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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 9, line 3, “ongitudinal” should read “longitudinal”.
In paragraph 9, line 4, “piane” should read “plane”.
In paragraph 15, line 1, “irplementations” should read “implementations”.
In paragraph 40, line 8, “puli” should read “pull”.
In paragraph 43, line 5, “puli” should read “pull”.
In paragraph 43, line 8, “aphragm” should read “diaphragm”.
In paragraph 44, line 1, “piurality” should read “plurality”.
In paragraph 54, line 14, “embodimen” should read “embodiment”.
In paragraph 56, line 11, “flexibiiity” should read “flexibility”.
In paragraph 59, line 2, “exarmple” should read “example”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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:
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016)
7. Regarding Claim 1, Hideki et al discloses an end effector pad(71) see Fig 4 and Fig 5, for supporting a substrate, the end effector pad comprising: a center portion(714) extending along a longitudinal axis; a ring(715) extending around, and radially offset from, the center portion; and one or more hard-stop structures(717); and one or more passages(713) extending through the center portion(712), paragraph 43 “The side wall portion (711) is composed of a base side wall (714) with a small diameter on the bottom portion (712) side, a front side wall (715) with a large diameter on the front side, and a connecting portion (716) connecting the base side wall (714) and the front side wall (715). In this embodiment, the outer diameter of the bottom part (712) is 25 mm, the diameter of the suction hole (713) is 10 mm, the height of the base side wall (714) is 4 mm, the outer circumference of the front side wall (715) is 30 mm, 13 the height is 3.5 mm, the thickness of the base is 0.8 mm, and the thickness of the connecting part (716) is 0.8 mm. In addition, the tip side wall (715) has a large diameter so that the tip side is open, and the end is also narrowed slightly. In addition, the tip portion of the tip side wall (715) has a tapered shape with the outer wall side narrowing at the end, and the diameter of the tip cross section (715a) is set to 0.2 mm. Additionally, the connecting portion (716) is curved from the middle to the outer side toward the leading side wall (715), and the bottom portion (712), the base side wall (714), and the connecting portion (716) are all separated from the back surface of the installed glass substrate (6)”.
8. Hideki et al does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad, wherein: the diaphragm includes at least three rib regions, each rib region extends from the center portion to the ring, a thickness of the diaphragm is thicker in the rib regions than in between the rib regions, a surface of the ring that is furthest from the center portion and offset from the diaphragm along the longitudinal axis defines a first reference plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, one or more hard-stop surfaces of the one or more hard-stop structures that are furthest from the center portion define a second reference plane that is also perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the second reference plane is between the diaphragm and the first reference plane.
However, Bornhorst et al discloses a diaphragm(29) connecting the ring with the center portion, see Fig 3, Col 3 lines 28-33 “However, abutments (44 and 22) prevent this and the pressure differential seats the abutment (44) in firm fluid-tight manner against the abutment (22). Deflection of the diaphragm (29) and the ribs (30) press the sealing surface (42) outwardly into firm fluid-tight engagement with the sealing surface (20), Col 4 lines 24-44 “The lid 26 and receptacle 10 may be of any suitable material. However, it is preferred that each be a unitary molded plastic unit. One suitable material for the receptacle 10 is crystal polystyrene. Others are polyethylene, polypropylene, and polycarbonate. A suitable material for the lid 26 is linear polyethylene and others are polyvinyl chloride, ionomers, and polyurethane. In a preferred embodiment, the container is disposable. This requires a maximum savings of material, so the thickness of the wall members is reduced to a minimum. It is in this preferred embodiment that the stiffening offset 14 and the offset 18 as well as the concave bottom 12 of the receptacle 10 are particularly advantageous. Similarly, the lid 26 is constructed to minimize the material required in its construction. The diaphragm 20 forms the main cover area of the lid and, for example, may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick. The sealing ring 28 may be of a height equivalent to the height of the stiffening ribs”.
9. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to utilize the end effector of Hideki et al (KR20040011339) with the diaphragm(29) and rib regions extending from the center portion of the ring and changing the thickness of the hard-stop/rib structures so that it’s shorter than the ring but extends past the diaphragm as a matter of routine structural design choice to reinforce the diaphragm while maintaining flexibility as taught by Bornhorst et al. (US3843016). Furthermore, Hideki et al teaches the relative positioning of the protrusion and sidewall, see paragraph 48 line 7 “The tip of this projection (717′) is formed at the same height as the tip of the tip side wall (715′)”, which inherently establishes the relationship from which the claimed second and first reference planes are defined. Defining those surfaces as reference planes characterizes the geometry in Figs 4 and 5, and would have been an obvious design to a person of ordinary skill in the art of mechanical engineering.
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) in further view of Kyun(KR102078309).
11. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
12. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad, wherein the center portion, the ring, and the diaphragm form a contiguous structure made of a material having a modulus of elasticity of at least 0.8 GPa.
13. However, Kyun discloses an end effector pad, wherein the center portion, the ring, and the diaphragm form a contiguous structure made of a material having a modulus of elasticity of at least 0.8 GPa. See Fig 3, Claim 1 and 5, paragraph 16-35, discloses a suction pad comprising of the cylindrical body made of resin material having an elastic modulus of approximately 1Gpa, with heat resistance that does not damage substrate. The cylindrical body includes a ring-shaped sidewall portion and a bottom portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize Hideki et al, end effector pad with a contiguous structure made of a material having elastic modulus of at least 0.8Gpa as taught by Kyun to improve structural rigidity and stability of the end effector pad thereby improving efficiency, paragraph 6.
14. Claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
15. As of Claim 4, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose the end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness between 0.003 inches and 0.005 inches.
16. However, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness, Col 4 lines 24-44 “The lid 26 and receptacle 10 may be of any suitable material. However, it is preferred that each be a unitary molded plastic unit. One suitable material for the receptacle 10 is crystal polystyrene. Others are polyethylene, polypropylene, and polycarbonate. A suitable material for the lid 26 is linear polyethylene and others are polyvinyl chloride, ionomers, and polyurethane. In a preferred embodiment, the container is disposable. This requires a maximum savings of material, so the thickness of the wall members is reduced to a minimum. It is in this preferred embodiment that the stiffening offset 14 and the offset 18 as well as the concave bottom 12 of the receptacle 10 are particularly advantageous. Similarly, the lid 26 is constructed to minimize the material required in its construction. The diaphragm 20 forms the main cover area of the lid and, for example, may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick. The sealing ring 28 may be of a height equivalent to the height of the stiffening ribs”. Though Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness between 0.003 inches and 0.005 inches.
A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize regions of the diaphragm between the rib region thickness as a design parameter that can be optimized to vary the thickness of the rib region including adjusting the disclosed thickness to obtain the desired thickness between 0.003 inches and 0.005 inches, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to utilize the end effector of Hideki et al (KR20040011339) with changing the thickness between the diaphragm(29) and rib regions between 0.003 inches and 0.005 inches, as a matter of routine structural design choice to reinforce the diaphragm while maintaining flexibility as taught by Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
18. Claim 5, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
19. As of Claim 5, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose the end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness between 0.005 inches and 0.007 inches.
20. However, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness, Col 4 lines 24-44 “The lid 26 and receptacle 10 may be of any suitable material. However, it is preferred that each be a unitary molded plastic unit. One suitable material for the receptacle 10 is crystal polystyrene. Others are polyethylene, polypropylene, and polycarbonate. A suitable material for the lid 26 is linear polyethylene and others are polyvinyl chloride, ionomers, and polyurethane. In a preferred embodiment, the container is disposable. This requires a maximum savings of material, so the thickness of the wall members is reduced to a minimum. It is in this preferred embodiment that the stiffening offset 14 and the offset 18 as well as the concave bottom 12 of the receptacle 10 are particularly advantageous. Similarly, the lid 26 is constructed to minimize the material required in its construction. The diaphragm 20 forms the main cover area of the lid and, for example, may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick. The sealing ring 28 may be of a height equivalent to the height of the stiffening ribs”. Though Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness between 0.005 inches and 0.007 inches.
A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize regions of the diaphragm between the rib region thickness as a design parameter that can be optimized to vary the thickness of the rib region including adjusting the disclosed thickness to obtain the desired thickness between 0.003 inches and 0.005 inches, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to utilize the end effector of Hideki et al (KR20040011339) with changing the thickness between the diaphragm(29) and rib regions between 0.005 inches and 0.007 inches, as a matter of routine structural design choice to reinforce the diaphragm while maintaining flexibility as taught by Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
22. Claim 6, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
23. As of Claim 6, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose the end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness between 0.007 inches and 0.009 inches.
24. However, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness, Col 4 lines 24-44 “The lid 26 and receptacle 10 may be of any suitable material. However, it is preferred that each be a unitary molded plastic unit. One suitable material for the receptacle 10 is crystal polystyrene. Others are polyethylene, polypropylene, and polycarbonate. A suitable material for the lid 26 is linear polyethylene and others are polyvinyl chloride, ionomers, and polyurethane. In a preferred embodiment, the container is disposable. This requires a maximum savings of material, so the thickness of the wall members is reduced to a minimum. It is in this preferred embodiment that the stiffening offset 14 and the offset 18 as well as the concave bottom 12 of the receptacle 10 are particularly advantageous. Similarly, the lid 26 is constructed to minimize the material required in its construction. The diaphragm 20 forms the main cover area of the lid and, for example, may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick. The sealing ring 28 may be of a height equivalent to the height of the stiffening ribs”. Though Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness between 0.007 inches and 0.009 inches.
A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize regions of the diaphragm between the rib region thickness as a design parameter that can be optimized to vary the thickness of the rib region including adjusting the disclosed thickness to obtain the desired thickness between 0.007 inches and 0.009 inches, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
25. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to utilize the end effector of Hideki et al (KR20040011339) with changing the thickness between the diaphragm(29) and rib regions between 0.007 inches and 0.009 inches, as a matter of routine structural design choice to reinforce the diaphragm while maintaining flexibility as taught by Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
26. Claim 7, is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
27. As of Claim 6, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
28. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose the end effector pad, wherein, for each rib region: a surface of that rib region that is closest to the first reference plane defines a third reference plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and the second reference plane is between the third reference plane and the second first reference plane.
29. However, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness, with rib regions that can be modified. Col 4 lines 24-44 “The lid 26 and receptacle 10 may be of any suitable material. However, it is preferred that each be a unitary molded plastic unit. One suitable material for the receptacle 10 is crystal polystyrene. Others are polyethylene, polypropylene, and polycarbonate. A suitable material for the lid 26 is linear polyethylene and others are polyvinyl chloride, ionomers, and polyurethane. In a preferred embodiment, the container is disposable. This requires a maximum savings of material, so the thickness of the wall members is reduced to a minimum. It is in this preferred embodiment that the stiffening offset 14 and the offset 18 as well as the concave bottom 12 of the receptacle 10 are particularly advantageous. Similarly, the lid 26 is constructed to minimize the material required in its construction. The diaphragm 20 forms the main cover area of the lid and, for example, may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick. The sealing ring 28 may be of a height equivalent to the height of the stiffening ribs”.
30. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to utilize the end effector of Hideki et al (KR20040011339) with modifying the height of rib surface to be greater than the surface of the hard-stop surface but less than the surface of the ring as a matter of routine structural design choice to meet operational requirements and reinforce the diaphragm while maintaining flexibility as taught by Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
31. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016)
32. As regards Claim 8, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
33. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al discloses an end effector pad(71) with a rib region that may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick, Col 4 line 32-24 “The diaphragm 20 forms the main cover area of the lid and, for example, may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick”.
35. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the end effector pad of Hideki et al with selecting each rib region that has a width in a direction transverse to a radial axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis that is between 0.02 inches and 0.04 inches through routine optimization obtaining structural support and improved performance of the annular structure thereby enhancing efficiency of the effector pad, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, (C.C.P.A 1955).
36. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016)
37. As regards Claim 9, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
38. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad, wherein regions of the diaphragm between the rib regions have a thickness, with rib regions that can be modified. Col 4 lines 24-44 “The lid 26 and receptacle 10 may be of any suitable material. However, it is preferred that each be a unitary molded plastic unit. One suitable material for the receptacle 10 is crystal polystyrene. Others are polyethylene, polypropylene, and polycarbonate. A suitable material for the lid 26 is linear polyethylene and others are polyvinyl chloride, ionomers, and polyurethane. In a preferred embodiment, the container is disposable. This requires a maximum savings of material, so the thickness of the wall members is reduced to a minimum. It is in this preferred embodiment that the stiffening offset 14 and the offset 18 as well as the concave bottom 12 of the receptacle 10 are particularly advantageous. Similarly, the lid 26 is constructed to minimize the material required in its construction. The diaphragm 20 forms the main cover area of the lid and, for example, may be 0.035 inches thick and extend through the center of stiffening ribs 0.311 inches high and 0.060 inches thick. The sealing ring 28 may be of a height equivalent to the height of the stiffening ribs”. Though Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose and end effector pad, wherein the diaphragm has four ribs.
A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that adding more ribs as a design parameter will predictably optimize the integrity of the diaphragm including adjusting the disclosed number of ribs to obtain the desired number of 4, see In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
39. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the end effector pad of Hideki et al with diaphragm having four ribs regions with circumferentially spaced structural elements as taught by Bornhorst et al. to obtain enhanced integrity of the diaphragm and hence improving efficiency of the end effector pad.
40. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
41. As regards Claim 10, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
42. Hideki et al disclose an end effector pad, wherein the intersection of the ring and the first reference plane forms a contact region, see Fig 4 and Fig 5, for supporting a substrate, the end effector pad comprising: a center portion(714) extending along a longitudinal axis; a ring(715) extending around, and radially offset from, the center portion.
43. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad, wherein the intersection of the ring and the first reference plane forms a contact region with a radial width that is < 5% than a diameter of the ring.
44. However, as a matter of design choice to meet specification a person of ordinary skill in the art can be motivated to modify the intersection of ring and the first reference plane to become thinner with a radial width that is < 5% than the diameter of the ring.
45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the end effector pad of Hideki et al with selecting a contact region having radial width of less than 5% than the diameter of the ring thereby keeping the ring geometry thinner obtaining desired operational performance hence improving efficiency of the end effector pad.
46. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) in further view of Suk(KR20070048304).
47. As regards Claim 11, Hideki et al in view Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
Hideki et al further discloses an end effector pad, comprising of one or more hard stop surfaces(717).
48. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad, with selecting a radial width that is less than 5% of the maximum dimension of the center portion in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
49. However, Suk discloses an end effector pad, with selecting radial width that is less than 5% of the maximum dimension of the center portion in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, Fig 1 - Fig 6, Claims 5-7, a contact surface of a focus ring(210) is shown, having one or more hard stop surfaces a predetermined radial width selected as a matter of design routine by one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve intended contact.
50. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the end effector pad having one or more hard stop surfaces of Hideki et al with selecting a radial width less than 5% of the maximum dimension of the central portion in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as taught by Suk, to provide a spacing function thereby obtaining desired operational performance of the end effector pad.
51. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016)
52. As regards Claim 14, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
53. Hideki et al further discloses an end effector pad comprising one or more hard-stop structures(717); and one or more passages(713) extending through the center portion(712), having inner edge that conforms to the circular opening which would constitute an arcuate wall segment. see Fig 5b.
54. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) in further view of Suk(KR20070048304).
55. As regards Claim 15, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) discloses an end effector pad with all the limitations of Claim 14.
56. Hideki et al in view of the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad with each rib region extends from central portion to the ring
57. However, Suk discloses an end effector pad, with each rib region extends from central portion to the ring, Fig 5 and Fig 6, show an annular structure with a plurality of radial regions extending from an inner portion to an outer ring.
58. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the end effector pad comprising of diaphragm of Hideki et al with each rib region extending from the central portion towards the ring as taught by Suk, to maintain the flexibility of the diaphragm to respond to the changes in pressure obtaining desired performance and hence improving efficiency of the end effector pad.
59. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) in further view of Kim(KR100176123).
60. As regards Claim 16, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
61. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad, wherein at least a portion of the passage has a hexagonal cross-sectional shape.
62. However, Kim discloses an end effector pad, wherein at least a portion of the passage has a hexagonal cross-sectional shape, see Figs 3-5 and their corresponding description, Kim shows a chuck chip that includes a vacuum suction pipe with inlet formed with a hexagonal groove(32), with at least a portion of the passage having a hexagonal cross-sectional shape
63. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify at least a portion of the passage of the end effector pad of Hideki et al to include a hexagonal cross-sectional shape as taught by Kim to enhance easy assembly and maintenance hence increasing the lifespan of the end effector pad.
64. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) in further view of Kim(KR100176123) in further view of Yongbo et al.(CN202140101)
65. As regards Claim 17, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. in further view of Kim discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 16.
66. Kim discloses an end effector pad, wherein at least a portion of the passage has a hexagonal cross-sectional shape, see Figs 3-5 and their corresponding description, Kim shows a chuck chip that includes a vacuum suction pipe with inlet formed with a hexagonal groove(32) with acuate cutouts at the corners of the hexagonal shape to enhance engagement with a driving tool.
67. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein each corner of the hexagonal cross- sectional shape has an arcuate notch.
68. Yongbo et al discloses a hexagonal opening having notches and groves shown at the corners, this is formed to reduce stress at the corners, see Fig 1, ABSTRACT “The inner hole of the cylinder (2) is a hexagonal hole (4) and the inner hole of the conical column body (1) is a threaded hole (5)”.
69. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize end effector pad of Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) and modify with a hexagonal cross-sectional shape of Kim(KR100176123) and further modify with an arcuate notch as taught by Yongbo et al.(CN202140101) to reduce concentration of stress at the corners of the hexagonal cross sectional shape of a portion of the passage preventing damage hence increasing the lifespan of the end effector pad.
70. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) in further view of Kim(KR100176123) .
71. As regards Claim 18, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
72. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad, wherein at least a portion of an exterior surface of the center portion is threaded.
73. However, Kim discloses an end effector pad, wherein at least a portion of an exterior surface of the center portion is threaded, see Fig 2, structure(10), show an annular support structure having threaded outer surface part configured to engage a mating component. “The chuck tip (10) is coupled to the chuck main body by means of screws or the like, and a die groove (12) is formed up and down on the entrance of the vacuum suction pipe on the side to which the wafer of the vacuum suction pipe is attached so as to facilitate coupling using the linear driver”.
69. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the central portion of the end effector pad of Hideki et al to include a threaded outer surface as taught by Kim to enhance easy engagement with a tool, assembly and maintenance hence increasing the lifespan of the end effector pad.
74. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
75. As regards Claim 19, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
76. Hideki et al further discloses an end effector pad(71) wherein the plastic is made of plastic, paragraph 38 “The hand part (37) has a pair of fingers (371, 372) having a required length attached parallel to each other at a predetermined distance from a base (370) fixedly installed on the shaft of the driving source (36). The fingers (371, 372) have the same shape and are in the shape of long plates and are composed of solid resin material. It is more desirable for the resin to have heat resistance in terms of supporting a high-temperature glass substrate (6), and to have a small heat capacity and low thermal conductivity in terms of suppressing heat transfer. In this embodiment, PEEK (polyetheretherketone) is used”.
77. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form the plastic end effector pad from plastic of Hideki et al. to enhance low thermal conductivity and heat capacity, hence preventing the wear and tear of the end effector pad thereby increasing its life span.
78. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016)
79. As regards Claim 20, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 19.
80 Hideki et al further discloses an end effector pad(71) wherein the plastic is a conductive electrostatic discharge-rated plastic, a polybenzimidazole (PBI), or a carbon-filled polyetheretherketone (PEEK), paragraph 38 “The hand part (37) has a pair of fingers (371, 372) having a required length attached parallel to each other at a predetermined distance from a base (370) fixedly installed on the shaft of the driving source (36). The fingers (371, 372) have the same shape and are in the shape of long plates and are composed of solid resin material. It is more desirable for the resin to have heat resistance in terms of supporting a high-temperature glass substrate (6), and to have a small heat capacity and low thermal conductivity in terms of suppressing heat transfer. In this embodiment, PEEK (polyetheretherketone) is used”.
81. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form the plastic end effector pad from PEEK of Hideki et al to enhance low thermal conductivity and heat capacity, hence preventing the wear and tear of the end effector pad thereby increasing its life span.
82. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016).
83. As regards Claim 23, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
84. Hideki et al disclose an end effector pad, comprising of ring, see Fig 4 and Fig 5, for supporting a substrate, the end effector pad comprising: a center portion(714) extending along a longitudinal axis; a ring(715) extending around, and radially offset from, the center portion.
85. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose an end effector pad, wherein the ring has a diameter between 0.20 inches and 1.50 inches.
86. However, as a matter of design choice to meet specification a person of ordinary skill in the art can be motivated to modify the diameter of ring between 0.20 inches and 1.50 inches.
87. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the end effector pad of Hideki et al with selecting a diameter between 0.20 inches and 1.50 inches to optimize the amount of vacuum that needs to be applied obtaining desired operational performance hence improving efficiency of the end effector pad
88. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016)
89. As regards Claim 25, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016)
discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 1.
90. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. does not explicitly disclose a kit for use on a wafer handling robot, the kit comprising at least three of the end effector pads.
92. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the end effector pad of Hideki et al as a kit for use on a wafer handling robot including at least three of the end effector pads to facilitate supply or replacement of end effector pad on wafer handling robot enhancing easier packaging and maintenance thereby increasing the life span of the wafer handling robot.
93. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hideki et al (KR20040011339) in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) in further view of Kim(KR100176123).
94. As regards Claim 27, Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. discloses an end effector pad(71) with all the limitations of Claim 25.
95. Hideki et al in view of Bornhorst et al. (US3843016) does not explicitly disclose the kit further comprising a hex wrench configured to fit in the portion of the passage with the hexagonal cross-sectional shape.
96. However, Kim discloses an end effector pad comprising a hex wrench configured to fit in the portion of the passage with the hexagonal cross-sectional shape, see Figs 3-5, show a hexagonal groove designed to fit with the passage portion having a hexagonal cross section to receive a hexagonal wrench for detaching or coupling the chuck tip from the body.
97. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify at least a portion of the passage of the end effector pad of Hideki et al and to include the hex wrench in the kit as taught by Kim to enhance easy engagement of the hexagonal cross-sectional portion of the passage with the hex wrench, facilitating assembly and maintenance, hence increasing the lifespan of the kit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T KIO whose telephone number is (571)270-0743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a.m -5 p.m.
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, Robert W Hodge can be reached at 571-272-2097. 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.
/MTK./
Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights