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
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the step of, or features which enable the “moving the surface removal tool 100 along the substrate to remove the layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Also, the step of, or features which enable the “step of using a driver system, to oscillate scraping tool” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Looking at par. 0036 it is disclosed that “Oscillating scraping tool 195 is further coupled to a motor or other vibrating device, to oscillate scraping tool 195 from side to side”. However, the motor or vibrating device which enable the oscillation do not appear to be shown in the figures/drawing.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein the step of using a driver system” should read: “wherein the step of using [[a]] the driver system”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation reading “wherein the rotation assembly coupled to a second end of the manipulator arm.” should read: “wherein the rotation assembly is coupled to a second end of the manipulator arm.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
the “rotation assembly” in claim 1, and
the “driver system” in claim 2, and
With regard to the term “rotation assembly”,:
first, the term “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “rotation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “rotation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the rotation assembly.
With regard to the term “driver system”,:
first, the term “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “driver”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “driver” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the driver system.
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The term “manipulatory arm” of Claim 1 is not in the specification. It is not clear which part is the manipulatory arm.
The term “robotic arm” of Claim 1 is not in the specification. It is not clear which part is the robotic arm; however broadly speaking it appears that any combination of parts 130, 160 and 115 can be the robotic arm. (see par. 0022).
The term “attachment arm” of Claim 1 is not in the specification. It is not clear which part is the attachment arm; however broadly speaking it appears that any combination of parts 160 and 150 can be the attachment arm. (see par. 0022).
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation of Claim 1 reading: “a robotic arm comprising a manipulatory arm” is indefinite. The term “manipulatory arm” of Claim 1 is not in the specification. It is not clear which part is the manipulatory arm. For example, all of the parts 130, 160, and 115 are manipulable. For purposes of advancing prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted, any of the parts 160, 130 or 115 being the manipulatory arm, as best understood in light of the specification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “positioning the surface removal tool” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a surface removal tool has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the brush” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because a brush has not been previously delimited in the claim it is unclear if this refers to some other previously claimed structure, or whether this is a newly introduced structure. If this is newly introduced structure than the limitation should be preceded by the pronoun “a” instead of “the”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20090126542 Nonaka, in view of USPGPUB 20090264052, Torikoshi.
Regarding Claim 1, a method for removing a layer from a semiconductor wafer W (see Abstract where prior art states element 15 cuts element S (layer) from element W (Wafer)), comprising the steps of:
positioning the surface removal tool (elements 63/100) on the substrate using a robotic arm (62, 65E and 65) comprising a manipulatory arm (62 and 65C), wherein the surface removal tool comprises a blade (63b);
adjusting an angular orientation of the surface removal tool using a rotation assembly (65a) coupled to the robotic arm (fig. 5); and,
moving the surface removal tool along the substrate to remove the layer (par 0090).
Regarding Claim 2, in Nonaka the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the step of using a driver system (par. 0080, vibrating device).
Regarding Claim 14, in Nonaka the rotation assembly (65A) is coupled to a second end of the manipulator arm (62/65C) (fig. 5).
Nonaka Lacks the wafer being a substrate (as required in/by: Claim 1).
Torikoshi discloses a method of removing material from a surfacer of a wafer in the same field of endeavor as the method of removing material from a surfacer of a wafer of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the wafer being a substrate (par 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including the wafers to be processed therein being substrates since such wafers are known to be substrates in the field of processing wafers as taught by Torikoshi.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPN 4354810, Stidham.
Regarding Claim 3, Nonaka lacks wherein the step of using a driver system comprises the step of hydraulically oscillating the surface removal tool.
Stidham discloses a substrate processing tool in the same field of endeavor as the substrate processing tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a step of using a driver system comprising the step of hydraulically oscillating a surface removal tool for removing the surface from the substrate (col. 3, 40-55) in order to give a wavy pattern to the finished substrate which is disclosed to be beneficial in certain environments (col. 5, 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including a substrate processing tool in the same field of endeavor as the substrate processing tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a step of using a driver system comprising the step of hydraulically oscillating a surface removal tool for removing the surface from the substrate, in order to give a wavy pattern to the finished substrate which is disclosed to be beneficial in certain environments as taught by Stidham.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20150322443, McCarty.
Regarding Claim 4, in Nonaka the steps of positioning and adjusting the angular orientation of the surface removal tool further comprise the steps of: viewing a position of the surface removal tool via a camera (par. 0081) located on the robotic arm (par. 0081); and,
Nonaka lacks: inputting a user command to the robotic arm in response to the step of viewing the position of the tool.
McCarty discloses an automated cutting device in the same field of endeavor as the automated cutting device of Nonaka, and involved with the same problem of communicating camera generated system performance data to a user as the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes allowing a user to input a user command to a cutter in response to the step of viewing the position of the cutter via a camera (par 0161 and 0197) in order to ___.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including inputting a user command to the robotic arm in response to the step of viewing the position of the tool in order to allow a user to adjust the cutting based on the camera generated images (par 0197), as taught by Yamaguchi.
Claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20170106924, Hafenrichter.
Regarding Claim 5, Nonaka lacks where positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the brush.
Hafenrichter discloses a robot with an end effector arm in the same field of endeavor as the robot with an end effector arm of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a surface removal tool (end effector 224) which includes a brush attachment, and also includes positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the brush in order to allow the robot to work on a variety of structures to include a variety of end functions in a single tool, par. 0007.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including a brush tool attachable to the end effector and positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the brush in order to allow the robot to work on a variety of structures to include a variety of end functions in a single tool, as taught via Hafenrichter.
Regarding Claim 6, in Nonaka positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the blade (par 0090).
Regarding Claim 7, in Nonaka the step of positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning an (the) attachment arm having a plurality of the surface removal tools (par 00081, since the tool 63 is said to be replaceable by different tools).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20170001250 George.
Regarding Claim 8, of claim 1, wherein the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of: coupling a pressure roller to the surface removal tool; and, moving the surface removal tool over a curved surface of the substrate.
George discloses a robot with an end effector arm in the same field of endeavor as the robot with an end effector arm of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the use of a roller bearing (9 and 10) on the end effector in combination with a cutting tool 4/5 and a step of moving the surface removal tool 1 further comprises the steps of: coupling a pressure roller (9/10) to the surface removal tool (fig 1 ); and, moving the surface removal tool over a curved surface of the workpiece, (sacrificial element, / material to be cut, per par 0009 and 0037) in order to allow for the gripping/manipulation of the workpiece during a cutting action (par 0009 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including a pressure roller tool attachable to the end effector the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of: coupling a pressure roller to the surface removal tool; and, moving the surface removal tool over a curved surface of the substrate in order to allow for the gripping/manipulation of the workpiece during a cutting action, as taught via George.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi and George as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20190318954, Kobayashi and USPGPUB 20040074625 Musat and in view of the teachings of USPGPUB 20170106924, Hafenrichter.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Nonaka lacks: piercing at least a surface layer of the substrate using the surface removal tool and injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate (Claim 9), and further comprising the step of using the robotic arm to apply a fluid to the substrate (Claim 10).
Kobayashi discloses a robotic substrate processing device, in the same field of endeavor as the robotic substrate processing device of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a fluid depositing tool 3-32A which is connected to an end effector arm thereof (par 0308) which injects fluid to a wafer (par 0308), in order to remove residue caused during processing (par 0308) while Musat discloses a wafer processing device in the same field of endeavor as the wafer processing device of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that in such an apparatus it is beneficial to pierce at least a surface layer of the substrate being processed using an effector arm and injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate (par 0042) in order to cool the substrate after processing (par 0042), and Hafenrichter discloses that in a robotic end effector device for processing substrates that is is beneficial to have multiple different tools attached to a single end effector arm in order to allow the robot to work on a variety of structures to include a variety of end functions in a single tool (par 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including a fluid nozzle to the end effector and to use the robotic arm to apply a fluid to the substrate of Nonaka (Claim 10) in order to remove residue caused during processing as taught by Kobayashi and in view of the teachings of Hafenrichter of using several tools on a single end effector. Also, it would have been obvious to pierce at least a surface layer of the substrate using the surface removal tool and injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate (Claim 9) in order to cool the substrate after processing as taught by Musat.
Claims 11 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20160046018, Robertson.
Regarding Claim 11, wherein the step of adjusting an angular position of the surface removal tool further comprises the step of limiting an angular rotation of the surface removal tool.
Robertson discloses a robotic end effector assembly in the same field of endeavor as the robotic end effector assembly/tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a step of limiting an angular rotation of an end effector (220) (which is analogous to the surface removal tool of the present invention) in order to limit the movement to a particular range (par. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including the step of limiting an angular rotation of the surface removal tool in order to limit the movement to a particular range as taught by Robertson.
Regarding Claim 13, in Nonaka the surface removal tool is coupled to a first end of the manipulatory arm, wherein the manipulator arm positions the surface removal tool at a location along the substrate (par 0090 and see fig 5).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi and Robertson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20160023398, Drinic.
Regarding Claim 12, Nonaka lacks wherein the steps of positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of hydraulically positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool.
Drinic discloses a robotic end effector assembly in the same field of endeavor as the robotic end effector assembly/tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a wherein the steps of positioning and adjusting the angle of an end effector arm 24 (which is analogous to the surface removal tool of the present invention) comprises the steps of hydraulically positioning and adjusting the angle of the end effector (par 0073 and 0109) in order to adjust the length and angle of the arm in a controllable manner (par 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including wherein the steps of positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of hydraulically positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool in order to adjust the length and angle of the arm in a controllable manner as taught by Drinic.
Claims 15-17, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20170057096, Saadat.
Regarding Claims 15-17, Nonaka lacks: wherein the rotation assembly comprises a spindle wherein the spindle is adapted to rotate, the spindle held by a spindle nut within a hub plate of the rotation assembly (Claim 15), and wherein the rotation assembly is attached to a hinge pin via a hinge of the hub plate (Claim 16), and wherein the hinge pin is further attached to a base plate (Claim 17).
Saadat discloses a robotic end effector assembly in the same field of endeavor as the robotic end effector assembly/tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a wherein the rotation assembly comprises a spindle (12/12b) wherein the spindle is adapted to rotate (par 0040), the spindle held by a spindle nut (13b) within a hub plate 14b of the rotation assembly (par 0040 and fig 2) (Claim 15), and wherein the rotation assembly is attached to a hinge pin 8 via a hinge of the hub plate (par 0040 and fig 10 and 2) (Claim 16), and wherein the hinge pin is further attached to a base plate 14c (Claim 17), in order to rotatably support the arm in a dual hinge manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including wherein the rotation assembly comprises a spindle wherein the spindle is adapted to rotate, the spindle held by a spindle nut within a hub plate of the rotation assembly (Claim 15), and wherein the rotation assembly is attached to a hinge pin via a hinge of the hub plate (Claim 16), and wherein the hinge pin is further attached to a base plate (Claim 17) in order to rotatably support the arm in a dual hinge manner as taught by Saadat.
Regarding Claim 21, in Nonaka positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the blade (par 0090).
Regarding Claim 22, in Nonaka the step of positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning an (the) attachment arm having a plurality of the surface removal tools (par 00081, since the tool 63 is said to be replaceable by different tools).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi and Sadaat as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US5403056, Wallace.
Regarding Claim 18, Nonaka lacks wherein the base plate and the hub plate are attached to one or more air bladders the air bladders biasing the base plate such that the surface removal tool is maintained at a set angle of contact.
Wallace discloses a robotic end effector assembly in the same field of endeavor as the robotic end effector assembly/tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes wherein a base plate (24) and a hub plate (20) that are attached to one or more air bladders (col 3, lines 20-34) the air bladders biasing the base plate such that the surface removal tool is maintained at a set angle of contact (col 3, lines 20-34) in order to selectively effect the use of the tool of the end effector (col 3, lines 20-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including wherein the base plate and the hub plate are attached to one or more air bladders the air bladders biasing the base plate such that the surface removal tool is maintained at a set angle of contact in order to selectively effect the use of the tool of the end effector as taught by Wallace.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi and Sadaat as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of McCarty.
Regarding Claim 19, in Nonaka the steps of positioning and adjusting the angular orientation of the surface removal tool further comprise the steps of: viewing a position of the surface removal tool via a camera (par. 0081) located on the robotic arm (par. 0081); and,
Nonaka lacks: inputting a user command to the robotic arm in response to the step of viewing the position of the tool.
McCarty discloses an automated cutting device in the same field of endeavor as the automated cutting device of Nonaka, and involved with the same problem of communicating camera generated system performance data to a user as the present invention, and discloses that such a system includes allowing a user to input a user command to a cutter in response to the step of viewing the position of the cutter via a camera (par 0161 and 0197) in order to ___.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including inputting a user command to the robotic arm in response to the step of viewing the position of the tool in order to allow a user to adjust the cutting based on the camera generated images (par 0197), as taught by Yamaguchi.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi and Sadaat as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Stidham.
Regarding Claim 20, Nonaka lacks wherein the step of using a driver system comprises the step of hydraulically oscillating the surface removal tool.
Stidham discloses a substrate processing tool in the same field of endeavor as the substrate processing tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a step of using a driver system comprising the step of hydraulically oscillating a surface removal tool for removing the surface from the substrate (col. 3, 40-55) in order to give a wavy pattern to the finished substrate which is disclosed to be beneficial in certain environments (col. 5, 60-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including a substrate processing tool in the same field of endeavor as the substrate processing tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a step of using a driver system comprising the step of hydraulically oscillating a surface removal tool for removing the surface from the substrate, in order to give a wavy pattern to the finished substrate which is disclosed to be beneficial in certain environments as taught by Stidham.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi and Sadaat as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of George.
Regarding Claim 23, Nonaka lacks wherein the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of: coupling a pressure roller to the surface removal tool; and, moving the surface removal tool over a curved surface of the substrate.
George discloses a robot with an end effector arm in the same field of endeavor as the robot with an end effector arm of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the use of a roller bearing (9 and 10) on the end effector in combination with a cutting tool 4/5 and a step of moving the surface removal tool 1 further comprises the steps of: coupling a pressure roller (9/10) to the surface removal tool (fig 1 ); and, moving the surface removal tool over a curved surface of the workpiece, (sacrificial element, / material to be cut, per par 0009 and 0037) in order to allow for the gripping/manipulation of the workpiece during a cutting action (par 0009 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including a pressure roller tool attachable to the end effector the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of: coupling a pressure roller to the surface removal tool; and, moving the surface removal tool over a curved surface of the substrate in order to allow for the gripping/manipulation of the workpiece during a cutting action, as taught via George.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi /Sadaat as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kobayashi and Musat and in view of the teachings of Hafenrichter.
Regarding Claims 24-25, Nonaka lacks: piercing at least a surface layer of the substrate using the surface removal tool and injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate (Claim 24), and further comprising the step of using the robotic arm to apply a fluid to the substrate (Claim 25).
Kobayashi discloses a robotic substrate processing device, in the same field of endeavor as the robotic substrate processing device of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a fluid depositing tool 3-32A which is connected to an end effector arm thereof (par 0308) which injects fluid to a wafer (par 0308), in order to remove residue caused during processing (par 0308) while Musat discloses a wafer processing device in the same field of endeavor as the wafer processing device of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that in such an apparatus it is beneficial to pierce at least a surface layer of the substrate being processed using an effector arm and injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate (par 0042) in order to cool the substrate after processing (par 0042), and Hafenrichter discloses that in a robotic end effector device for processing substrates that is is beneficial to have multiple different tools attached to a single end effector arm in order to allow the robot to work on a variety of structures to include a variety of end functions in a single tool (par 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including a fluid nozzle to the end effector and to use the robotic arm to apply a fluid to the substrate of Nonaka (Claim 25) in order to remove residue caused during processing as taught by Kobayashi and in view of the teachings of Hafenrichter of using several tools on a single end effector. Also, it would have been obvious to pierce at least a surface layer of the substrate using the surface removal tool and injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate (Claim 24) in order to cool the substrate after processing as taught by Musat.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi/Sadaat as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Robertson.
Regarding Claim 26, Nonaka lacks wherein the step of adjusting an angular position of the surface removal tool further comprises the step of limiting an angular rotation of the surface removal tool.
Robertson discloses a robotic end effector assembly in the same field of endeavor as the robotic end effector assembly/tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a step of limiting an angular rotation of an end effector (220) (which is analogous to the surface removal tool of the present invention) in order to limit the movement to a particular range (par. 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including the step of limiting an angular rotation of the surface removal tool in order to limit the movement to a particular range as taught by Robertson.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka in view of Torikoshi as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Drinic.
Regarding Claim 27, Nonaka lacks wherein the steps of positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of hydraulically positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool.
Drinic discloses a robotic end effector assembly in the same field of endeavor as the robotic end effector assembly/tool of Nonaka and of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a wherein the steps of positioning and adjusting the angle of an end effector arm 24 (which is analogous to the surface removal tool of the present invention) comprises the steps of hydraulically positioning and adjusting the angle of the end effector (par 0073 and 0109) in order to adjust the length and angle of the arm in a controllable manner (par 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nonaka by including wherein the steps of positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of hydraulically positioning and adjusting the angle of the surface removal tool in order to adjust the length and angle of the arm in a controllable manner as taught by Drinic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20170062264 20090126542 20190210177 20090264052 and 20090126542 20160099156 20040074625 and 20040231589 disclose state of the art end effector tools, while USPN/USPGPUB’s 8010224 and 20190099886 disclose end effectors with liquid injecting parts. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights