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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: linear translation system (Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 18-25) and corresponding vertical drive mechanism (Claim 3; “The vertical drive mechanism, for example, may be a linear drive assembly using a lead screw driven by a rotational motor.”; “In the example shown, the vertical drive mechanism 586 includes a z-axis drive motor 588 and a z-drive lead screw 587.”). The terms system and mechanism are construed to be generic placeholders.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 24-25 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.
Claim 24-25 recites the limitation "controller" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The controller is first introduced in Claim 10; Claims 24-25 do not depend on Claim 10.
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) 1-5, 9-11, 18-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould et al. (US 2020/0083071) (“Gould”; “D1”) in view of Daikyu (KR 20050092278 A) (“D2”). Gould discloses:
Claim 1: a first wafer handling robot arm (FIG. 3C-3D, 328);
a second wafer handling robot arm (328); and
a linear translation system configured to interface with the first and the second wafer handling robot arms (308/etc.), wherein:
the first wafer handling robot arm and the second wafer handling robot arm each have a corresponding base and a corresponding first end effector;
the apparatus is configured to cause the bases to independently traverse along a horizontal translation axis between at least a nested configuration and a non-nested configuration (para. [0035], “For example, the vertical rails 308 may move independently of one another.”; FIG. 3C-3D for nested config. and non-nested config.);
the linear translation system, the first wafer handling robot arm, and the second wafer handling robot arm are configured such that:
the base of the first wafer handling robot arm is movable by the linear translation system, along the translation axis, and through a first zone and a second zone but not a third zone, and such that the base of the second wafer handling robot arm is moveable by the linear translation system, through the second zone and the third zone but not the first zone (para. [0026]-[0035]; FIG. 2A-3C); and
the second zone is between the first zone and the third zone (para. [0026]-[0035]; FIG. 2A-3C);
Claim 3: wherein the corresponding bases of the first wafer handling robot arm and the second wafer handling robot arm each have a corresponding vertical drive mechanism configured to cause the corresponding first end effector to move along an axis parallel to the corresponding first axis (308 along Z);
Claim 4: wherein the linear translation system includes a first set of linear guides and both the first wafer handling robot arm and the second wafer handling robot arm are movably connected with the first set of linear guides (at least 308);
Claim 5: wherein the linear translation system has a first set of linear guides and a second set of linear guides, the first wafer handling robot arm is movably connected with the first set of linear guides, and the second wafer handling robot arm is movably connected with the second set of linear guides (at least 308);
Claim 9: wherein each wafer handling robot arm has a corresponding second end effector (para/ [0029], “In some examples, the robot 232 may include two end effectors 234 on each of the arms as shown in FIGS. 2C and 2D.”);
Claim 10: a controller having one or more memory devices communicatively connected with one or more processors (para. [0055]-[0056]);
Claim 11: wherein the controller is configured to cause the first and second wafer handling robot arms to move between at least a first configuration and a second configuration, wherein: in the first configuration, the first and second wafer handling robot arms are positioned such that the first end effector of the second wafer handling robot arm is directly above the firs tend effector of the first wafer handling robot arm and the first axis of the second wafer handling robot arm is spaced a first distance apart from the first axis of the first wafer handling robot arm,
in the second configuration, the first and second wafer handling robot arms are positioned such that the first end effector of the second wafer handling robot arm is a horizontal distance apart from the first end effector of the first wafer handling robot arm and the first axis of the second wafer handling robot arm is spaced a second distance apart from the first axis of the first wafer handling robot arm, and
the second distance is greater than the first distance (“the controller is configured to cause” limitation language is similar to “controller for doing X” language such that the controller does not have to do X as disclosed, only that a controller is disclosed; at least via “user interface” in para. [0057]);
Claim 18: wherein the controller is configured to cause the first wafer handling robot arm to pick a first substrate from a first wafer placement location and to cause the second wafer handling robot arm to concurrently pick a second substrate from a second wafer placement location, the first wafer placement location positioned above or below the second wafer placement location (“the controller is configured to cause” limitation language is similar to “controller for doing X” language such that the controller does not have to do X as disclosed, only that a controller is disclosed; at least via “user interface” in para. [0057]);
Claim 19: wherein the controller is configured to cause the first wafer handling robot arm to pick a first substrate from a first wafer placement location and to cause the second wafer handling robot arm to concurrently pick a second substrate from a second wafer placement location, the second wafer placement location spaced a horizontal distance apart from the first wafer placement location (“the controller is configured to cause” limitation language is similar to “controller for doing X” language such that the controller does not have to do X as disclosed, only that a controller is disclosed; at least via “user interface” in para. [0057]);
Claim 20: wherein the controller is further configured to cause the first wafer handling robot arm to place the first substrate at a third wafer placement location and to cause the second wafer handling robot arm to concurrently place the second substrate at a fourth wafer placement location, the third wafer placement location positioned above or below the fourth wafer placement location (“the controller is configured to cause” limitation language is similar to “controller for doing X” language such that the controller does not have to do X as disclosed, only that a controller is disclosed; at least via “user interface” in para. [0057]);
Claim 21: wherein the controller is further configured to cause the first wafer handling robot arm to place the first substrate at a third wafer placement location and to cause the second wafer handling robot arm to concurrently place the second substrate at a fourth wafer placement location, the third wafer placement location spaced a horizontal distance apart from the fourth wafer placement wafer location (“the controller is configured to cause” limitation language is similar to “controller for doing X” language such that the controller does not have to do X as disclosed, only that a controller is disclosed; at least via “user interface” in para. [0057]);
Claim 22: three or more load ports (220) and two or more load locks (208), wherein the three or more load ports are located on a first side of the linear translation system, the two or more load locks are on a second side of the linear translation system opposite the first side, and each of the three or more load ports are configured to receive a corresponding [FOUP] front opening universal pod (FIG. 2A-3A; para. [0026] for FOUP, last sentence);
Claim 24: wherein the controller is further configured to cause the first wafer handling robot arm to pick a first substrate from a first front opening universal pod and to cause the second wafer handling robot arm to concurrently pick a second substrate from the first front opening universal pod (“the controller is configured to cause” limitation language is similar to “controller for doing X” language such that the controller does not have to do X as disclosed, only that a controller is disclosed; at least via “user interface” in para. [0057]);
Claim 25: wherein the controller is further configured to cause the first wafer handling robot arm to pick a first substrate from a first front opening universal pod and to cause the second wafer handling robot arm to concurrently pick a second substrate from a second front opening universal pod (“the controller is configured to cause” limitation language is similar to “controller for doing X” language such that the controller does not have to do X as disclosed, only that a controller is disclosed; at least via “user interface” in para. [0057]).
Gould does not directly show:
Claim 1: the first end effector of the first wafer handling robot arm connects with a link of the first wafer handling robot arm from above;
the first end effector of the second wafer handling robot arm connects with a link of the second wafer handling robot arm from below;
Claim 2: wherein the first wafer handling robot arm and the second wafer handling robot arm each further include: a corresponding end effector, and two or more corresponding robot arm links including at least (a) a corresponding first robot arm link with a corresponding first end and a corresponding second end, with the first end of the corresponding first robot arm link rotatably connected to the corresponding base via a corresponding first rotational joint such that the corresponding first robot arm link is rotatable relative to the corresponding base about a corresponding first axis, and (b) a corresponding second robot arm link with a first end and a second end, with the second end of the corresponding second robot arm link rotatably connected with the corresponding first end effector via a corresponding second rotational joint such that the corresponding first end effector is rotatable relative to the corresponding second robot arm link about a corresponding second axis;
Daikyu shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: the first end effector of the first wafer handling robot arm connects with a link of the first wafer handling robot arm from above (figure 27, 60a);
the first end effector of the second wafer handling robot arm connects with a link of the second wafer handling robot arm from below (60b);
Claim 2: wherein the first wafer handling robot arm and the second wafer handling robot arm each further include: a corresponding end effector, and two or more corresponding robot arm links including at least (a) a corresponding first robot arm link with a corresponding first end and a corresponding second end, with the first end of the corresponding first robot arm link rotatably connected to the corresponding base via a corresponding first rotational joint such that the corresponding first robot arm link is rotatable relative to the corresponding base about a corresponding first axis, and (b) a corresponding second robot arm link with a first end and a second end, with the second end of the corresponding second robot arm link rotatably connected with the corresponding first end effector via a corresponding second rotational joint such that the corresponding first end effector is rotatable relative to the corresponding second robot arm link about a corresponding second axis (60a/60b);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving manufacturing productivity (English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gould as taught by Daikyu and include Daikyu’s similar device having:
Claim 1: the first end effector of the first wafer handling robot arm connects with a link of the first wafer handling robot arm from above;
the first end effector of the second wafer handling robot arm connects with a link of the second wafer handling robot arm from below;
Claim 2: wherein the first wafer handling robot arm and the second wafer handling robot arm each further include: a corresponding end effector, and two or more corresponding robot arm links including at least (a) a corresponding first robot arm link with a corresponding first end and a corresponding second end, with the first end of the corresponding first robot arm link rotatably connected to the corresponding base via a corresponding first rotational joint such that the corresponding first robot arm link is rotatable relative to the corresponding base about a corresponding first axis, and (b) a corresponding second robot arm link with a first end and a second end, with the second end of the corresponding second robot arm link rotatably connected with the corresponding first end effector via a corresponding second rotational joint such that the corresponding first end effector is rotatable relative to the corresponding second robot arm link about a corresponding second axis;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving manufacturing productivity.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould in view of Daikyu and Choi et al. (US 11804393; 102(a)(2) date: Sep. 9, 2021) (“Choi”). Gould discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Gould does not directly show:
Claim 23: two or more aligners, with each aligner located above a corresponding load lock.
Choi shows a similar device having:
Claim 23: two or more aligners, with each aligner located above a corresponding load lock (column 17, lines 34-35 suggests aligners above load locks);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the wafer processing efficiency of a wafer processing apparatus including the EFEM (column 2, lines 40-45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gould and Daikyu as taught by Choi and include Choi’s similar device having:
Claim 23: two or more aligners, with each aligner located above a corresponding load lock;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the wafer processing efficiency of a wafer processing apparatus including the EFEM.
Claim(s) 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould in view of Daikyu and Hiroki (JP 2004-265947 A). Gould discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Gould does not directly show:
Claim 29: wherein the linear translation system is a linkage-based translation system that has a first set of linkages connected with, and supporting, the base of the first wafer handling robot arm and a second set of linkages connected with, and supporting, the base of the second wafer handling robot arm;
Claim 30: wherein the linkage-based translation system has a base and each set of linkages has at least (a) a corresponding first link with a corresponding first end and a corresponding second end, with the first end thereof rotatably connected to the base of the linkage- based translation system via a corresponding first rotational joint such that the corresponding first link is rotatable relative to the base of the linkage-based translation system about a corresponding a first axis, and (b) a corresponding second link with a first end and a second end, with the first end thereof rotatably connected with the second end of the corresponding first link and the second end thereof rotatably connected with the base of a corresponding one of the wafer handling robot arms via a corresponding rotational joint such that the corresponding wafer handling robot arm is rotatable relative to the corresponding second link about a corresponding second axis;
Claim 31: wherein the linkage-based translation system is configured such that the second end of each second link is constrained to move along the translation axis;
Claim 32: wherein the linkage-based translation system is configured such that the second end of each second link is constrained to move along a translation plane that is perpendicular to the first axes.
Hiroki shows a similar device having:
Claim 29: wherein the linear translation system is a linkage-based translation system that has a first set of linkages connected with, and supporting, the base of the first wafer handling robot arm and a second set of linkages connected with, and supporting, the base of the second wafer handling robot arm;
Claim 30: wherein the linkage-based translation system has a base and each set of linkages has at least (a) a corresponding first link with a corresponding first end and a corresponding second end, with the first end thereof rotatably connected to the base of the linkage- based translation system via a corresponding first rotational joint such that the corresponding first link is rotatable relative to the base of the linkage-based translation system about a corresponding a first axis, and (b) a corresponding second link with a first end and a second end, with the first end thereof rotatably connected with the second end of the corresponding first link and the second end thereof rotatably connected with the base of a corresponding one of the wafer handling robot arms via a corresponding rotational joint such that the corresponding wafer handling robot arm is rotatable relative to the corresponding second link about a corresponding second axis;
Claim 31: wherein the linkage-based translation system is configured such that the second end of each second link is constrained to move along the translation axis;
Claim 32: wherein the linkage-based translation system is configured such that the second end of each second link is constrained to move along a translation plane that is perpendicular to the first axes;
(the system, linkages, et al are found in figure 11; Gould discloses translation thereto);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving transfer throughput (English translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gould and Daikyu as taught by Hiroki and include Hiroki’s similar device having:
Claim 29: wherein the linear translation system is a linkage-based translation system that has a first set of linkages connected with, and supporting, the base of the first wafer handling robot arm and a second set of linkages connected with, and supporting, the base of the second wafer handling robot arm;
Claim 30: wherein the linkage-based translation system has a base and each set of linkages has at least (a) a corresponding first link with a corresponding first end and a corresponding second end, with the first end thereof rotatably connected to the base of the linkage- based translation system via a corresponding first rotational joint such that the corresponding first link is rotatable relative to the base of the linkage-based translation system about a corresponding a first axis, and (b) a corresponding second link with a first end and a second end, with the first end thereof rotatably connected with the second end of the corresponding first link and the second end thereof rotatably connected with the base of a corresponding one of the wafer handling robot arms via a corresponding rotational joint such that the corresponding wafer handling robot arm is rotatable relative to the corresponding second link about a corresponding second axis;
Claim 31: wherein the linkage-based translation system is configured such that the second end of each second link is constrained to move along the translation axis;
Claim 32: wherein the linkage-based translation system is configured such that the second end of each second link is constrained to move along a translation plane that is perpendicular to the first axes;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving transfer throughput.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0141856 discloses arms 13/14.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652