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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawing objections for the “shuttle” of claim 8 are withdrawn because they are shown in the corrected drawing sheets.
The drawing objections for the “fifth rail disposed on an opposite surface of the first moving body, which faces the one surface of the first moving body such that the first robot is moved on the one surface of the first moving body and the second robot is moved on the opposite surface of the first moving body” of claim 11 is withdrawn because the claim has been canceled.
Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, is objected to as having new matter. The first robot arm of the drawings shows a robot with multiple links which does not have support in the specification. If the drawings showed only a base and an end effector coupled to the base, it would be allowable.
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) 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUWAHARA (US 20160293465 A1) in view of UCHIDA (CN 112570331 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuwahara teaches a substrate transfer apparatus comprising:
a first moving plate (bottom plate of 23; Fig. 9);
a second moving plate (66; Fig. 9) located at a lower portion of the first moving plate; and
an equipment front end module (EFEM) including a first rail (one rail of 37), a first moving body (45, 46; Fig. 1) configured to be moved on the first rail, and a first robot (47, 48, 49) connected to the first moving body ([0055]; see Fig. 2) and configured to transport a substrate ([0055]), and connecting to the first moving plate and the second moving plate to provide the substrate to the first moving plate or the second moving plate ([0049] connected through receiver 19).
Kuwahara does not teach wherein the EFEM further includes: a second rail disposed on a first surface of the first moving body, the first robot being vertically moveable along the second rail; and a first auxiliary rail disposed below the first rail and in parallel to the first rail, wherein an upper end portion of the first moving body is moveably coupled to the first rail and a center portion of the first moving body is moveably coupled to the first auxiliary rail. The first robot of Kuwahara is capable of moving vertically however, it is noted that the first robot is configured to be moved about an undisclosed structure ([0055]).
Uchida teaches a semiconductor processing system including a first rail (63 of CR1; see Fig. 12) a first moving body (65 of CR1) configured to be moved on the first rail ([0072]) and a first robot (69 of CR1) connected to the first moving body (Fig. 12) and configured to transport a substrate ([0072]) , a second rail (rail of 65 of CR1; see Fig. 12) disposed on a first surface of the first moving body (Fig. 12) the first robot being vertically moveable along the second rail ([0072]; Fig. 12]) and a first auxiliary rail (bottom rail of CR1; Fig. 12) disposed below the first rail (Fig. 12) and in parallel to the first rail (Fig. 12) wherein an upper end portion of the first moving body is moveable coupled to the first rail (Fig. 12) and a center portion of the first moving body is moveably coupled to the first auxiliary rail (First moving body is moveably coupled to the rails including the center portion)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the rail, moving body, and robot of Kuwahara with the robot, moving body, first rail, second rail and auxiliary rail of Uchida for the purpose of using the extra rails of Uchida allowing smoother travel and greater stability.
Regarding Claim 3, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first rail and the second rail are disposed to be perpendicular to each other (Uchida Fig. 12), and wherein the first moving body is moved on the first rail leftwards and rightwards (Uchida [0072]; Fig. 12; moves in the XF and XB directions corresponding to leftwards and rightwards respectively), and the first robot is moved on the second rail upwards and downwards (Uchida Fig. 12; moves in upper and lower z direction corresponding to upwards and downwards respectively).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1
Kuwahara in view of Uchida does not currently teach wherein the EFEM includes a third rail, a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail, a fourth rail disposed on one surface of the second moving body, and a second robot configured to transport the substrate while being moved on the fourth rail, wherein the third rail and the fourth rail are disposed to be perpendicular to each other, and wherein the second moving body is moved on the third rail leftwards and rightwards, and the second robot is moved on the fourth rail upwards and downwards.
Uchida teaches wherein the EFEM includes a third rail (63 of CR2), a second moving body (65 of CR2) configured to be moved on the third rail ([0071], [0072]; Fig. 12), a fourth rail (rail of 65 of CR2 see Fig. 12) disposed on one surface of the second moving body(Fig. 12), and a second robot (69 of CR2) configured to transport the substrate while being moved on the fourth rail ([0071],[0072]), wherein the third rail and the fourth rail are disposed to be perpendicular to each other (Fig. 12), and wherein the second moving body is moved on the third rail leftwards and rightwards (Fig. 12; moves in the XF and XB directions corresponding to leftwards and rightwards respectively), and the second robot is moved on the fourth rail upwards and downwards (Fig. 12; moves in upper and lower z direction corresponding to upwards and downwards respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the EFEM of Kuwahara with the third rail, fourth rail second moving body and robot of Uchida for the purpose of being able to move multiple substrates simultaneously increasing efficiency.
Regarding Claim 8, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a shuttle (Kuwahara 22) configured to be moved on the first moving plate or the second moving plate (Kuwahara see Fig. 1) and configured to accommodate the substrate (Kuwahara [0049]),
wherein the first robot transports the substrate to the shuttle (Kuwahara [0060]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4, wherein a height of the first rail from a ground surface is larger than a height of the third rail from the ground surface (Uchida Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first rail and the second rail are connected to each other such that the first robot is moveable directly along the first rail (Uchida [0072]; the first and second rail are connected in a way allowing the first robot to move directly along the first rail).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUWAHARA (US 20160293465 A1) in view of UCHIDA (CN 112570331 A) as applied to claim 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 12 above, and further in view of OH (US 20080308039 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4.
Kuwahara in view of Uchida does not teach wherein the first rail and the third rail do not overlap each other when viewed from a top.
Oh teaches a first rail (312) a second rail (314) a moving body configured to be moved on the first rail (structure connecting rails 314 and 312) a third rail (322), a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail (structure connecting rails 322 and 324), a fourth rail disposed on one surface of the second moving body (324), a first robot (316) and a second robot (326) configured to transport the substrate while being moved on the fourth rail ([0087]), wherein the third rail and the fourth rail are disposed to be perpendicular to each other (see Fig. 7) wherein the first rail and the third rail do not overlap each other when viewed from a top (see Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to space the rails of Kuwahara in view of Uchida apart with the spacing of Oh for the purpose of allowing the robots to occupy the same vertical space without interference.
Regarding Claim 6, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4.
Kuwahara in view of Uchida does not teach wherein the first robot is moved on the first rail along a first route, wherein the second robot is moved on the third rail along a second route, and wherein the first route and the second route do not overlap each other when viewed from a top
Oh teaches a first rail (312) a second rail (314) a moving body configured to be moved on the first rail (structure connecting rails 314 and 312) a third rail (322), a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail (structure connecting rails 322 and 324), a fourth rail disposed on one surface of the second moving body (324), a first robot(316) and a second robot (326) configured to transport the substrate while being moved on the fourth rail ([0087]), wherein the third rail and the fourth rail are disposed to be perpendicular to each other (see Fig. 7), the first robot is moved on the first rail along a first route, wherein the second robot is moved on the third rail along a second route, and wherein the first route and the second route do not overlap each other when viewed from a top (see Fig. 6-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the route of the rails of Kuwahara in view of Uchida with the route of rout where the first route and the second route do not overlap each other when viewed from a top of Oh for the purpose of allowing the robots to move along a route in the same vertical space without interference.
Regarding Claim 7, Kuwahara in view of Uchida teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4, wherein a first robot arm is rotatable ([0072])
Kuwahara in view of Uchida does not teach wherein the first robot delivers the substrate to the second robot by using a first robot arm that is rotatable.
Oh teaches a first rail (312) a second rail (314) a moving body configured to be moved on the first rail (structure connecting rails 314 and 312) a third rail (322), a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail (structure connecting rails 322 and 324), a fourth rail disposed on one surface of the second moving body (324), a first robot (316) and a second robot (326) configured to transport the substrate while being moved on the fourth rail ([0087]), wherein the third rail and the fourth rail are disposed to be perpendicular to each other (see Fig. 7), wherein the rails are distanced so the first robot may deliver substrate the second robot (Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rails of Kuwahara in view of Uchida so the first robot delivers the substrate to the second robot using a first robot arm that is rotatable for the purpose of allowing the robots to move substrates in the same vertical space without interference
Response to Arguments
The claim rejection for claim 11 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn because claim 11 has been canceled.
The claim rejection for claim 12 under 35 U.S.C 112(d) is withdrawn because claim 12 has been amended.
The claim rejections for claims 1, 8, and 10 over Kuwahara (US 20160293465 A1) are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections for claims 2-7, 9 and 12 over Kuwahara (US 20160293465 A1) in view of OH (US 20080308039 A1) are withdrawn because independent claim 1 has been amended.
The claim rejections for claims 13-14 over Kuwahara (US 20160293465 A1) in view of Yoshimitsu (JP 20009231627 A) are withdrawn because the claims have been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 ADARSH NEUPANE whose telephone number is (571)272-8816. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
