DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending
Claims 14 is withdrawn
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aono et al. US2018/0001440 (US’440) in view of Liu et al. US 2019/0148209 (US’209).
Regarding claim 1, US’440 teaches a cleaning and transfer equipment comprising (substrate processing apparatus, see fig. 1): a plurality of cleaning modules that are disposed in series (cleaning units, see fig. 1, para. 301-304); a wafer transport mechanism that transports a wafer between the plurality of cleaning modules (a cleaning-part transport mechanism configured to transport a substrate between the cleaning modules, para. 43 and 302-321, see fig. 12); and a control device that controls an operation of the wafer transport mechanism (control part 15 configured to control operations of the transport part 14, para. 173, 248, see fig. 1), wherein the wafer transport mechanism includes a wafer gripping mechanism that grips the wafer (wafer-holding mechanisms 601 and 602 have a pair of openable/closable arms 611 and 612 configured to hold a wafer, para. 320-324, see fig. 12), a vertical moving mechanism that vertically moves the wafer gripping mechanism (first vertical-moving mechanism 641 and the second vertical-moving mechanism 642, para. 328-329, see fig. 12), and an arrangement direction moving mechanism that moves the wafer gripping mechanism in an arrangement direction of the plurality of cleaning modules (by driving the motor connected to the ball screw of the arm-transport mechanism 62, the main frame 68 is linearly moved along the arrangement direction of the cleaning modules 311a to 314a, para. 321-327, para. 12), the wafer gripping mechanism includes a pair of hands that are openable and closeable (pair of openable/closable arms 611 and 612 configured to hold a wafer, para. 323-343, see fig. 12), a rotation mechanism that rotates the pair of hands about a rotation shaft parallel to an opening/closing direction (rotating mechanism 631 and 632 configured to rotate the pair of arms around a rotating shaft that is in parallel with an opening/closing direction, para. 323-324, see fig. 12-13).
US’440 does not teach a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands when the pair of hands are in a closed state, and the control device compares measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands.
US’209 teaches a robotic arm for handling a semiconductor wafer similar to the wafer transport robot of US’440 (abstract, para. 2-14, see fig. 2). The robot arm of US’209 includes sensors such as weight sensors that may collect weight data from the various wafers that the gripper hand may handle from each iteration of an automated robotic arm routine (para. 15), which reads on a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands. By analyzing the aggregated data with a controller module from various iterations of a robotic arm routine, an adverse condition may be determined based on detection of an outlier from the aggregated data. For example, these outliers may define threshold values for a wafer that is too heavy or too light, which may be indicative of a wafer that is broken or improperly grasped or held (para. 15 and 30-33), which reads on the control device compares the measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands. Accordingly, as the gripper hand is operated, sensor data may be collected from the perspective of the gripper hand to ascertain whether an adverse condition is present so as to modify (e.g., stop) a robotic arm routine and/or perform remediation of a semiconductor assembly line process. An adverse condition may be any condition for which it may be desirable to stop or modify a robotic arm routine (para. 14-15 and 39-47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could combined the weight sensor of the wafer transport mechanism of US’209 with the wafer transport mechanism of US’440 to achieve the benefit of avoiding adverse conditions of the robotic arm.
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 apparatus of US’440 to include a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands when the pair of hands are in a closed state, and the control device compares measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands because US’209 teaches it achieves the benefit of avoiding adverse conditions of the robotic arm and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 2, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1. The modified apparatus of US’440 further teaches wherein the control device stops an operation of the wafer transport mechanism when it is determined that the wafer is not held on the pair of hands (as discussed above, US’209 teaches robotic arm routine is stopped when an adverse condition is detected).
Regarding claim 4, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1.
The modified method of US’440 does not each wherein the sensor is a displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands with respect to base ends.
However, US’209 further teaches the gripper hand sensor may be any type of sensor utilized to collect sensor data. adverse condition may be detected by utilizing a sensor such as a range finder or a radar monitor to determine a closeness or trajectory of a gripper hand during the robotic arm routine and triggering an adverse condition when the distance of a gripper hand to a surface, such as a wall of a semiconductor processing chamber, is below a threshold value (e.g., a minimum safe distance between a gripper hand (or a gripper hand sensor) to the surface) (para. 37-39). Therefore, displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands to other parts within the chamber, including based ends would an obvious modification of the modified device of US’770.
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 modified apparatus of US’440 to include wherein the sensor is a displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands with respect to base ends because US’209 teaches displacement sensors are known for detecting abnormal conditions of wafer transport devise and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 8, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1. The modified apparatus of US’440 further teaches wherein the control device compares the measurement data of the sensor with a second threshold value different from the threshold value to estimate a state of the wafer held on the pair of hands (US’209 para. 15 outliers may define threshold values for a wafer that is too heavy or too light, which may be indicative of a wafer that is broken or improperly grasped or held)
Regarding claim 9, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 8. The modified apparatus of US’440 further teaches wherein the state of the wafer is any of whether the wafer is broken, as discussed above with regard to claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1. The modified apparatus of US’440 further teaches wherein the control device performs a device failure diagnosis by counting a number of times the measurement data of the sensor exceeds the threshold value (US’209 teaches by analyzing the aggregated data from various iterations of a robotic arm routine, an adverse condition may be determined based on detection of an outlier from the aggregated data. In certain embodiments, these outliers may determine threshold values, which when passed, may define an adverse condition. These outliers may be determined in accordance with conventional statistical analysis for outliers. For example, these outliers may define threshold values for a wafer that is too heavy or too light, para. 15)
Regarding claim 11, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1. The modified apparatus of US’440 further teaches wherein the control device detects an abnormality by confirming fluctuations in the measurement data of the sensor while the wafer gripping mechanism is being moved by the vertical moving mechanism and the arrangement direction moving mechanism (US’209 para. 20 and 36-37, the collection of sensor data may occur in real time as the robotic arm routine is being performed).
Claim(s) 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’440 in view of US’209 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Plaisted et al. US 2019/0105770 (US’770).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1.
The modified method of US’440 does not teach wherein the sensor is a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism, with regard to claim 3 and wherein the sensor includes: a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism; and a displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands with respect to base ends, with regard to claim 6.
However, US’209 further teaches the gripper hand sensor may be any type of sensor utilized to collect sensor data. adverse condition may be detected by utilizing a sensor such as a range finder or a radar monitor to determine a closeness or trajectory of a gripper hand during the robotic arm routine and triggering an adverse condition when the distance of a gripper hand to a surface, such as a wall of a semiconductor processing chamber, is below a threshold value (e.g., a minimum safe distance between a gripper hand (or a gripper hand sensor) to the surface) (para. 37-39). Therefore, displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands to other parts within the chamber, including based ends would an obvious modification of the modified device of US’770.
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 modified apparatus of US’440 to include a displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands with respect to base ends, with regard to claim 6 because US’209 teaches displacement sensors are known for detecting abnormal conditions of wafer transport devise and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
The modified method of US’440 does not each wherein the sensor is a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism, with regard to claim 3 and wherein the sensor includes: a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism, with regard to claim 6.
US’770 teaches a substrate transport apparatus (abstract). the motor 125M4 of the accessory portion 125AP may be utilized for monitoring in-situ movement, via feedback from the motor 125M4 of the accessory portion 125AP. For example, in-situ movement monitoring may be realized via monitoring torque of the motor by, e.g., measuring the current draw from the motor 125M4. The torque can be monitored to detect, e.g., grip of the substrate S to determine whether the substrate is engaged by the gripper mechanism 130GM. As may be realized, upon engagement of the substrate with the gripper, the current draw of the motor 125M4 will increase. If the substrate disengages, the current draw of the motor 125M4 will decrease. In other aspects, an encoder 500 (FIG. 5) may be included on the motor 125M4 of the accessory portion 125AP to identify displacement of the substrate transport arm 110 by monitoring displacement (i.e. rotation and movement) of the motor via the encoder 500 (para. 71). Therefore, torque sensors that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism to determine engagement of the gripping mechanism with a substrate would an obvious addition of the modified device of US’770.
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 modified apparatus of US’440 to include wherein the sensor is a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism, with regard to claim 3 and wherein the sensor includes: a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism, with regard to claim 6 because US’770 torque sensors that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism to determine engagement of the gripping mechanism with a substrate would an obvious addition of the modified device of US’770 and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’440 in view of US’209 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Woodruff et al. US 2004/0037691 (US’691).
Regarding claim 5, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1. US’440 further teaches wherein the pair of hands include a hand main body (arms 612 and 611), a hook disposed to be suspended below the hand main body (chuck tops 612a and 612b capable of abutting to an outer periphery of the wafer W, vertically in two stages, see fig. 14).
The modified method of US’440 does not teach an elastic member that elastically supports the hook with respect to the hand main body, and the sensor is a proximity sensor that is disposed on the hand main body and detects approaching or separation of the hook.
US’691 teaches passive end-effectors for handling microelectronic workpieces (abstract). The end effector includes a sensor. When the sensor indicates that the contact region of the pin is in the raised position, the workpiece is not loaded onto the body in a manner that is appropriate for transferring the workpiece to processing stations. Conversely, when the sensor indicates that the contact region of the pin is in the lowered position, the workpiece is then known to be properly seated on the workpiece (para. 12-13). The sensor assembly can include driving member 358 urges the pin 332 upwardly, elastically supports, until the first end 334 contacts a portion of the retainer 320b and an emitter 342 aligned with the window 355 and a receiver 344 aligned with the window 357, a proximity sensor that detects approaching or separation (para. 49-51, see fig. 6). Therefore, the weight sensor of the modified apparatus of US’440 can include an elastic member that elastically supports the hook with respect to the hand main body, and the sensor is a proximity sensor that is disposed on the hand main body and detects approaching or separation of the hook as taught by US’691.
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 apparatus of US’440 to include an elastic member that elastically supports the hook with respect to the hand main body, and the sensor is a proximity sensor that is disposed on the hand main body and detects approaching or separation of the hook because US’691 teaches it is a known configuration of a sensor for detecting the correct placement of a wafer that response to the weight of the wafer and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Regarding claim 7, the modified apparatus of US’440 teaches the cleaning and transport equipment of claim 1. US’440 further teaches wherein the pair of hands include a hand main body (arms 612 and 611), a hook disposed to be suspended below the hand main body (chuck tops 612a and 612b capable of abutting to an outer periphery of the wafer W, vertically in two stages, see fig. 14).
The modified method of US’440 does not teach an elastic member that elastically supports the hook with respect to the hand main body, and the sensor includes: either one or both of a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism and a displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands with respect to base ends; and a proximity sensor that is disposed on the hand main body and detects approaching or separation of the hook.
US’691 teaches passive end-effectors for handling microelectronic workpieces (abstract). The end effector includes a sensor. When the sensor indicates that the contact region of the pin is in the raised position, the workpiece is not loaded onto the body in a manner that is appropriate for transferring the workpiece to processing stations. Conversely, when the sensor indicates that the contact region of the pin is in the lowered position, the workpiece is then known to be properly seated on the workpiece (para. 12-13). The sensor assembly can include driving member 358 urges the pin 332 upwardly, elastically supports, until the first end 334 contacts a portion of the retainer 320b and an emitter 342 aligned with the window 355 and a receiver 344 aligned with the window 357, a proximity sensor that detects approaching or separation (para. 49-51, see fig. 6). Therefore, the weight sensor of the modified apparatus of US’440 can include an elastic member that elastically supports the hook with respect to the hand main body, and the sensor is a proximity sensor that is disposed on the hand main body and detects approaching or separation of the hook as taught by US’691.
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 apparatus of US’440 to include an elastic member that elastically supports the hook with respect to the hand main body, and the sensor includes: a proximity sensor that is disposed on the hand main body and detects approaching or separation of the hook because US’691 teaches it is a known configuration of a sensor for detecting the correct placement of a wafer that response to the weight of the wafer and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
The modified method of US’440 does not teach the sensor includes either one or both of a torque sensor that measures a load torque of a servo motor included in the rotation mechanism and a displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands with respect to base ends.
However, US’209 further teaches the gripper hand sensor may be any type of sensor utilized to collect sensor data. adverse condition may be detected by utilizing a sensor such as a range finder or a radar monitor to determine a closeness or trajectory of a gripper hand during the robotic arm routine and triggering an adverse condition when the distance of a gripper hand to a surface, such as a wall of a semiconductor processing chamber, is below a threshold value (e.g., a minimum safe distance between a gripper hand (or a gripper hand sensor) to the surface) (para. 37-39). Therefore, displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands to other parts within the chamber, including based ends would an obvious modification of the modified device of US’770.
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 modified apparatus of US’440 to include the sensor includes either one of a displacement sensor that measures relative height positions of tip ends of the pair of hands with respect to base ends because US’209 teaches displacement sensors are known for detecting abnormal conditions of wafer transport devise and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aono et al. US2018/0001440 (US’440) in view of Liu et al. US 2019/0148209 (US’209).
Regarding claim 12, US’440 teaches a wafer treatment equipment (substrate processing apparatus, see fig. 1) comprising: a polishing unit that polishes a wafer (polishing unit 20a and 20b, para. 261-300, see fig. 1); and a cleaning unit that cleans the wafer after polishing (the cleaning part 13 is an area for cleaning a polished wafer, para. 310-320, see fig. 1), wherein the cleaning unit includes the cleaning and transfer equipment according to claim 1 (as discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1).
US’440 does not teach a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands when the pair of hands are in a closed state, and the control device compares measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands.
US’209 teaches a robotic arm for handling a semiconductor wafer similar to the wafer transport robot of US’440 (abstract, para. 2-14, see fig. 2). The robot arm of US’209 includes sensors such as weight sensors that may collect weight data from the various wafers that the gripper hand may handle from each iteration of an automated robotic arm routine (para. 15), which reads on a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands. By analyzing the aggregated data with a controller module from various iterations of a robotic arm routine, an adverse condition may be determined based on detection of an outlier from the aggregated data. For example, these outliers may define threshold values for a wafer that is too heavy or too light, which may be indicative of a wafer that is broken or improperly grasped or held (para. 15 and 30-33), which reads on the control device compares the measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands. Accordingly, as the gripper hand is operated, sensor data may be collected from the perspective of the gripper hand to ascertain whether an adverse condition is present so as to modify (e.g., stop) a robotic arm routine and/or perform remediation of a semiconductor assembly line process. An adverse condition may be any condition for which it may be desirable to stop or modify a robotic arm routine (para. 14-15 and 39-47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could combined the weight sensor of the wafer transport mechanism of US’209 with the wafer transport mechanism of US’440 to achieve the benefit of avoiding adverse conditions of the robotic arm.
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 apparatus of US’440 to include a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands when the pair of hands are in a closed state, and the control device compares measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands because US’209 teaches it achieves the benefit of avoiding adverse conditions of the robotic arm and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aono et al. US2018/0001440 (US’440) in view of Liu et al. US 2019/0148209 (US’209).
Regarding claim 13, US’440 teaches a transfer equipment comprising (transport mechanism 32a, see fig. 12): a wafer transport mechanism that transports a wafer between a plurality of cleaning modules disposed in series (a cleaning-part transport mechanism configured to transport a substrate between the cleaning modules, para. 43 and 302-321, see fig. 1 and 12); and a control device that controls an operation of the wafer transport mechanism (control part 15 configured to control operations of the transport part 14, para. 173, 248, see fig. 1), wherein the wafer transport mechanism includes a wafer gripping mechanism that grips the wafer (wafer-holding mechanisms 601 and 602 have a pair of openable/closable arms 611 and 612 configured to hold a wafer, para. 320-324, see fig. 12), a vertical moving mechanism that vertically moves the wafer gripping mechanism (first vertical-moving mechanism 641 and the second vertical-moving mechanism 642, para. 328-329, see fig. 12), and an arrangement direction moving mechanism that moves the wafer gripping mechanism in an arrangement direction of the plurality of cleaning modules (by driving the motor connected to the ball screw of the arm-transport mechanism 62, the main frame 68 is linearly moved along the arrangement direction of the cleaning modules 311a to 314a, para. 321-327, para. 12), the wafer gripping mechanism includes a pair of hands that are openable and closeable (pair of openable/closable arms 611 and 612 configured to hold a wafer, para. 323-343, see fig. 12), a rotation mechanism that rotates the pair of hands about a rotation shaft parallel to an opening/closing direction (rotating mechanism 631 and 632 configured to rotate the pair of arms around a rotating shaft that is in parallel with an opening/closing direction, para. 323-324, see fig. 12-13).
US’440 does not teach a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands when the pair of hands are in a closed state, and the control device compares measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands.
US’209 teaches a robotic arm for handling a semiconductor wafer similar to the wafer transport robot of US’440 (abstract, para. 2-14, see fig. 2). The robot arm of US’209 includes sensors such as weight sensors that may collect weight data from the various wafers that the gripper hand may handle from each iteration of an automated robotic arm routine (para. 15), which reads on a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands. By analyzing the aggregated data with a controller module from various iterations of a robotic arm routine, an adverse condition may be determined based on detection of an outlier from the aggregated data. For example, these outliers may define threshold values for a wafer that is too heavy or too light, which may be indicative of a wafer that is broken or improperly grasped or held (para. 15 and 30-33), which reads on the control device compares the measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands. Accordingly, as the gripper hand is operated, sensor data may be collected from the perspective of the gripper hand to ascertain whether an adverse condition is present so as to modify (e.g., stop) a robotic arm routine and/or perform remediation of a semiconductor assembly line process. An adverse condition may be any condition for which it may be desirable to stop or modify a robotic arm routine (para. 14-15 and 39-47). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could combined the weight sensor of the wafer transport mechanism of US’209 with the wafer transport mechanism of US’440 to achieve the benefit of avoiding adverse conditions of the robotic arm.
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 apparatus of US’440 to include a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands when the pair of hands are in a closed state, and the control device compares measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands because US’209 teaches it achieves the benefit of avoiding adverse conditions of the robotic arm and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-4-36 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments that US’209 fails to disclose “the control device compares the measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands” have been considered but are not deemed persuasive. Applicant argument that US’209 only addresses whether a wafer is damaged or improperly grasped while it is held ignores the references own language. Para 41 of US’209 states “an adverse condition when the wafer weight is below a minimum weight threshold (which may be indicative of a chipped, broken, or incomplete wafer) or above a maximum weight threshold”. A weight reading at or near zero, falling below the minimum weight threshold, necessarily indicates the absence of a wafer on the hands, i.e., that no wafer is held. An “improperly grasped or held” (para. 15 of US’209) wafer is a wafer not held by the pair of hands and encompassed by the language “whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands”. A condition in which the wafer is not properly secured on the pair of hands is a determination of whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands.
Applicants’ arguments that the abstract of US'209 recites "during the period the wafer is held," indicating that the technology is predicated on "wafer holding" and therefore it is logically unreasonable for the Office to conclude that the disclosure or teaching "determines whether the wafer is held" based on this, has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. The abstract’s general framing does not in any way limit the discloser of the specification. As discussed above in US’209 para. 14-15 and 41, expressly contemplates weight readings indicative of chipped, broken, or improperly grasped or held, conditions in which the wafer is not properly held on the gripper.
Applicants’ arguments that US’209’s technical essence is based on "statistical outlier detection", and therefore US'209 discloses "whether the wafer is damaged or incorrectly held while it is held," rather than "whether the wafer has been held" has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. The examiner points out that the language of claim 1 is "whether the wafer is held" not "whether the wafer has been held". Further, the claim does not recite a particular weight value, a particular threshold magnitude, or any limitation excluding broken, chipped or improperly grasped wafers. The phrase “whether the wafer is held” encompasses proper vs improper holding of the wafer, which US’209’s teachings encompass, as discussed above. The claims require only “a value corresponding to a weight” which US’209 discloses as a weight sensor which collects real time weight sensor data that characterizes a wafer weight at the hand (para. 15, 20, 37 and 41). That weight measurement is by definition “a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands”. US’209 correlates this measurement to the holding of the wafer to determine if the weight is too heavy or too light, indicating a wafer that is broken or improperly grasped or held.
Applicants’ arguments that those skilled in the art would have no incentive to integrate the complex analysis system of US'209, which relies on "aggregated data," into the US'440 arm simply for simple hold verification and that it would increase unnecessary computational burden and system complexity, has been considered but is not deemed persuasive. This statement is conclusory and amounts to applicants’ opinion, and must be supported by evidence before the examiner can give significant consideration. US’209 explicitly identifies the benefits of real-time detection including “as the gripper hand is operated, sensor data may be collected from the perspective of the gripper hand to ascertain whether an adverse condition is present so as to modify (e.g., stop) a robotic arm routine and/or perform remediation of a semiconductor assembly line process. An adverse condition may be any condition for which it may be desirable to stop or modify a robotic arm routine” (para. 14-15 and 39-47). Avoiding broken wafers, dropped wafers or collisions is an obvious motivation for modifying any wafer transfer process, including that of US’440, which is directed to high-throughput multi-module wafer transferring (US’440 para. 5-8, 159 and 237). Combining a known predictable result of detecting weather a wafer is properly held is an obvious modification to make for any water transfer system, as discussed above. As a result, 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 apparatus of US’440 to include a sensor that measures a value corresponding to a weight applied to the pair of hands when the pair of hands are in a closed state, and the control device compares measurement data of the sensor with a predetermined threshold value to determine whether the wafer is held on the pair of hands because US’209 teaches it achieves the benefit of avoiding adverse conditions of the robotic arm and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2141 III (A).
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 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 ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights