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
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 17/300,010 (“Copending”) in view of USPGPUB 20020120254, Julian.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 of copending includes all of the same limitations of claim 1 of the present application, but lacks an injection nozzle.
Julian discloses a robotic cutting assembly (par 0093) in the same field of endeavor as the substrate working robotic assembly of the present invention and includes an injection nozzle (flow tube 150) for spraying the workpiece after cutting (par 0115) in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece (par 0114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the present invention by including an injection nozzle therein, in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece as taught by Julian.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of Copending.
Regarding Claim 22 of Copending (in combination with Claim 16 of Copending) includes all of the same limitations of claim 16 of the present application but lacks a manipulatory arm. However, Claim 22 of Copending includes an attachment arm, which is analogous to a manipulatory arm of Claim 16. Thus, Claim 22 in Copending is not patentably distinct from Claim 16 of the present invention because the examined application claim is either anticipated by Claim 22 of Copending (since the attachment arm and the manipulatory arm may be considered patentably indistinct structures) or would have been obvious over, the reference claim (e.g. to make the attachment arm be manipulable).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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, 3, 8, and 10-12, 16, 20-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20090126542, Nonaka in view of USPGPUB 20020120254, Julian, USPGPUB 20180085913, Ilch, and USPGPUB 20160046018, Robertson.
Regarding Claim 1, Nonaka discloses a robotic machine (Figures 1-9 element 15) for removing a layer from a substrate (Abstract where it is disclosed that: element 15 cuts element S [layer] from element W [semiconductor “Wafer”, per par 0002, known in the art to be substrates] and furthermore; Also, Applicant is reminded, that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim [See MPEP 2114 (II)]), comprising:
a surface removal tool (63A-B);
a manipulatory arm (elements 62-64/100) having a first end (end connected to part 63) coupled to the surface removal tool (fig 5), wherein the manipulator arm positions the surface removal tool at a location along the substrate (par 0088-0090);
a rotation assembly (elements 64/65A) coupled to a second end (at end adjacent to portion 64, fig 5) of the manipulator arm (fig 5) for adjusting an angular position of the surface removal tool (see figure 5 arrow of movement (arrow A) of the rotation assembly and see also paragraph 0077 where the prior art states element 65A is provided “rotatably about the axis thereof” and a “NC [Numerical Control” in order to control the movements of the machine with respect to the workpiece]),
wherein the rotation assembly comprises a spindle (64), wherein the spindle is adapted to rotate (par 0077).
Nonaka lacks:
Feature I: wherein the surface removal tool comprises an injection nozzle, and,
Feature II: the spindle (of the rotating robot arm assembly) held by a spindle nut within a hub plate of the rotation assembly; a hinge pin attached to the rotation assembly via a hinge of the hub plate, the hinge pin further attached to a base plate, and
Feature III one or more air bladders coupled to the hub plate and the base plate, the air bladders biasing the base plate such that the surface removal tool is maintained at a set angle of contact.
Regarding Feature I:
Julian discloses a robotic cutting assembly (par 0093) in the same field of endeavor as the substrate working robotic assembly of the present invention and includes an injection nozzle (flow tube 150) for spraying the workpiece after cutting (par 0115) in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece (par 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the present invention by including an injection nozzle therein, in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece as taught by Julian.
Regarding Feature II:
Ilch discloses a rotating robotic arm tool (24), in the same field of endeavor as the rotating robotic arm tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the rotating robot tool including a spindle 25 (of the rotating robot arm assembly) held by a spindle nut 27 within a hub plate (combination of 1, 28 and 18) of the rotation assembly (fig 3, par 0038) and a hinge pin (pin of joint 17/18) attached to the rotation assembly via a hinge (17) of the hub plate (connected at 18, to plate 1), the hinge pin further attached to a base plate (via parts 18 and 1 and 28), in order to allow a movement of the robot arm with at least three degrees of freedom (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 spindle (of the rotating robot arm assembly) held by a spindle nut within a hub plate of the rotation assembly; a hinge pin attached to the rotation assembly via a hinge of the hub plate, the hinge pin further attached to a base plate, in order to allow a movement of the robot arm with at least three degrees of freedom as taught by Ilch.
Regarding Feature III:
Robertson discloses a robot manipulator arm assembly (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the a robot manipulator arm assembly of the present invention, and discloses that in such an assembly it is known to include: a robot manipulator arm assembly (500), including one or more air bladders (240/242) coupled to a hub plate 250 and the base plate (226), the air bladders biasing the base plate such that end effector arm (210) of the robot (500) is maintained at a set angle of contact (par 0041), in order to move and place the tool at a set range of motion in a controlled manner, 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 one or more air bladders coupled to the hub plate and the base plate thereof, the air bladders biasing the base plate such that the end effector arm of Nonaka (which end effector in Nonaka includes the surface removal tool) is maintained at a set angle of contact, in order to move and place the tool at a set range of motion in a controlled manner as taught by Robertson.
Regarding Claim 3, in Nonaka, the robotic machine of claim 1, includes wherein the surface removal tool is adapted to be positioned along a curved substrate (fig 6).
Regarding Claim 8, in Nonaka, the robotic machine of claim 1, further comprises: a mechanism to extend and retract the manipulator arm. (parts 65, par 0077).
Regarding Claim 10, Nonaka, lacks the robotic machine of claim 1, further comprising: a hose coupled to at least one of the surface removal tool and the manipulator arm for applying a fluid to a surface of the substrate.
Julian discloses a robotic cutting assembly (par 0093) in the same field of endeavor as the substrate working robotic assembly of the present invention and includes an injection nozzle (flow tube 150) for spraying the workpiece after cutting (par 0115), wherein per claim 10, the nozzle connects to a hose 154 is coupled to the manipulator arm (and see par 0009, which discloses that the holders of the robot tool can hold several accessories including the cutter and nozzles of par 0093 and 0115 and see par 0056) for applying a fluid to a surface of the substrate (par 0115) in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece (par 0114).
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 an injection nozzle thereon connected to a hose coupled to the manipulator arm for applying a fluid to a surface of the substrate, in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece as taught by Julian.
Regarding Claim 11, in Nonaka, the robotic machine of claim 1, further comprises: a camera (“Camera” par 0081).
Regarding Claim 12, in Nonaka, the robotic machine of claim 11, includes the camera is positioned to obtain a view of the substrate in a vicinity of the surface removal tool (par 0081).
Regarding Claim 16, Nonaka discloses a method for using a robotic machine (par 0081 and 0087) of Claim 1, (See claim 1 rejection above) to remove a layer from a substrate,(par 0097) comprising the steps of:
positioning the surface removal tool (63B) on the substrate (par 0087, Wafer W) using a robotic arm (par 0081), wherein the robotic arm comprises the manipulatory arm (elements 62-64/100);
adjusting an angular orientation of the surface removal tool using the rotation assembly coupled to the robotic arm (elements 64/65A, par 0077); and, moving the surface removal tool along the substrate to remove the layer (par 0087).
Regarding Claim 20, Nonaka lacks the step of positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the injection nozzle.
As noted in the Claim 1 rejection above, Julian discloses a robotic cutting assembly (par 0093) in the same field of endeavor as the substrate working robotic assembly of the present invention and includes an injection nozzle (flow tube 150) for spraying the workpiece after cutting (par 0115), and wherein the step of positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the injection nozzle (par 0115, since the positioning of the injection nozzle follows the cutting step, and may thus be considered a sub-step of the cutting step-operation) in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece (par 0014).
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 an injection nozzle therein, and wherein the step of positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning the injection nozzle in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece as taught by Julian.
Regarding Claim 21, in Nonaka, the step of positioning the surface removal tool (63A-B_ further comprises the step of positioning a blade (63), par 0077.
Regarding Claims 23 and 25, Nonaka discloses: moving the surface removal tool over a curved surface of the substrate (fig 6, par 0087).
Nonaka lacks, wherein the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of: coupling the injection nozzle to the surface removal tool (Claim 23) and further comprising the step of using the robotic arm to apply a fluid to the substrate (Claim 25).
Julian discloses a robotic cutting assembly (par 0093) in the same field of endeavor as the substrate working robotic assembly of the present invention and includes an injection nozzle (flow tube 150) for spraying the workpiece after cutting (par 0115), and wherein the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the step of step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the step of: (operatively) coupling the injection nozzle to the surface removal tool (par 0115) (Claim 23) and further comprising the step of using the robotic arm to apply a fluid to the substrate (par 0115) (Claim 25), in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece (par 0014).
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 an injection nozzle therein, and wherein the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises the steps of: coupling the injection nozzle to the surface removal tool (operatively) (Claim 23) and further comprising the step of using the robotic arm to apply a fluid to the substrate (Claim 25), in order to effect the removal of post cutting matter from said workpiece as taught by Julian.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20180264640, Holloway.
Regarding Claim 2 Nonaka lacks the apparatus having wherein the surface removal tool comprises a telescopic shaft, the injection nozzle attached to an end of the telescopic shaft.
Holloway discloses a robotic arm assembly (abstract/title), in the same field of endeavor as the robot arm assembly of the present invention and discloses that such a system comprises a telescopic shaft (402, Fig. 12), having an injection nozzle (404, par 0130) attached to an end of the telescopic shaft (fig 12) in order to allow the workpiece to be sprayed in a multitude of angles (par. 0130).
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 surface removal tool comprises a telescopic shaft, the injection nozzle attached to an end of the telescopic shaft in order to allow the workpiece to be sprayed in a multitude of angles as taught by Holloway.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson, as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of US 20030053903, Shanmugasundram.
Regarding Claim 4 Nonaka lacks the apparatus having wherein the rotation assembly comprises a worm assembly.
Shanmugasundram discloses a robotic substrate processing assembly (abstract) with a rotatable end effector arm (28), in the same field of endeavor as the robotic rotatable end effector arm of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the apparatus having wherein the rotation assembly (28/30) comprising a worm assembly (56 and 52) in order to allow the end effector and the blade 26 to rotate at a pivot axis 52 between a horizontal and a vertical position (par 0008).
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 worm assembly, in order to allow the end effector and the blade to rotate at a pivot axis between a horizontal and a vertical position as taught by Shanmugasundram.
Claim 5-6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson as applied to Claims 1 and 16, above, and further in view of US20180272543, Kayana.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Nonaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Nonaka lacks the apparatus having a plurality of surface removal tools and an attachment arm having a plurality of attachment points for attaching the plurality of surface removal tools (Claim 5) and wherein the plurality of surface removal tools further comprises a plurality of different types of surface removal tools (Claim 6).
Kayana discloses a robot tool and process of controlling the tool, in the same field of endeavor as the robot tool and process of controlling the tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the apparatus having a plurality of surface removal tools (510a and b) and an attachment arm (200 and 105) having a plurality of attachment points (330) for attaching the plurality of surface removal tools (par. 0039) (Claim 5) and wherein the plurality of surface removal tools further comprises a plurality of different types of surface removal tools (par. 0034, 0033) (Claim 6) in order to allow the same robot arm to work on different workpieces requiring different tools interchangeably, par 0031-0032.
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 apparatus having a plurality of surface removal tools and an attachment arm having a plurality of attachment points for attaching the plurality of surface removal tools (Claim 5) and wherein the plurality of surface removal tools further comprises a plurality of different types of surface removal tools (Claim 6)in order to allow the same robot arm to work on different workpieces requiring different tools interchangeably as taught by Kayana.
Regarding Claim 22, Nonaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above.
Nonaka lacks wherein the step of positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning an attachment arm having a plurality of the surface removal tools.
Kayana discloses a robot tool and process of controlling the tool, in the same field of endeavor as the robot tool and process of controlling the tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes the apparatus having a plurality of surface removal tools (510a and b), and wherein the step of positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning an attachment arm having a plurality of the surface removal tools (par 0031-0032) in order to allow the same robot arm to work on different workpieces requiring different tools interchangeably, par 0031-0032
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 positioning the surface removal tool further comprises the step of positioning an attachment arm having a plurality of the surface removal tools, in order to allow the same robot arm to work on different workpieces requiring different tools interchangeably as taught by Kayana.
Claims 7 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson as applied to Claims 1 and 16, above, and further in view of US 20070173789, Schena.
Regarding Claims 7 and 26 Nonaka lacks the apparatus having a device to limit a degree of the angular rotation.
Schena discloses a robotic device (abstract) with a rotatable end effector (1502) rotatable on a robotic arm (1501), in the same field of endeavor as the a robotic device with a rotatable end effector rotatable on a robotic arm of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a device (1718 and 1716) to limit a degree of the angular rotation of the end effector arm of the robot (par 0073)(Claim 7), and 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 (par 0073) (Claim 26) in order to ensure minimal movement at the workpiece during cutting (par 0034).
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 device to limit a degree of the angular rotation (Claim 7), 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 (Claim 26) in order to limit rotation of the end arm about the rotation axis and thus ensure minimal movement at the workpiece during cutting (par 0034) as taught by Schena.
Claims 9 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson, as applied to Claims 8 and 16, above, and further in view of US 20210171294 Hart.
Regarding Claims 9 and 27 Nonaka lacks the apparatus having wherein the mechanism (for retracting and extending the arms) comprises a hydraulic system (Claim 9), 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 (Claim 27).
Hart discloses a multi axis robotic arm assembly (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the multi axis robotic arm assembly of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes wherein the wherein a mechanism 44 (for retracting and extending robotic arms 32) comprises a hydraulic system (par. 0033) (Claim 9), 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 (par 0033) (Claim 27) in order to effectuate highly-accurate movements (par 0032).
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 wherein the mechanism (for retracting and extending the arms) comprises a hydraulic system (Claim 9), 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 (Claim 27) in order to effectuate highly-accurate movements as taught by Hart.
Claim 13-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson, and further in view of US 20180154518, Rossano.
Regarding Claim 13, Nonaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, as discussed above.
Nonaka lacks, the robotic machine of claim 11, further comprises: a user interface coupled to receive a signal from a camera and coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine.
Rossano discloses a multi axis robotic arm assembly (abstract and par 0039), in the same field of endeavor as the multi axis robotic arm assembly of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a user interface 138 and 136 coupled to receive a signal from a camera (par 0048) and coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine in order to effectuate highly-accurate movements (par 0050), in order to indicate the location and/or nature of work to be, or already performed, on the workpiece to users (par 0050).
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 user interface coupled to receive a signal from a camera and coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine in order to indicate the location and/or nature of work to be, or already performed, on the workpiece to user’s as taught by Rossano.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Nonaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above.
Nonaka lacks the apparatus having a user interface coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine and coupled to the robotic machine, wherein the robotic machine positions the surface removal tool in response to the command (Claim 14) wherein the user interface further comprises a joystick (Claim 15).
Rossano discloses a multi axis robotic arm assembly (abstract and par 0039), in the same field of endeavor as the multi axis robotic arm assembly of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a user interface (GUI 136) coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine (par. 0046) and coupled to the robotic machine (par. 0046), wherein the robotic machine positions the surface removal tool in response to the command (via 138) (Claim 14) wherein the user interface further comprises a joystick (138) (Claim 15), in order to allow the user to control the robot in response to workpiece characteristics (par 0046).
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 user interface coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine and coupled to the robotic machine, wherein the robotic machine positions the surface removal tool in response to the command (Claim 14) wherein the user interface further comprises a joystick (Claim 15) in order to allow the user to control the robot in response to workpiece characteristics as taught by Rossano.
Regarding Claim 19 Nonaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, as discussed above.
Nonaka lacks the method of claim 16, including wherein 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 located on the robotic arm; and, inputting a user command to the robotic arm in response to the step of viewing the position.
Rossano discloses a multi axis robotic arm assembly (abstract and par 0039), in the same field of endeavor as the multi axis robotic arm assembly of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a user interface (GUI 136) coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine (par. 0046) and coupled to the robotic machine (par. 0046), the method of use thereof including wherein 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 located on the robotic arm; and, inputting a user command to the robotic arm in response to the step of viewing the position (par 0046) in order to allow the user to control the robot in response to workpiece characteristics (par 0046).
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 user interface coupled to receive a command from an operator of the robotic machine and coupled to the robotic machine, wherein the robotic machine positions the surface removal tool in response to the command the method of use thereof including wherein 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 located on the robotic arm; and, inputting a user command to the robotic arm in response to the step of viewing the position in order to allow the user to control the robot in response to workpiece characteristics as taught by Rossano.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson as applied to Claim 16, above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20160256993, Noack.
Regarding Claims 17-18, Nonaka lacks the method of claim 16, wherein the step of moving the surface removal tool further comprises a step of using a driver system to oscillate the surface removal tool (Claim 17), and wherein the step of using a driver system comprises the step of hydraulically oscillating the surface removal tool (Claim 18).
Noack discloses an oscillating blade assembly (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the oscillating blade assembly of the present invention and includes a step of using a driver system (par 0053, drive motor) to oscillate the surface removal tool (blade fingers 38) (Claim 17), and wherein the step of using a driver system comprises the step of hydraulically oscillating the surface removal tool (par 0050) (Claim 18), in order to generate the oscillating motion of the tool with minimal wear (see par. 0014).
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 step of using a driver system to oscillate the surface removal tool (Claim 17), and wherein the step of using a driver system comprises the step of hydraulically oscillating the surface removal tool (Claim 18), in order to generate the oscillating motion of the tool with minimal wear, as taught by Noack.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka, in view of Julian, Ilch, and Robertson as applied to Claim 16, above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20190301049, Zimmerman.
Regarding Claim 24, Nonaka also includes the steps of: piercing at least a surface layer of the substrate using the surface removal tool (par 0089-0090).
Nonaka lacks the method of Claim 16, further comprising; a method of removing a wafer from a substrate, in the same field of endeavor as the method of removing a wafer from a substrate of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate.
Zimmerman discloses a method of removing a wafer from a substrate (par 0004), in the same field of endeavor as the method of removing a wafer from a substrate of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate (par 0038) in order to improve the delivery of cleaning fluid to the wafer (par 0038).
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 injecting a fluid underneath the surface layer of the substrate in order to improve the delivery of cleaning fluid to the wafer as taught in Zimmerman.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20120205168 20110100146 20240051172 20180022324 5516249 20070005002, 20090126542 20220097292 5245885 20160046018 20020120254 5804507, 20240091939 20240051172 20180022324 5245885 20240051172, 20070005002, 20210138668 and 20120138577 disclose state of the art articulated robot arm mechanisms, while USPGPUB 20100043610 discloses a hydraulic system for moving a blade. 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
