Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 14, 2026
Application No. 18/660,164

SUBSTRATE TRANSFER APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
May 09, 2024
Priority
May 12, 2023 — RE 10-2023-0061498
Examiner
BURKMAN, JESSICA LYNN
Art Unit
3653
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Vm Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allowance Rate
174 granted / 211 resolved
+30.5% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 10m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
232
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
77.5%
+37.5% vs TC avg
§102
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 211 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Priority The applicant’s priority to foreign application KR10-2023-0061498 filed on May 12th, 2023 has been accepted. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 9th, 2024, June 15th, 2025 and September 17th, 2025 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 states “wherein the first path crosses a center of the second path and the second path crosses a center of the first path.” However, the specification makes no mention of the paths crossing at a center (See P0034). Although Fig. 2 appears to show the paths crossing at a center drawings are not required to be done at scale and there are no dimensions to confirm that the paths cross at a center as recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI DO HYUN (KR 10-2016-0057357) hereafter Choi in view of Amikura et al (US 20220130651), hereafter Amikura. With regards to claim 1, Choi discloses substrate transfer apparatus (Abstract) comprising: a moving plate (base of transfer robot 310); a load lock chamber (210) disposed at one end of the moving plate (Fig. 21); a plurality of processing chambers (600) disposed in a longitudinal direction at both ends of the moving plate; and an arm connected with the moving plate (transfer robot 310) and configured to transfer a substrate between one processing chamber among the plurality of processing chambers and the load lock chamber, wherein the moving plate provides a first path along (longitudinal direction generally indicated from 730 to 750 in Fig. 21) which a first pivot axis of the arm linearly moves in a lateral direction on the moving plate. Choi does not disclose wherein the arm includes a first region and a second region rotatably coupled to the first region, the first region pivots about a first pivot axis with respect to the moving plate, and the second region pivots about a second pivot axis with respect to the first region, wherein the moving plate provides a first path along the first pivot axis, about which the first region pivots with respect to the moving plate, of the arm linearly moves in a lateral direction on the moving plate. However, Amikura discloses an arm (70) with two pivot axes (generally indicated at 72 and 71) on a linearly moving plate (73). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the arm disclosed by Choi with the arm disclosed by Amikura in order to further the reach of the arm allowing for the inclusion of more processing chambers to improve throughput. With regards to claim 2, Choi and Amikura disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Choi further discloses wherein a position of the first pivot axis on the first path is determined based on a position of the one processing chamber relative to the moving plate (Fig. 21). With regards to claim 3, Choi and Amikura disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Choi further discloses wherein the moving plate provides a second path along which the first pivot axis linearly moves in the longitudinal direction on the moving plate (generally indicated in horizontal direction between 210 and 300 in Fig. 21). With regards to claim 4, Choi and Amikura disclose all the elements of claim 3 as outlined above. Choi further discloses wherein the second path crosses the first path (Fig. 21). With regards to claim 7, Choi and Amikura discloses all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Choi does not disclose wherein the first path includes a rail. However, Amikura discloses a substrate transfer apparatus (70) with a moving plate (73) on a rail (74). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the path disclosed by Choi a rail as disclosed by Amikura in order to facilitate maintenance. With regards to claim 8 Choi and Amikura disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Choi further discloses wherein the first path includes a plurality of links, and the first pivot axis is disposed at one of the plurality of links to transfer the substrate from the one processing chamber (links are points along the path in Fig. 21). With regards to claim 9, Choi and Amikura disclose all the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. Choi and Amikura do not directly disclose wherein the first path crosses a center of the second path and the second path crosses a center of the first path . However, absent any evidence of criticality, this is considered a simple rearrangement of parts that is rendered obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention based on space constraints and the arrangement of processing chambers. Response to Arguments The applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. New grounds of rejection are presented above. Prior Art Not Relied Upon US-20130272822 and US-10446432 disclose different configuration of arms with multiple pivot axes. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 would be allowable for disclosing “wherein the moving plate provides a third path along which the first pivot axis linearly moves in an oblique direction on the moving plate.” Although Choi discloses two paths as outlined above, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art that would render it obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a third path in an oblique direction. Claim 6 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency. 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 JESSICA LYNN BURKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5824. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am to 6:00pm EST. 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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. /MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653 /J.L.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
Mar 30, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 24, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12673351
AUTOMATED PROCESS AND METHOD FOR MATERIAL SEPARATION AND RECYCLING
3y 9m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12667864
DEVICE FOR SEPARATING FEED MATERIAL
1y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12661796
HAND AND ROBOT SYSTEM
2y 6m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12629722
AIR CLASSIFIER
1y 8m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12617127
PLASTIC RECYCLING METHOD FOR PROCESSING PLASTIC WASTE
3y 1m to grant Granted May 05, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.5%)
1y 10m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 211 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month