DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action in response to the above identified patent
application filed on August 22, 2024.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17, the limitation “the thermally resistive heat choke comprising a body and at least one material disposed on at least a portion of the substrate support area of the end effector, the body, and the second rotatable connection” is not fully understood. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant considers “the body” and the “second rotatable connection”. For example, Figure 1A illustrates a heat choke (84), a substrate support area (80), and a rotatable connection portion (82). Given the above interpretation of the components, it is unclear what applicant considers “the body.” Note, the written specification does not appear to clearly distinguish/describe “the body” making the limitation unclear. Does applicant consider “the body” and the “at least one material” as the same component?
Claim 3, the limitation “the first rotary thermal coupling” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12, the limitation “the thermally resistive heat choke comprising a body and at least one material disposed on at least a portion of the substrate support area of the end effector, the body, and the at least one third link” is not fully understood. For example, Figure 1A illustrates a heat choke (84), a substrate support area (80), and a third link (82). Given the above interpretation of the components, it is unclear what applicant considers “the body.” Note, the written specification does not appear to clearly distinguish/describe “the body” making the limitation unclear. Does applicant consider “the body” and the “at least one material” as the same component?
Claim 16, the limitation “the thermally resistive heat choke comprising a body and at least one material disposed on at least a portion of the first end of the end effector, the body, and the opposite second end of the end effector,” is not fully understood. For example, Figure 1A illustrates a heat choke (84), a portion of the first end of the end effector (80), and an opposite second end of the end effector (82). Given the above interpretation of the components, it is unclear what applicant considers “the body.” Note, the written specification does not appear to clearly distinguish/describe “the body” making the limitation unclear. Does applicant consider “the body” and the “at least one material” as the same component?
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosek et al. (USPub 2013/0071218) in view of Taniguchi (USP 5,489,192).
Referring to Figure 17, Hosek teaches an apparatus comprising: a robot drive; and a robot arm connected to the robot drive, where the robot arm comprises a first link (22) connected to the robot drive, a second link (24) rotatably connected to the first link at a first rotatable connection (adjacent 28), and an end effector (26) rotatably connected to the second link at a second rotatable connection (adjacent 30).
Hosek does not teach the end effector comprises a thermally resistive heat choke coupling a substrate support area of the end effector and the second rotatable connection (third link or second end of the end effector). It was known in the semiconductor art to configure an end effector with a heat choke. For example, Taniguchi teaches an end effector (119) having a substrate support (117), wherein a thermally resistive heat choke (151, Fig. 5) coupling the substrate support area and an end portion of the end effector, the thermally resistive heat choke comprising a body and at least one material disposed on at least a portion of the substrate support area of the end effector, the body, and the second rotatable connection (third link or second end of the end effector); the thermally resistive heat choke comprising a material having a resistance configured to control a transfer of heat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art at the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the end effector of Hosek with a heat choke, as taught by Taniguchi, motivation being to suppress the conduction of heat from the substrate support area to the opposite end of the end effector.
Further, Hosek illustrates (Figure 17) at least one rotatable connector (such as 126) comprises a rotary thermal coupling (144, 146) having interleaved members which are rotatable relative to each other. Hosek does not illustrate the rotary thermal coupling located at either the first rotatable connection or the second rotatable connection. However, Hosek discloses “any joint may utilize such a thermal coupling” (section [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art at the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the first rotatable connection and the second rotatable connection with a rotary thermal coupling, as suggested by the written disclosure of Hosek, motivation being transmit heat away from the end effector.
Claim 2: Hosek illustrates (Figure 22) the robot drive comprises a drive housing (such as housing member that supports motors 480) and a spindle assembly movably located in the drive housing, where the spindle assembly comprises coaxial drive shafts (476,478) and motors (480) connected to the drive shafts.
Claim 3: The robot of Hosek comprising a first rotary thermal coupling (inherent) located at an outer one of the coaxial drive shafts. Note, the claim does not define the structure of the “first rotary thermal coupling.” Accordingly, the “first rotary thermal coupling” is considered any engaging (or facing) component that transmits thermal energy by either conduction or convection. For example, the facing surfaces of shafts (476,478) will transmit thermal energy by convection, the bearings engaging the shafts (476,478) will transmit thermal energy by conduction, and a surface of the motor housing (480) facing the shafts will transmit thermal energy by convection.
Claim 4: The robot of Hosek, as described above in reference to claim 1, includes a second rotary thermal coupling positioned at the first rotatable connection and a third rotary thermal coupling positioned at the second rotatable connection. Specifically, Hosek discloses “any joint may utilize such a thermal coupling” (section [0062]).
Claim 5: Hosek illustrates (such as Figure 5) the robot arm comprises pulleys (34, 38, 46) and bands (36, 44) configured to rotate the second link and the end effector at the first and second rotatable connections.
Claim 6: The robot of Hosek, as described above in reference to claim 1, is configured with the first rotatable connection comprising a first rotary thermal coupling having first interleaved members (in the same manner as 144,146, Figure 17), where the first interleaved members are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation of the first rotatable connection.
Claim 7: The robot of Hosek, as described above in reference to claim 1, is configured with the second rotatable connection comprises a second rotary thermal coupling having second interleaved members (in the same manner as 144,146, Figure 17), where the second interleaved members are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation of the second rotatable connection.
Claims 8 and 14: As described above, Taniguchi teaches the heat choke comprises a thermally resistive heat choke comprising a material having a resistance configured to control a transfer of heat. Taniguchi does not teach the choke formed of a refractory material. However, Taniguchi discloses that ceramic is a known material that is highly heat resistance. See Column 4, lines 36-37. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the thermally resistive heat choke from a ceramic material, as was known in the art and disclosed by Taniguchi, motivation being to provide a predetermined resistance to heat transfer between a first portion of the end effector to a second portion of the end effector.
Claim 10: Taniguchi illustrates (Figure 5) the body of the heat choke spaces first and second portions of the end effector.
Claims 11 and 13: Hosek illustrates (Figure 18) at least one heat pipe (such as 1840) having opposite ends thermally connected to at least one of the link of the robot arm and/or to the rotary thermal coupling of the robot arm. Note, any robot pipe member connected to either the robot arm or the thermal coupling can be considered a heat pipe since applicant has not structurally defined the component.
Claim 14 is rejected in the same manner as claim 1, including the added limitation of the end effector (26) being configured as a third link having a substrate support area.
Methods claims 16-18 are rejected in the same manner as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosek et al. (USPub 2013/0071218) in view of Watanabe (USP 6,089,630).
Referring to Figure 17, Hosek teaches an apparatus comprising: a robot drive; and a robot arm connected to the robot drive, where the robot arm comprises a first link (22) connected to the robot drive, a second link (24) rotatably connected to the first link at a first rotatable connection (adjacent 28), and an end effector (26) rotatably connected to the second link at a second rotatable connection (adjacent 30).
Hosek does not teach the end effector comprises a thermally resistive heat choke coupling a substrate support area of the end effector and the second rotatable connection. It was known in the semiconductor art to configure an end effector with a heat choke. For example, Watanabe teaches (Figure 7) an end effector (5) having a substrate support (6), wherein a thermally resistive heat choke (16) coupling the substrate support area (6) and an end portion of the end effector, the thermally resistive heat choke comprising a material (Teflon) having a resistance configured to control a transfer of heat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art at the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the end effector of Hosek with a Teflon heat choke, as taught by Watanabe, motivation being to suppress the conduction of heat from the substrate support area to the opposite end of the end effector.
Further, Hosek illustrates (Figure 17) at least one rotatable connector (such as 126) comprises a rotary thermal coupling (144, 146) having interleaved members which are rotatable relative to each other. Hosek does not illustrate the rotary thermal coupling located at either the first rotatable connection or the second rotatable connection. However, Hosek discloses “any joint may utilize such a thermal coupling” (section [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art at the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the first rotatable connection and the second rotatable connection with a rotary thermal coupling, as suggested by the written disclosure of Hosek, motivation being transmit heat away from the end effector.
Claim 2: Hosek illustrates (Figure 22) the robot drive comprises a drive housing (such as housing member that supports motors 480) and a spindle assembly movably located in the drive housing, where the spindle assembly comprises coaxial drive shafts (476,478) and motors (480) connected to the drive shafts.
Claim 3: The robot of Hosek comprising a first rotary thermal coupling (inherent) located at an outer one of the coaxial drive shafts. Note, the claim does not define the structure of the “first rotary thermal coupling.” Accordingly, the “first rotary thermal coupling” is considered any engaging (or facing) component that transmits thermal energy by either conduction or convection. For example, the facing surfaces of shafts (476,478) will transmit thermal energy by convection, the bearings engaging the shafts (476,478) will transmit thermal energy by conduction, and a surface of the motor housing (480) facing the shafts will transmit thermal energy by convection.
Claim 4: The robot of Hosek, as described above in reference to claim 1, includes a second rotary thermal coupling positioned at the first rotatable connection and a third rotary thermal coupling positioned at the second rotatable connection. Specifically, Hosek discloses “any joint may utilize such a thermal coupling” (section [0062]).
Claim 5: Hosek illustrates (such as Figure 5) the robot arm comprises pulleys (34, 38, 46) and bands (36, 44) configured to rotate the second link and the end effector at the first and second rotatable connections.
Claim 6: The robot of Hosek, as described above in reference to claim 1, is configured with the first rotatable connection comprising a first rotary thermal coupling having first interleaved members (in the same manner as 144,146, Figure 17), where the first interleaved members are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation of the first rotatable connection.
Claim 7: The robot of Hosek, as described above in reference to claim 1, is configured with the second rotatable connection comprises a second rotary thermal coupling having second interleaved members (in the same manner as 144,146, Figure 17), where the second interleaved members are rotatable relative to each other about an axis of rotation of the second rotatable connection.
Claim 8: Further, Watanabe teaches the heat choke comprises a refractory material (18, stainless steel) connecting a first portion of the end effector to a second portion of the end effector.
Claim 10: Watanabe illustrates the body of the heat choke spaces first and second portions of the end effector.
Claims 11 and 13: Hosek illustrates (Figure 18) at least one heat pipe (such as 1840) having opposite ends thermally connected to at least one of the link of the robot arm and/or to the rotary thermal coupling of the robot arm. Note, any robot pipe member connected to either the robot arm or the thermal coupling can be considered a heat pipe since applicant has not structurally defined the component.
Claim 14 is rejected in the same manner as claim 1, including the added limitation of the end effector (26) being configured as a third link having a substrate support area.
Methods claims 16-18 are rejected in the same manner as claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the claimed robotic device having a refractory material and an epoxy to form a heat choke between a first end and a second end of the end effector.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the transport device having an epoxy of Miller et al. (USPub 2009/0061242).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618