim limitations nor identified in the examiner’s rejection, additionally the applicants arguments rely on a single posture as shown in Fig 22 and the claim limitation does not specify at which posture the relationship exists and there is a myriad of postures that the arms experience from retraction through extension and the relative distances change and become relatively equal at at least one posture.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 11, especially as it relates to the limitation of “an articulated arm including a first SCARA arm being a three-link three-joint arm configured to extend in a first direction and a second SCARA arm being a three-link three-joint arm configured to extend in a second direction substantially opposite the first direction, each of the first and second SCARA arms having an end effector for holding a substrate thereon; and a coupling operably coupling each of the first and second SCARA arms to each other and to a respective one of the at least two independently controllable motors substantially continuously; the coupling being configured so that relative movement between the at least two independently controllable motors effects extension and retraction of a respective one of the first and second SCARA arms substantially independent of each other”:
Applicants assertion that the arm of Okuno as shown in Fig. 6 is not a SCARA arm is not persuasive as the applicant as provided no industry definition of SCARA arm let along a SCARA arm that does not possess a parallelogram arm structure.
Applicants assertion that Okuno does not teach a robot arm having three links and three joints is not persuasive as Okuno teaches: an articulated arm including a first SCARA arm (220) being a three-link (230 & 240 & 244) three-joint (223 & 241 & 246) arm configured to extend in a first direction and a second SCARA arm (220) being a three-link (231 & 243 & 245) three-joint (225 & 242 & 247) arm configured to extend in a second direction substantially opposite the first direction.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 27, especially as it relates to the limitation of “an articulated arm including an arm link and an end effector for holding a substrate thereon, the arm link being rotatably joined at a first end of the arm link to a rotor of the first independently controllable motor and rotatably coupled at a second opposite end of the arm link to the end effector; and drivingly coupled at the first end of the arm link to the second independently controllable motor by a drive coupling”:
Applicants arguments are not persuasive as there is nothing in the limitations requiring a particular structure for the joining of the arm link to the rotor of the first independently controlled motor nor is there any limitations requiring a particular structure which drivingly couples the first end of the arm link to the second independently controllable motor nor any limitations directed to the structure of the drive coupling
Regarding Applicant’s argument of the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 20, especially as it relates to the limitation of “an articulated arm operably connected to the at least one independently controllable motor, the articulated arm including a first pair of SCARA arms and a second pair of SCARA arms, each arm in the first and second pair of SCARA arms having an end effector for holding a substrate thereon; a coupling that couples each arm in the first and second pair of SCARA arms simultaneously and substantially continuously to the at least one independently controllable motor; and the coupling being configured so that but one independently controllable motor of the at least one independently controllable motor effects a coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of one arm in each of the first and second pair of arms substantially independent of the coordinated simultaneous extension and retraction of another different arm in each of the first and second pair of arms”:
Applicant’s assertion that the combination of Saeki and Okayama does not teach a first pair of SCARA arms and a second pair of SCARA arms is not persuasive as Saeki teaches a first pair of SCARA arms extendable in a same direction and Okayama teaches a first pair of SCARA arms extendable in opposite directions and it would be obvious to combine those two designs to provide two sets of SCARA arms a first set extending in a first direction and a second set extendable in a second direction that is opposite the first direction in order to provide a transfer apparatus with increased capacity and increased range for servicing multiple substrate processing chambers positioned both adjacent to and opposite to one another thereby increasing throughput in the system.
In response to applicant's argument that Saeki and Okayama is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both teach substrate transfer arms having multiple independently actuable SCARA arms.
In response to applicant's argument that the drive arrangements of Saeki and Okayama are incompatible, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to motor stators with rotors located in a sterile environment with stators located outside the sterile environment were well known in the art the at the time of invention is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to adequately traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
The Applicant's traversal of the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICAL NOTICE was not adequate for the following reason(s):
The applicant has not provided any argument against the obviousness of motor stators with rotors located in a sterile environment with stators located outside the sterile environment. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact or a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention is not a proper traversal (see MPEP 2144.03).
Examiner’s assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE as it relates to end effectors having multiple substrate supports for carrying multiple substrates thereon is taken to be admitted prior art due to the Applicant's failure to adequately traverse the Examiner's assertion of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
The Applicant's traversal of the Examiner’s assertion of OFFICAL NOTICE was not adequate for the following reason(s):
The applicant has not provided any argument against the obviousness of end effectors having multiple substrate supports for carrying multiple substrates thereon. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact or a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention is not a proper traversal (see MPEP 2144.03).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BRENDAN P TIGHE whose telephone number is 571-272-4872. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 7:00-5:30 EST
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SAUL RODRIGUEZ can be reached on 571-272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN P TIGHE/Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights