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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0102979, filed on 08/07/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/07/2023, 02/21/2024, 09/30/2024, and 09/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "first robot arm" of claim 7, "shuttle" of claim 8, and "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 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 discloses a “fifth rail” implying four previously claimed rails however this claim and preceding base claim only disclose a first and second rail and is therefore unclear how many rails the invention requires. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second robot" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if a second robot is being claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites "The substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first rail and the second rail are connected to each other such that the first robot is moved on the first rail." however in claim 2 the second rail is connected to the first rail through the moving body and the first robot is able to be moved on the first rail by being on the moving body, therefore claim 12 does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KUWAHARA (US 20160293465 A1).
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).
Regarding Claim 8, Kuwahara teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a shuttle (22) configured to be moved on the first moving plate or the second moving plate (see Fig. 1) and configured to accommodate the substrate ([0049]),
wherein the first robot transports the substrate to the shuttle ([0060]).
Regarding Claim 10, The substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1, wherein the EFEM includes a first auxiliary rail (second rail of 37; Fig.1) disposed in parallels to the first rail to enhance a stability thereof, and configured to move the first moving body (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUWAHARA (US 20160293465A1) in view of OH (US 20080308039A1) (cited on the IDS of 02/21/2024 as KR 20080111183A).
Regarding Claim 2, Kuwahara teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1.
Kuwahara does not teach wherein the EFEM includes a second rail disposed on one surface of the first moving body (45,46), and wherein the first robot is configured to be moved on the second 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])
Oh teaches a first rail (312; Fig. 7), a first moving body (structure connecting rails 314 and 312) configured to be moved on the first rail, and a first robot (316) connected to the first moving body (see Fig. 7) and configured to transport a substrate ([0086]), and a second rail (314) disposed on one surface of the first moving body (see Fig. 7) , and wherein the first robot is configured to be moved on the second rail ([0086]).
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 equipment front end module (EFEM) of Kuwahara to include a second rail disposed on one surface of the first moving body, and wherein the first robot is configured to be moved on the second rail of Oh for the purpose smoother travel in the vertical direction.
Regarding Claim 3, Kuwahara in light of Oh teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first rail and the second rail (as taught by Oh) are disposed to be perpendicular to each other (Kuwahara, see Fig. 2), and wherein the first moving body is moved on the first rail leftwards and rightwards (Kuwahara, [0056]; Fig. 2), and the first robot is moved on the second rail upwards and downwards (Kuwahara, [0056]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuwahara teaches 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]),
Kuwahara does not 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. However, the claimed third rail, second moving body, fourth rail and second robot as claimed are a duplication of the first and second rails, first moving body and first robot previously taught by Kuwahara in view of Oh.
Furthermore, Oh teaches a third rail (322), a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail (structure connecting rails 314 and 312), a fourth rail disposed on one surface of the second moving body (324), 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 recited structure is a duplication of parts taught by Kuwahara and Oh, and Oh demonstrates an equivalent duplication of parts it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide 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 as taught by Oh such that 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 for the purpose of moving multiple substrates at the same time.
Regarding Claim 5, Kuwahara in light of Oh teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first rail and the third rail do not overlap each other when viewed from a top (Oh, see Figs. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 6, Kuwahara in light of Oh teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4, 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, see Figs. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 7, Kuwahara in light of Oh teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first robot delivers the substrate to the second robot by using a first robot arm that is rotatable ([0086], [0087]; Both robots are fully capable of transferring and receiving substrate and therefore would be fully capable of transferring substrate to the second robot).
Regarding Claim 9, Kawahara in light of Oh 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 (Oh, see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Kuwahara in light of Oh teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first rail and the second rail are connected to each other such that the first robot is moved on the first rail (Oh, [0086]; moves on first rail through the second rail).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUWAHARA (US 20160293465A1) in view of YOSHIMITSU et al. (JP 2009231627A)(as cited on the IDS of 02/21/2024)
Regarding Claim 13, Kuwahara teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 1
Kuwahara does not teach wherein the first moving body includes a first sub body and a second sub body, and wherein the second sub body is connected to the first robot, and is configured to be inserted into the first sub body to adjust a location of the first robot.
Yoshimitsu teaches a first rail (121), a first moving body (83, largest body of 84 of TIPS) configured to be moved on the first rail, and a first robot (85, 86) connected to the first moving body (see Fig. 17a) and configured to transport a substrate ([0131]), and wherein the first moving body includes a first sub body (middle body of 84) and a second sub body(body of 84 that connects to 85), and wherein the second sub body is connected to the first robot ([0131]; Fig. 17a), and is configured to be inserted into the first sub body to adjust a location of the first robot ([0131]; see Figs. 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the moving body of Kuwahara with a first moving body including a first sub body and a second sub body, and wherein the second sub body is connected to the first robot, and is configured to be inserted into the first sub body to adjust a location of the first robot as taught by Yoshimitsu for the purpose of being able to collapse reducing its length to avoid collisions with other bodies in the EFEM.
Regarding Claim 14, Kuwahara teaches 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]).
Kuwahara does not teach the EFEM includes a third rail, a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail, and a second robot connected to the second moving body and configured to transport the substrate, and wherein the first rail and the third rail are at least partially overlap each other when viewed from a top.
Yoshimitsu teaches, wherein the EFEM includes a third rail (82), a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail (83, largest body of 84 of TIFM), and a second robot connected to the second moving body (85.86 of TIFM) and configured to transport the substrate, and wherein the first rail and the third rail are at least partially overlap each other when viewed from a top (See Fig. 1).
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 a third rail, a second moving body configured to be moved on the third rail, and a second robot connected to the second moving body and configured to transport the substrate, and wherein the first rail and the third rail are at least partially overlap each other when viewed from a top for the purpose of moving multiple substrates at the same time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Enokida et al. (US 20130078059 A1), Hayashida et al. (US 20060183340 A1), and Choi et al. (KR 20020083600 A) disclose similar substrate transfer apparatuses.
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
Prosecution Insights