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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 21, lines 7-8, “5 degrees or more and 35 degrees or less” should read “between 5 and 35 degrees”.
On page 24, lines 7-8 and 11, “5 mm or more and 35 mm or less” should read “between 5 and 35 mm”.
On page 28, lines 19-20, “5 degrees or more and 35 degrees or less” should read “between 5 and 35 degrees”.
On page 28, lines 3-4, “5 mm or more and 35 mm or less” should read “between 5 and 35 mm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5, 7 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, lines 2-3, “5 degrees or more and 35 degrees or less” should read “between 5 and 35 degrees”.
In claim 7, lines 3-4, “5 mm or more and 35 mm or less” should read “between 5 and 35 mm”.
In claim 11, lines 1-2, “plurality of pads are arranged” should read “plurality of pads is arranged”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosboom et al (U.S. Patent No. 9919430).
Regarding claim 1, Bosboom et al teaches a pad (212ad) for an end effector (106) of a substrate (102) transfer device, the pad (212d) comprising (Abstract; Column 6, lines 4-7; Fig. 6, element 212d):
a base portion (annotated figure); and
a main portion in continuity with the base portion in a first direction (annotated figure),
wherein the main portion comprises:
a lower surface extending from the base portion in a direction intersecting the first direction (annotated figure);
a first end that is one end of the main portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (annotated figure);
a second end that is the other end of the main portion in the second direction and terminates the main portion and the pad in the second direction (annotated figure); and
an upper surface (annotated figure),
wherein a distance between a reference surface (630) including the lower surface and the upper surface increases from the first end to the second end (annotated figure), and
the upper surface has a maximum height at the second end with respect to the reference surface, and the main portion has elasticity and forms a space below the second end (annotated figure).
Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bosboom et al teaches the upper surface provides a contact region (306) at the second end to contact a substrate (102) (Column 6, lines 7-12, 42-49; Fig. 6, elements 212d, 306; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bosboom et al teaches the upper surface is a flat surface or a concave surface (Fig. 6, element 212d; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
468
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Bosboom et al teaches an edge of the upper surface comprises a plurality of vertices (Fig. 9, element 902; annotated figure), and
the edge of the upper surface at the second end is formed of a line segment or an outwardly bulging arc (Fig. 9, element 902; annotated figure).
Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image4.png
536
604
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Bosboom et al teaches an end effector (106) comprising (Column 5, lines 34-35; Fig. 2, element 106):
a blade (202) (Column 5, elements 35-39; Fig. 2, element 202);
and a plurality of pads (212a-d) attached to the blade (202) to support a substrate (102) on the blade (202) (Column 6, lines 4-7; Fig. 2, elements 212a-d, 202),
wherein at least one of the plurality of pads is a pad (Column 6, lines 4-7; Fig. 2, elements 212a-d, 202).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Roderick (CN 104810307).
Regarding claim 3, Bosboom et al fails to teach a deformable pad. Roderick teaches an end effector (112) with a pad wherein the main portion is elastically deformable such that the second end is tiltable (Page 5, paragraph 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Roderick in Bosboom et al to facilitate the creation of a pad that can increase the friction between the wafer and the contact pad as taught by Roderick (Page 5, paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 8, Bosboom et al fails to teach a pad made from an elastomer. Roderick teaches an end effector (112) with a pad wherein the main portion is formed of an elastomer (Page 5, paragraph 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Roderick in Bosboom et al to facilitate the creation of a pad that can reduce the risk of damage to the wafer as taught by Roderick (Page 5, paragraph 10).
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosboom et al in view of Bacchi et al (US 6275748).
Regarding claim 5, Bosboom et al fails to teach an angle for the pad. Bacchi et al teaches an end effector pad with an angle of 3 degrees between the upper surface and the reference surface (Column 5, lines 40-44; Fig. 4, elements 36, 42, 44). This angle is outside of the range given in claim 5. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create an angle between the upper surface and the reference surface that is 5 degrees or more and 35 degrees or less. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (holding that a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness).
Regarding claim 11, Bosboom et al fails to teach the arrangement of the pads. Bacchi et al teaches end effector pads wherein the plurality of pads (24, 26) are arranged along a circumferential direction around a center (70) having the same distance from the plurality of pads (24, 26) (Column 6, lines 41-50; Fig. 1, elements 24, 26, 70).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Bacchi et al in Bosboom et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement that can adequately support the wafer as taught by Bacchi et al (Column 6, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 12, Bosboom et al teaches each of the plurality of pads respectively comprising
a base portion (annotated figure); and
a main portion in continuity with the base portion in a first direction (annotated figure),
wherein the main portion comprises:
a lower surface extending from the base portion in a direction intersecting the first direction (annotated figure);
a first end that is one end of the main portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (annotated figure);
a second end that is the other end of the main portion in the second direction and terminates the main portion and the pad in the second direction (annotated figure); and
an upper surface (annotated figure),
wherein a distance between a reference surface including the lower surface and the upper surface increases from the first end to the second end (annotated figure), and
the upper surface has a maximum height at the second end with respect to the reference surface, and the main portion has elasticity and forms a space below the second end (annotated figure).
Additional details are provided in the figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Bosboom et al fails to teach the distance between the pads and the center. Bacchi et al teaches end effector pads wherein an each of the plurality of pads (24, 26) is disposed such that a distance between the second end and the center (70) is larger than a distance between the first end and the center (70) (Fig. 1, elements 24, 26, 70; annotated figure). Additional details are provided in the figure below.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the teachings of Bacchi et al in Bosboom et al to facilitate the creation of an arrangement that can adequately support the wafer as taught by Bacchi et al (Column 6, lines 45-50).
PNG
media_image5.png
647
682
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Bosboom et al fails to teach the distance between the pads and the center. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create effector pads wherein the edge of the pad forms an arc which is part of a circle, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a pad with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 15, Bosboom et al fails to teach the diameter of the pads in relation to the diameter of the wafer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create pads with a diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the wafer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to create pads with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in further view of Bosboom et al.
Regarding claim 7, Bosboom et al fails to teach a distance between the vertices. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create vertices with a distance of 5 mm or more and 30 mm or less, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a pad with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, Bosboom et al fails to teach a width of the upper surface being maximum at the second end. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to create a pad with a maximum width at the second end, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to create a pad with these dimensions on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)272-7472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm.
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, ROBERT HODGE can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/SYDNEY JEANINE SIMMONS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights