DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed 18 June 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 10-12, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch (DE 202005017588 U1) in view of Okamura et al. (US 2024/0222185; 102(a)(2) date: Jan. 19, 2022) (“Okamura”). Bosch discloses:
Claim 1: an articulated arm (14/16/etc.),
wherein the articulated arm comprises:
a hand configured to support the electronic substrate (12; para. [0018], transferring implies a hand; intended use; MPEP 2115);
a base (24);
an arm connecting the hand to the base (14/16); and
a plurality of joints arranged along the arm (Fig. 1, 18/etc.),
wherein the plurality of joints are driven respectively around rotational axes each of which is along a vertical orientation perpendicular to the electronic substrate,
wherein at least a part of the articulated arm is configured to be accommodated in a chamber having an opening (Fig. 4),
wherein the robot further comprises a flange (22) extending between the base and the arm to cover the opening of the chamber,
wherein the flange has a longitudinal orientation (right/left in Fig. 4), and
wherein a rotational axis of the rotational axes proximate to the base is located between one end of the flange and a center of the flange in the longitudinal orientation (about 20/24), and
Claim 2: wherein the arm comprises a first link and a second link,
wherein the plurality of joints comprise:
a first joint connecting the first link to the base to rotate around a first axis that is one of the rotational axes;
a second joint connecting the second link to an end of the first link to rotate around a second axis that is one of the rotational axes; and
a third joint connecting the hand to an end of the second link to rotate around a third axis that is one of the rotational axes (joints shown in Fig. 1),
wherein a distance between the first axis and the one end of the flange is less than a distance between the first axis and the center of the flange (Fig. 1);
Claim 5: a base actuator comprising:
a main body fixed to the base; and
an output shaft protruding from the main body, fixed to the first link, and configured to rotate around the first axis (Fig. 1/4); and
a seal member sealing between the flange and the output shaft (46);
Claim 10: a plurality of leg portions protruding from the flange, which surrounds the base, wherein a height from the flange of each of the leg portions is greater than a height from the flange of the base (multiple vertical leg portion structures shown in Fig. 4 below 62);
Claim 11: the chamber (64),
wherein the chamber has a longitudinal orientation, and
wherein the longitudinal orientation of the chamber is aligned with the longitudinal orientation of the flange (Fig. 4 shows flange and chamber with orientations);
Claim 12: wherein the arm comprises a first link and a second link,
wherein the plurality of joints comprise:
a first joint connecting the first link to the base to rotate around a first axis that is one of the rotational axes;
a second joint connecting the second link to an end of the first link to rotate around a second axis that is one of the rotational axes; and
a third joint connecting the hand to an end of the second link to rotate around a third axis that is one of the rotational axes (joints shown in Fig. 1),
wherein a distance between the first axis and the one end of the flange is less than a distance between the first axis and the center of the flange (Fig. 1);
Claim 15: wherein the chamber comprises a top plate and a bottom plate that face each other in a vertical orientation of the chamber (Fig. 4), and
wherein the opening is provided in the bottom plate (in 62);
Claim 19. The electronic substrate transfer device according to claim 12, further comprising:
a base actuator comprising:
a main body fixed to the base; and
an output shaft protruding from the main body, fixed to the first link, and configured to rotate around the first axis (Fig. 1/4); and
a seal member sealing between the flange and the output shaft (46).
Bosch does not directly show:
Claim 1: wherein a first longitudinal distance from the rotational axis to the one end of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is less than a second longitudinal distance from the rotational axis to the center of the flange in the longitudinal orientation.
Okamura shows a similar device having:
[AltContent: textbox (L1 < L2)][AltContent: textbox (L2)][AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: textbox (EF)][AltContent: textbox (CF)][AltContent: textbox (RA)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
674
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1: wherein a first longitudinal distance (longitudinal orientation is right/left in FIG. 3) from the rotational axis (see modified FIG. 3 above, RA) to the one end of the flange (see modified FIG. 3 above, EF) in the longitudinal orientation (see modified FIG. 3 above, L1) is less than a second longitudinal distance from the rotational axis to the center of the flange (see modified FIG. 3 above, CF) in the longitudinal orientation (see modified FIG. 3 above, L2; L1 < L2);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the accuracy of transferring substrates using the robot by increasing stiffness of the robot and/or decreasing deflection of the robot (para. [0005]/[0007]/. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bosch as taught by Okamura and include Okamura’s similar device having:
Claim 1: wherein a first longitudinal distance from the rotational axis to the one end of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is less than a second longitudinal distance from the rotational axis to the center of the flange in the longitudinal orientation;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving the accuracy of transferring substrates using the robot by increasing stiffness of the robot and/or decreasing deflection of the robot.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Okamura. Bosch discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above; and
Claim 4 (Claim 4 depends on Claim 3): wherein a width of the flange in an orientation perpendicular to the longitudinal orientation (in/out of page in Fig. 1) is smaller than the length of the first link (Fig. 1);
Claim 18: wherein a width of the flange in an orientation perpendicular to the longitudinal orientation (in/out of page in Fig. 1) and a vertical orientation of the chamber is smaller (thin 22) than the length of the first link (Fig. 1).
Bosch does not directly show:
Claim 3: wherein a length of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is greater than a length of the first link;
Claim 18: wherein a length of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is greater than a length of the first link.
This relative length as claimed may be shown in Fig. 1 of Bosch; however, it cannot be assumed to be shown therein.
Bosch shows a similar device having:
Claim 3: wherein a length of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is greater than a length of the first link;
Claim 18: wherein a length of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is greater than a length of the first link;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of catching on the flange any materials that fall from the first link (etc.) that may be on the first link for maintenance (damage control) since a damaged flange thereto is more readily replaced than the floor of a damaged chamber. Further, it has been held that changes in size is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A); see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bosch as taught by Bosch and include Bosch’s similar device having:
Claim 3: wherein a length of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is greater than a length of the first link;
Claim 18: wherein a length of the flange in the longitudinal orientation is greater than a length of the first link;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of catching on the flange any materials that fall from the first link (etc.) that may be on the first link for maintenance (damage control) since a damaged flange thereto is more readily replaced than the floor of a damaged chamber. Further, it has been held that changes in size is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Okamura and Sato (JP 2020188218 A). Bosch discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above; and
Claim 6: wherein the base comprises:
a motor holder holding the main body (supporting 24/26 in Fig. 1/4); and
wherein the seal member comprises:
a mechanical seal (38/42/etc.; at least one of 34 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 54 , 58 , 60) that is in airtight contact with the output shaft while allowing the output shaft to rotate relative to the flange (para. [0014]-[0016]); and
a stretchable seal sealing between the mechanical seal and the flange and configured to expand and contract in response to lifting and lowering of the motor holder by the lifting actuator (at least another of 34 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 54 , 58 , 60; “These seals 34 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 54 , 58 , 60 are made of hydrogen peroxide-resistant material, for example special elastomers such as EPDM (ethylene propylene rubber) or PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene).”; para. [0016]; the materials stretch) such that the mechanical seal is raised and lowered relative to the flange when the stretchable seal expands and contracts (para. [0016]; the materials stretch at least by temperature changes);
Claim 20: wherein the base comprises:
a motor holder holding the main body (supporting 24/26 in Fig. 1/4); and
wherein the seal member comprises:
a mechanical seal that is in airtight contact with the output shaft while allowing the output shaft to rotate relative to the flange (38/42/etc.; at least one of 34 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 54 , 58 , 60) that is in airtight contact with the output shaft while allowing the output shaft to rotate relative to the flange (para. [0014]-[0016]); and
a stretchable seal sealing between the mechanical seal and the flange and configured to expand and contract in response to lifting and lowering of the motor holder by the lifting actuator (at least another of 34 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 54 , 58 , 60; “These seals 34 , 36 , 38 , 42 , 44 , 46 , 54 , 58 , 60 are made of hydrogen peroxide-resistant material, for example special elastomers such as EPDM (ethylene propylene rubber) or PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene).”; para. [0016]; the materials stretch) such that the mechanical seal is raised and lowered relative to the flange when the stretchable seal expands and contracts (para. [0016]; the materials stretch at least by temperature changes).
Bosch does not directly show:
Claim 6: a lifting actuator configured to lift and lower the motor holder;
Claim 20: a lifting actuator configured to lift and lower the motor holder.
Sato shows a similar device having:
Claim 6: a lifting actuator configured to lift and lower the motor holder (34);
Claim 20: a lifting actuator configured to lift and lower the motor holder (34);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of accurately controlling the arm to the target arm position (para. [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bosch as taught by Sato and include Sato’s similar device having:
Claim 6: a lifting actuator configured to lift and lower the motor holder;
Claim 20: a lifting actuator configured to lift and lower the motor holder;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of accurately controlling the arm to the target arm position.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Okamura. Bosch discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above; and
Claim 13: wherein the robot comprises:
a base actuator configured to rotate the first link around the first axis;
an arm actuator configured to rotate the second link around the second axis independently of rotation of the first link by the base actuator; and
a hand actuator configured to rotate the hand around the third axis independently of rotation of the first link by the base actuator and rotation of the second link by the arm actuator.
Bosch does not directly show:
Claim 13: wherein the chamber comprises a first side wall and a second side wall facing each other in an orientation perpendicular to a vertical orientation of the chamber and the longitudinal orientation of the chamber, and
wherein a distance between the first axis and the first side wall is less than a distance between the first axis and the second side wall;
Claim 14: wherein a length of the first link is less than a distance between the first side wall and the second side wall and greater than half of the distance.
This relative length as claimed may be shown in Fig. 4 of Bosch; however, it cannot be assumed to be shown therein.
Bosch shows a similar device having:
Claim 13: wherein the chamber comprises a first side wall and a second side wall facing each other in an orientation perpendicular to a vertical orientation of the chamber and the longitudinal orientation of the chamber, and
wherein a distance between the first axis and the first side wall is less than a distance between the first axis and the second side wall;
Claim 14: wherein a length of the first link is less than a distance between the first side wall and the second side wall and greater than half of the distance;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of assuring that the first link, (an)other link(s), and end effector(s) sufficiently avoid the sidewalls to avoid damage to the arm and/or substrate. Further, it has been held that changes in size/proportion is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A); see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bosch as taught by Bosch and include Bosch’s similar device having:
Claim 13: wherein the chamber comprises a first side wall and a second side wall facing each other in an orientation perpendicular to a vertical orientation of the chamber and the longitudinal orientation of the chamber, and
wherein a distance between the first axis and the first side wall is less than a distance between the first axis and the second side wall;
Claim 14: wherein a length of the first link is less than a distance between the first side wall and the second side wall and greater than half of the distance;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of assuring that the first link, (an)other link(s), and end effector(s) sufficiently avoid the sidewalls to avoid damage to the arm and/or substrate. Further, it has been held that changes in size/proportion is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch in view of Okamura and Wirth (US 2017/0117171). Bosch discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Bosch does not directly show:
Claim 16: wherein the chamber further comprises a second opening provided in the top plate, the second opening being smaller than the opening in the chamber;
Claim 17: wherein at least a part of the second opening overlaps the flange in the vertical orientation.
Wirth shows a similar device having:
Claim 16: wherein the chamber further comprises a second opening provided in the top plate (para. [0022], “a top wall formed by the top lid (removed for illustration purposes)”), the second opening being smaller than the opening in the chamber;
Claim 17: wherein at least a part of the second opening overlaps the flange in the vertical orientation;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing maintenance to the robot within the chamber. Further, re. the size of the second opening, it has been held that changes in size is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A); see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)). Also, re. the arrangement of the second opening, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bosch as taught by Wirth and include Wirth’s similar device having:
Claim 16: wherein the chamber further comprises a second opening provided in the top plate, the second opening being smaller than the opening in the chamber;
Claim 17: wherein at least a part of the second opening overlaps the flange in the vertical orientation;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing maintenance to the robot within the chamber. Further, re. the size of the second opening, it has been held that changes in size is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art. Also, re. the arrangement of the second opening, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is routine for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 14-16, filed 18 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 10-20 under Bosch and objection/112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Okamura.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights