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.
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 and 4-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “such that relative movement between the first guide and the second guide during the backward movement causes the substrate to be aligned.” The claim does not mention what the substrate is being aligned with, therefore it is unclear what is meant by “causes the substrate to be aligned”. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be interpreted as aligning with the center of the substrate holder.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-5, 7, 9, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OGAWA et al. (US 20050118010 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa et al. teaches substrate transfer apparatus comprising:
a base (100);
a first transfer arm (200) configured to have a first arm link (210,220) connected to the base (see Fig. 10) and a first end effector (300) connected to the first arm link (see Fig. 10), and which operates between a contract position and an expand position ([0058]; Fig. 10-11); and
a guide member (310, 320, 400) configured to align a substrate placed on the first end effector while the first transfer arm backwardly moves from the expand position to the contract position ([0058]; Fig. 10-11),
wherein the guide member includes a first guide (310, 320) mounted on the first arm link (See Fig. 10) and configured to move together with the first arm link during the backward movement of the first transfer arm ([0055], [0064]; see Fig. 10-11), and a second guide (400) that remains stationary relative to the base during the backward movement of the first transfer arm (See Fig. 10-11), such that relative movement between the first guide and the second guide during the backward movement causes the substrate to be aligned (Fig. 10-11 The guide 400 contacts the substrate when the arm moves backwards aligning it with the first guide).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogawa et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first arm link includes: a first arm (210) which is rotatable in a horizontal direction on the base ([0050]); and a second arm (220) which is rotatable in a horizontal direction on a front end of the first arm ([0051]), and wherein the first guide is installed on the second arm (See Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogawa et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first guide includes: a fixing bracket (310) installed on a side of the second arm (installed through 305); and a touch block (312) provided at the fixing bracket and which contacts a side of the substrate ([0055]; see figure 14).
Regarding Claim 7, Ogawa et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second guide is fixedly installed on the base ([0057]).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogawa et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2 further comprising:
a second transfer arm (200B; Fig. 12) configured to have a second arm link (210, 220 of 200B) connected to the base ([0050]; Fig. 12) and a second end effector (300B) connected to the second arm link ([0050]) and which operates between the contract position and the expand position ([0065]; Fig 12-13), and
wherein the first end effector and the second end effector overlap each other when the first transfer arm and the second transfer arm are each in the contract position (see Fig. 13), and the second guide is provided at the second arm link (Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 19, Ogawa et al. teaches a substrate transfer apparatus comprising:
a base (100);
a left transfer arm (200B; Fig. 12) having a first arm link (210 of 200A) connected to the base (see Fig. 12), a first guide installed on the first arm link (310,320 of 200B), and a first end effector connected to the first arm link (300B), and configured to operate between a contract position and an expand position ([0065]; see Fig 12-13); and
a right transfer arm (200A) having a second arm link connected to the base (210 of 200A), a second guide installed on the second arm link, and second end effector connected to the second arm link (300A), and configured to operate between the contract position and the expand position ([0065] see Fig. 12-13); and
wherein the first end effector and the second end effector overlap each other when the left transfer arm and the right transfer arm are each in the contract position (see Fig. 13), and
wherein, during backward movement of the left transfer arm from the expand position to the contract position, the first guide moves together with the first arm link (first guide moves with the arm) to contact and align the substrate on the first end effector (First guide is in contact with the substrate on the end effector), while the second guide remains stationary, and during backward movement of the right transfer arm, the second guide moves together with the second arm link to contact and align the substrate placed on the second end effector (second guide moves with the arm), while the first guide remains stationary.
Regarding Claim 20, the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 19, wherein the first arm link includes: a left first arm (210 of 200B) which is rotatable in a horizontal direction on the base ([0065]);
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YAMAGISHI et al. (US 6305898 B1)
Regarding Claim 1, Yamagishi et al. teaches substrate transfer apparatus comprising:
a base (55);
a first transfer arm (52, 53, 54) configured to have a first arm link (53,54) connected to the base (see Fig. 5) and a first end effector (52) connected to the first arm link (see Fig. 5), and which operates between a contract position and an expand position (Column 5 lines 47-67 ; Fig. 7A-7D); and
a guide member (52’, 60) configured to align a substrate placed on the first end effector while the first transfer arm backwardly moves from the expand position to the contract position (Column 5 lines 18-28; Fig. 7A-7D),
wherein the guide member includes a first guide (52’) mounted on the first arm link (See Fig. 5) and configured to move together with the first arm link during the backward movement of the first transfer arm (see Fig. 7A-7D), and a second guide (60) that remains stationary relative to the base during the backward movement of the first transfer arm (See Fig. 7A-7D), such that relative movement between the first guide and the second guide during the backward movement causes the substrate to be aligned (Column 6 lines 1-14).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamagishi et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first arm link includes: a first arm (54) which is rotatable in a horizontal direction on the base (Column 4 lines 45-55); and a second arm (53) which is rotatable in a horizontal direction on a front end of the first arm (Column 4 lines 45-55; Fig. 5-6), and wherein the first guide is installed on the second arm (See Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamagishi et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 4, wherein the first guide includes: a fixing bracket (part of 52 holding 52’) installed on a side of the second arm (installed through 52); and a touch block (side of 52’) provided at the fixing bracket and which contacts a side of the substrate (Column 6 lines 1-14).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamagishi et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 2, wherein the second guide is fixedly installed on the base (Fig. 5).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA et al. (US 20050118010 A1) in view of HASHIMOTO et al. (US 20110187140 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Ogawa et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 5
Ogawa et al. does not teach wherein a surface of the touch block in contact with the side of the substrate is curved.
Hashimoto et al. teaches a touch block (13) which contacts a side of the substrate, wherein a surface of the touch block in contact with the side of the substrate is curved ([0037]; see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch block of Ogawa et al. with the touch block in contact with the side of the substrate is curved of Hashimoto et al. so the touch block is curved for the purpose of having the touch block contact more of the surface of the substrate therefore better securing the substrate.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al. (US 6305898 B1) in view of HASHIMOTO et al. (US 20110187140 A1)
Regarding Claim 6, Yamagishi et al. teaches the substrate transfer apparatus of claim 5
Yamagishi et al. does not teach wherein a surface of the touch block in contact with the side of the substrate is curved.
Hashimoto et al. teaches a touch block (13) which contacts a side of the substrate, wherein a surface of the touch block in contact with the side of the substrate is curved ([0037]; see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the touch block of Yamagishi et al. with the touch block in contact with the side of the substrate is curved of Hashimoto et al. so the touch block is curved for the purpose of having the touch block contact more of the surface of the substrate therefore better securing the substrate.
Response to Arguments
The claim objection for claims 1 and 18 over minor informalities are withdrawn because the claims have been amended.
The claim objection for claims 2 and 12 over unclear wording is withdrawn because the claims have been cancelled.
The claim rejection for claim 11 over Ogawa et al. (US 20050118010 A1) is withdrawn because independent claim 11 has been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Ogawa does not teach or suggest a first guide that moves with the arm link, and a second guide that remains stationary relative to the base, where alignment is achieved through relative motion between the guides during arm retraction. Instead, Ogawa's guides are described as positioning elements associated with the apparatus, without any disclosure that alignment is achieved via differential motion between a moving guide and a stationary guide during backward arm movement. The present claims require that the substrate is aligned while the transfer arm moves from the expand position to the contract position. In contrast, Ogawa does not disclose alignment occurring specifically during backward motion of the arm as a result of the guide's movement relative to the substrate. Rather, Ogawa's disclosure relates generally to guiding or positioning substrates, without specifying this dynamic alignment mechanism tied to arm kinematics. This distinction is critical. The claimed invention achieves alignment passively during arm retraction, whereas Ogawa does not disclose such timing or mechanism.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is the examiner’s position that while Ogawa may not explicitly state that the substrate is aligned because of a differential motion, the apparatus of Ogawa still achieves this function. As seen in Fig. 10-11 the second guide 400 makes contact with the substrate when the transfer arm moves in a retracting motion. Because of the first guide and the second guide, the substrate is aligned on the effector, therefore meeting all the claim limitations.
Applicant further argues “the claims recite a functional interaction between structure and motion, namely that relative movement between the first guide and the second guide during backward movement causes alignment of the substrate. Ogawa does not disclose or suggest this functional relationship. The Examiner's position appears to rely on a general equivalence between "guide members" in Ogawa and the claimed guide member. However, such a generalization is insufficient for anticipation a reference that merely discloses similar components does not anticipate unless it discloses the same arrangement and functional interaction. See Net MoneyN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Accordingly, Ogawa does not anticipate amended claims 1 and 19 and the rejection should be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ogawa does not only have a general equivalence between guide members, the guide members of Ogawa contact the substrate while the robot arm of Ogawa travels during backward moment causing the substrate to be aligned, therefore fulfilling all the requirements of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Ogawa et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11 except for Yamagishi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11 except for “a right transfer arm, wherein the guide member includes a first guide mounted on the left transfer arm and a second guide mounted on the right transfer arm.” It would not have been obvious to modify the robot of Yamagishi et al with another guide (60) because the second guide of Yamagishi et al. spans across the end effector. If the same guide were duplicated it would interfere with the first guide rendering the robot inoperable.
Claims 13-18 are allowed as they depend on claim 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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
Prosecution Insights