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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-5,7-8,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremerman (US 2010/0178147) in view of Hudgens (US 9,033,644).
Re claim 1, Kremerman teaches a system (figure 13 with system 100 (see figure 1)) comprising: a base 1311; a torso unit 1310 rotatably connected with the base such that the torso unit is rotatable relative to the base about a main rotational axis (not numbered) and robot arms (1332A, 1332AA, 1332B, 1332BB) supported by the torso unit. Kremerman does not show the robot arms as claimed, however, this is already known in the art as shown by Hudgens (303, figures 1,3B-3E, column 8, lines 30-44) with torso 222 and upper and lower sets of robot arms retractable and extendable and anywhere between (near-extension). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kremerman as claimed in order to be able to handle more substrates and have higher throughput in loading/unloading more substrate locations in varied sized process chambers.
As already modified Kremerman teaches the first robot arms are each configured to transition between at least a first retracted state, a first near-extension state, and a first far-extension state, a first distal location of each first robot arm that is furthest from the main rotational axis when that first robot arm is in the first far-extension state is closer to the main rotational axis when that first robot arm is in the first retracted state than when that first robot arm is in the first near- extension state, the first distal location of each first robot arm is closer to the main rotational axis when that first robot arm is in the first near-extension state than when that first robot arm is in the first far- extension state, the second robot arms are each configured to transition between at least a second retracted state, a second near-extension state, and a second far-extension state, a second distal location of each second robot arm that is furthest from the main rotational axis when that second robot arm is in the second far-extension state is closer to the main rotational axis when that second robot arm is in the second retracted state than when that second robot arm is in the second near-extension state, and the second distal location of each second robot arm is closer to the main rotational axis when that second robot arm is in the second near-extension state than when that second robot arm is in the second far-extension state.
Re claim 2, Kremerman as already modified teaches each of the first robot arms is configured to support two wafers in an over/under configuration with one of the two wafers centered on a corresponding upper first location that is fixed [0056] with respect to a portion of that first robot arm that is configured to support the wafers and the other of the two wafers centered on a corresponding lower first location that is fixed with respect to the portion of that first robot arm that is configured to support the wafers, the upper first locations are each nominally centered over different first corners of a first square region when the first robot arms are at least in one of the first near-extension state or the first far-extension state, the lower first locations are each nominally centered over different second corners of the first square region different from the first corners of the first square region when the first robot arms are at least in the other of the first near-extension state or the first far-extension state, each of the second robot arms is configured to support two wafers in an over/under configuration with one of the two wafers centered on a corresponding upper second location that is fixed with respect to a portion of that second robot arm that is configured to support the wafers and the other of the two wafers centered on a corresponding lower second location that is fixed with respect to the portion of that second robot arm that is configured to support the wafers, the upper second locations are each nominally centered over different first corners of a second square region when the second robot arms are at least in one of the second near-extension state or the second far-extension state, the lower second locations are each nominally centered over different second corners of the second square region different from the first corners of the second square region when the second robot arms are at least in the other of the second near-extension state or the second far-extension state, and the first square region and the second square region are located in the same position and have the same orientation and the same size.
Inherently at least broadly there can be considered square regions or any other shaped regions about the corners.
Re claims 3,4, Kremerman as already modified teaches the upper first location and the lower first location for at least one of the first robot arms both lie along a corresponding common vertical axis or different, non-coaxial vertical axes as it is not limited where the locations are fixed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kremerman as claimed in order to be located wherever is advantageous to given situational needs and the associated varied wafer drop-off /pick-up / etc. locations.
Re claim 5, Kremerman as already modified (see figures) teaches for each first robot arm: that first robot arm has a corresponding first end effector support arm and a plurality of corresponding first arm links, the corresponding first arm links for that first robot arm including a corresponding first base link and one or more corresponding first intermediate arm links, the corresponding first base link for that first robot arm is rotatably connected with the torso unit such that the corresponding first base link for that first robot arm is rotatable relative to the torso unit about a corresponding first axis, and the corresponding first base link for that first robot arm supports the one or more corresponding first intermediate arm links and the one or more corresponding first base links for that first robot arm support the corresponding first end effector support arm for that first robot arm; and wherein, for each second robot arm: that second robot arm has a corresponding second end effector support arm and a plurality of corresponding second arm links, the corresponding second arm links for that second robot arm including a corresponding second base link and one or more corresponding second intermediate arm links, the corresponding second base link for that second robot arm is rotatably connected with the torso unit such that the corresponding second base link for that second robot arm is rotatable relative to the torso unit about a corresponding second axis, and the corresponding second base link for that second robot arm supports the one or more corresponding second intermediate arm links and the one or more corresponding second base links for that second robot arm support the corresponding second end effector support arm for that second robot arm, wherein: the first axes and the second axes are all substantially parallel to one another, the first axes are spaced apart from one another in directions perpendicular to the first axes, and the second axes are spaced apart from one another in directions perpendicular to the second axes.
Re claim 7, Kremerman as already modified (see figures) teaches the first arm links in the plurality of corresponding first arm links for each of the first robot arms are configured to rotate relative to one another about corresponding rotational axes substantially parallel to the first axes, the first end effector support arm for each of the first robot arms is configured to rotate about a corresponding rotational axis relative to the corresponding first intermediate arm link of that first robot arm closest thereto, wherein that corresponding rotational axis is substantially parallel to the first axes, the second arm links in the plurality of corresponding second arm links for each of the second robot arms are configured to rotate relative to one another about corresponding rotational axes substantially parallel to the second axes, and the second end effector support arm for each of the second robot arms is configured to rotate about a corresponding rotational axis relative to the corresponding second intermediate arm link of that second robot arm closest thereto, wherein that corresponding rotational axis is substantially parallel to the second axes.
Re claim 8, Kremerman as already modified (see figures) teaches each first robot arm has two corresponding first arm links (base link and intermediate link) and each second robot arm has two corresponding second arm links (base link and intermediate link).
Re claim 20, Kremerman as already modified (see figures such as Kremerman cover, figures 8,9,13) teaches comprising a transfer chamber, wherein: the base is fixedly mounted with respect to the transfer chamber, the torso unit is located at least partially within the transfer chamber, the first robot arms are located entirely within the transfer chamber when in the first retracted state, the second robot arms are located entirely within the transfer chamber when in the second retracted state, and the torso unit, along with the first robot arms and the second robot arms, is rotatable by at least 90 degrees within and relative to the transfer chamber when the first robot arms are in the first retracted state and the second robot arms are in the second retracted state.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremerman (US 2010/0178147) in view of Hudgens (US 9,033,644) and Bacchi (US 6,155,768).
Re claim 6, Kremerman as already modified appears to show the claimed limitations including the translation axes movements, but does not explicitly state translation (linear) movement is used to accomplish movements shown in the figures. Bacchi teaches robot arms on a torso that have translation (linear) movement (abstract, figures) in order to allow movements in and out of tighter spaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kremerman as claimed in order to allow movements in and out of tighter spaces.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremerman (US 2010/0178147) in view of Hudgens (US 9,033,644) and Krupyshev (US 9,623,555).
Re claims 9-13, Kremerman doesn’t appear to address whether the base links and intermediate links are equal or unequal in length. However, changes in size & shape are known to be obvious (MPEP 2144; In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Also Krupyshev teaches it is already known for base links and intermediate links, etc. of robots to be equal or unequal as needed to achieve desired movement profiles of varied given systems (column 10 last paragraph – column 11 first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kremerman as claimed in order to achieve desired movement profiles of varied given systems.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremerman (US 2010/0178147) in view of Hudgens (US 9,033,644), Krupyshev (US 9,623,555) and Jung (KR20080099612A).
Re claim 17, Kremerman does not appear to teach the first axes are spaced apart by a distance that is different than a distance that the second axes are spaced apart by. However, Jung (abstract, figures 2,4,8,10) shows a similar system 100 with robots with the first axes are spaced apart by a distance that is different than a distance that the second axes are spaced apart allowing a different movement profiles and footprint. Also rearrangement of parts and changes in shape are obvious modifications (MPEP 2144; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kremerman as claimed in order to allow different movement profiles and footprints to meet the needs of varied arranged processing systems and available footprints.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kremerman (US 2010/0178147) in view of Hudgens (US 9,033,644) and Kato (US 10,269,613).
Re claims 18-19, Kremerman does not teach end effector support arms with the offset jog and shaped as claimed. However, Kato (abstract, summary of invention, cover, figure 2) shows a similar system with robots with end effector support arms with the offset jog and shaped as claimed in order to allow a desired movement path. Also rearrangement of parts and changes in shape are obvious modifications (MPEP 2144; In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified Kremerman as claimed in order to allow different movement profiles and footprints to meet the needs of varied arranged processing systems and available footprints.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwai teaches (abstract, cover, figures) fixed end effector wafer supports fixed and vertically stacked.
Muthukamatchi teaches (figure 2C) robot support arms with parallel and offset jogs.
Wakabayashi teaches two wafers supported on the same end effector support arm and 2x2 wafer supports in process chambers (cover, figures 6A,6B).
Kim teaches 2x2 and larger wafer supports in process chambers (cover, figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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 5712727097. 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 S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights