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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 states “a first movable portion which has a first arm…to be rotatable about a first rotation shaft in a vertical plane and a second arm…to be rotatable about a second rotation shaft in the vertical plane” and “a second movable portion which has a second base…to be rotatable about a third rotation shaft in the vertical plane.” It is unclear if applicant intends for the link members to rotate in the vertical plane or the rotation shafts to lie in the vertical plane. For examination purposes the examiner has interpreted the claim as the link members being rotatable in a vertical plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blank et al. (US 20220395986 A1), hereinafter Blank.
Regarding claim 1, Blank teaches a robot comprising
a first base (Fig. 3-1, base plate 322);
a first movable portion which has a first arm (124a in Fig. 1) having a proximal end side connected to the first base to be rotatable about a first rotation shaft in a vertical plane and a second arm (124b) having a proximal end side connected to a distal end side of the first arm to be rotatable about a second rotation shaft (130b) in the vertical plane;
a second movable portion which has a second base (126) having a proximal end side connected to a distal end side of the second arm to be rotatable about a third rotation shaft (130c) in the vertical plane, a third arm (110a) having a proximal end side connected to a distal end side of the second base to be rotatable about a fourth rotation shaft (118a), and a hand (112) having a proximal end side connected to a distal end side of the third arm to be rotatable about a fifth rotation shaft (118b) and holding a wafer (138); and
a control unit (106) which controls the first movable portion and the second movable portion so as to convey the wafer held by the hand (Para. [0037] lines 8-12 “The wafer handling robot 100 may have a wafer handling robot arm 102, which may sometimes be referred to herein as an upper robot, and mechanism 104 which are communicatively connected with a controller 106”), wherein
a width, in a direction perpendicular to the vertical plane, of a trajectory of the first movable portion when the wafer is conveyed falls within a width, in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane, of a trajectory of the wafer being conveyed (Fig. 1, width of members 124a + 124b fall within the width of the trajectory of the wafer, especially since arm 110a and hand 112 can rotate in the horizontal plane which widens the width of the trajectory of the wafer).
Regarding claim 3, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the second movable portion such that a width, in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane, of a trajectory of the second movable portion when the wafer is conveyed falls within the width, in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane, of the trajectory of the wafer being conveyed (Fig. 1, since wafer is at the distal end of the hand, and arm 3 and the hand rotate in the horizontal plane, the width of the trajectory of the second movable portion will always fall within the width of the trajectory of the wafer).
Regarding claim 4, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, wherein a trajectory of the fourth rotation shaft when the wafer is conveyed is shifted from a center line of a width, in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane, of a trajectory of the second movable portion when the wafer is conveyed (Fig 8-1, and Modified Fig. 1, width of second movable portion is not constant since arm 110a and hand 110b can rotate in the horizontal plane).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
367
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 1
Regarding claim 8, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the first movable portion and the second movable portion such that the third rotation shaft and the second movable portion do not pass through a plane perpendicular to an arrangement surface of the first base and including the first rotation shaft, and the second rotation shaft passes through the plane in a state where an altitude of the second rotation shaft is lower than an altitude of the first rotation shaft (Para. [0037] lines 8-12 “The wafer handling robot 100 may have a wafer handling robot arm 102, which may sometimes be referred to herein as an upper robot, and mechanism 104 which are communicatively connected with a controller 106”, and Modified figure 2, see that robot is in a state where portion 102 does not cross XZ plane and altitude of 130b is below 130a and can continue to pass through XZ plane in this state when member 124a rotates).
PNG
media_image2.png
343
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Fig. 2
Regarding claim 9, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 8, wherein an angular range of an angle between up upward vector perpendicular to the arrangement surface of the first base and a vector parallel to a straight line passing through the first rotation shaft and the second rotation shaft and perpendicular to the first rotation shaft and the second rotation shaft is an angle from -220° to 220° (appears to be claiming an angular range of 280° or 80° depending on direction of rotation, Fig. 1 there are no obstructions preventing member 124a from rotating the full 360°).
Regarding claim 10, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first arm or the second arm has a structure of avoiding interference between the first arm and the second arm in a state where projection of a link portion of the first arm onto the vertical plane and projection of a link portion of the second arm onto the vertical plane overlap each other (Fig. 1, first arm and second arm do not hit each other when their projections onto the vertical plane overlap).
Regarding claim 11, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 10, wherein the first movable portion has a structure capable of avoiding interference between the first movable portion and the first base in a state where the projection of the link of the first arm onto the vertical plane and the projection of the link portion of the second arm onto the vertical plane overlap each other, and the projection of the link portion of the first arm onto the vertical plane and projection of the first base onto the vertical plane overlap each other (Fig. 1, members 124a and 124b never interfere with the base plate).
Regarding claim 12, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, wherein the first movable portion has a structure capable of avoiding interference between the first movable portion and the first base in a state where projection of a link portion of the first arm onto the vertical plane and projection of the first base onto the vertical plane overlap each other (Fig. 1, members 124a and 124b never interfere with the base plate), and
the first movable portion and the second movable portion have a structure in which at least one projection of the fourth rotation shaft onto the vertical plane or projection of the fifth rotation shaft onto the vertical plane does not overlap the projection of the first base onto the vertical plane in a state where the projection of the link portion of the first arm onto the vertical plane and the projection of the first base onto the vertical plane overlap each other (Fig 1, shows robot in a state where 118a and 118b do not overlap the projection of the base plate onto the vertical plane).
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.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Iura (US 20210078181 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the first movable portion and the second movable portion so as to cause the hand to access keep the wrist mount 126 level during such movement”).
Blank does not teach the specific scenario of to access an opening for access to a cassette storing a wafer.
Iura teaches a scenario wherein a robot hand access an opening for access to a cassette storing a wafer (Fig. 1, and Para. [0029], lines 15-19 “a non-illustrated openable shutter may be provided between the transfer chamber 1 and the storage chamber 2 to be used when the transfer robot B1 transfers the thin plate-shaped work W therebetween. The cassette in the storage chamber 2…”).
Both Blank and Iura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of substrate handling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Blank and Iura by substituting the robot taught by Iura with the robot taught by Blank. Doing so would “allow the lower robot arm to move the wafer handling robot arm to a large number of possible positions along a linear axis, thereby allowing the wafer handling robot arm to be used to move wafers into and out of semiconductor processing chambers positioned at locations along an elongate wafer transfer chamber,” as recognized by Blank (Para. [0043], lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 20, Blank in view of Iura teaches the robot according to claim 1, and together they further teach a system comprising a housing which has a front wall having an opening for access to a cassette storing a wafer (Iura, Para. [0029], lines 15-19) and a back wall facing the front wall; and
the robot according to claim 1, the robot being arranged in the housing (Iura, Fig. 1 robot B1 in transfer chamber 1).
Claims 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Shiramatsu (US 20230313822 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first arm and the second arm have a structure in which a trajectory of the first arm and a trajectory of the second arm overlap each other when the first arm and second arm rotate.
Shiramatsu teaches a robot wherein a first arm and second arm have a structure in which a trajectory of the first arm and a trajectory of the second arm overlap each other when the first arm and second arm rotate (Fig. 1, forked joint structure allows links to rotate in the same plane).
Both Blank and Shiramatsu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robot manipulators. Therefore, 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 robot taught by Blank with the joint structure taught by Shiramatsu. Doing so would save space by allowing the links to rotate in the same plane.
Regarding claim 6, Blank in view of Shiramatsu teaches the robot according to claim 5, and Shiramatsu further teaches wherein a width of the trajectory of a first arm in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane falls within a width of a trajectory of a second arm in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane (Shiramatsu, Fig. 1, width of one arm falls within width of the other).
Regarding claim 7, Blank in view of Shiramatsu teaches the robot according to claim 5, and Shiramatsu further teaches wherein a width of the trajectory of a second arm in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane falls within a width of a trajectory of a first arm in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane (Shiramatsu, Fig. 1, width of one arm falls within width of the other).
Claims 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Liu et al. (US 20230311302 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 13, Blank teaches the robot according to claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first base has a first side surface portion which supports the first movable portion and a second side surface portion which faces the first side surface portion, and
the width, in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane, of the trajectory of the first movable portion when the wafer is conveyed falls within a width in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane between an inner surface of the first side surface portion and an inner surface of the second side surface portion.
However, Liu teaches a base with a first side surface portion which supports a first movable portion and a second side surface portion which faces the first side surface portion, and
the width, in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane, of the trajectory of the first movable portion falls within a width in the direction perpendicular to the vertical plane between an inner surface of the first side surface portion and an inner surface of the second side surface portion (Modified Fig. 3 and Liu, Fig. 1).
Both Blank and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robot manipulators. Therefore, 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 robot taught by Blank with the base taught by Liu. Doing so would increase the stability of the robot by allowing it to be supported on both sides.
PNG
media_image3.png
361
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3
Regarding claim 16, Blank in view of Liu teaches the robot according to claim 13, and Liu also teaches wherein the first base further has a bottom surface portion including a first protruding portion protruding from an outer surface of the first side surface portion and a second protruding portion protruding from an outer surface of the second side surface portion (Modified Fig. 4 and Liu, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
356
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 4
Regarding claim 17, Blank in view of Liu teaches the robot according to claim 16, and Liu further teaches wherein the bottom surface portion has a structure capable of avoiding interference between the first movable portion and the bottom surface portion when the first movable portion is positioned above the bottom surface portion (Liu, Fig. 1 depicts a robot arm whose members are above the bottom surface portion and there is no interference).
Regarding claim 18, Blank in view of Liu teaches the robot according to claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein the first base has a first side surface portion which supports the first movable portion and a second side surface portion which faces the first side surface portion,
an inner surface of the first side surface portion and an inner surface of the second side surface portion are perpendicular to the first rotation shaft, and
a shape of projection of the first base onto the vertical plane perpendicular to the first rotation shaft is a shape in which a width on a support side supporting the first movable portion is narrower than a width on an arrangement surface side of the first base (Modified Fig. 5 and Liu, Fig. 1, top corner of side surface portions are chamfered and therefore have narrower width).
PNG
media_image5.png
372
408
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5
Regarding claim 19, Blank in view of Liu teaches the robot according to claim 1, and Liu further teaches a base detachably arranged on an arrangement surface (Modified Fig. 4 and Liu, Fig. 1).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blank in view of Liu as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Niu (US 20190099880 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Blank in view of Liu teaches the robot according to claim 13, but does not teach wherein the second side surface portion include a hollow portion capable of accommodating a cable.
However, Niu teaches a base with a side surface portion that includes a hollow portion capable of accommodating a cable (Modified Fig. 5, can string a cable through the hole).
Niu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of robot manipulators. Therefore, 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 robot taught by Blank in view of Liu with the teachings of Niu by incorporating a hollow portion into a side surface. Doing so would assist with cable management.
PNG
media_image6.png
414
387
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 5
Regarding claim 15, Blank in view of Liu and further in view of Niu teaches the robot according to claim 13, wherein the second side surface portion has the inner surface, an outer surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface provided with a connector portion (Liu, Fig. 1 shows side surface portion with inner surface, outer surface, and side surfaces, and Niu, Fig. 8 shows a connector portion in the back, see Modified Fig. 6).
PNG
media_image7.png
432
375
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 6
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iura (US 12291406 B2) teaches a transfer robot with a vertical rotating portion and a horizontal rotating portion.
Muselli (US 5303788 A) teaches a robot with a base consisting of two side surface portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGGIE E CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0499. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights