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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 1 shows more than one view. When a portion of a view is enlarged for magnification purposes, the view and the enlarged view must each be labeled as separate views; 37 CFR 1.84(h)(2).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is one run-on sentence and it recites the implied phrase “is disclosed” which may simply be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference number “82” has been defined as a flow restrictor, a throttling device and check valves. Each reference number should only be defined using one term throughout the entirety of the Specification.
Paragraph [0082] should be reviewed. Based on what is shown in Fig. 3C, the examiner proposes the following three amendments:
--[0082] FIG. 3C shows another embodiment, wherein the vacuum lines are provided as tubes 52a, 53[[b]]a. Herein, the first tube 53a connects a first vacuum device, such as a pump, in or connected to the robot RO to the actuator 74. The second tube 52a connects a second vacuum device in or connected to the robot RO to the fixation device 50. The first tube [[52a]]53a and/or the second tube [[53a]]52a may be flexible tubes made of a flexible material, such as rubber or an elastomer such as PTFE (PolyTetraFluoroEthylene).--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 34, the last line of page - 4 - should be amended to recite --covering [[a]]the substrate-- if this is in reference to the substrate previously defined in line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the projecting" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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.
Claims 20, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simondet (US 6,822,413 B2).
Referring to claim 20: Simondet teaches an end-effector 26 comprising:
a base 28;
a clamping body 51, 53 comprising an actuator configured to switch between a first position, wherein a substrate 11 is fixed in position with respect to the clamping body, and a second position, wherein the substrate is released (column 7, lines 58-66);
a guidance mechanism (the unlabeled pins; two in 51 and two in 53; Fig. 5) connecting the clamping body to the base while allowing freedom of movement of the clamping body relative to the base within a predetermined range of motion; and
a fixation mechanism configured for switching a connection between the clamping body and the base between a fixed position, wherein the clamping body is fixated relative to the base, and a free position, wherein the clamping body can move relative to the base (column 7, lines 58-66).
Referring to claim 21: Simondet teaches the clamping body comprises at least one fixed finger and at least one actuating finger being provided with the actuator, wherein in the first position the substrate is fixed in position between ends of the at least one fixed finger and the actuator of the at least one actuating finger (column 6, lines 23-33; column 7, lines 58-66).
Referring to claim 29: Simondet teaches the fixation mechanism is connected to at least one vacuum line to control the fixation mechanism (column 7, lines 58-66).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26-28, 32 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Simondet, alone.
Referring to claim 26: Simondet teaches the predetermined range of motion allowed by the guidance mechanism comprises lateral movement (of the tips of the fingers) in a horizontal plane. Simondet does not specifically teach the predetermined range of motion allowed by the guidance mechanism comprises lateral movement in a horizontal plane of about +/- 5 mm, about +/- 4 mm, about +/- 3 mm, about 2.5 mm, about +/- 2 mm, about +/- 1.5 mm, about +/- 1 mm, about +/- 500 µm, about +/- 250 µm, about +/- 200 µm, about +/- 150 µm, about +/- 100 µm, about +/- 50 µm, about +/- 20 µm, or about +/- 10 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the predetermined range of motion allowed by the guidance mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Referring to claim 27: Simondet teaches the predetermined range of motion allowed by the guidance mechanism includes rotation θ (around the guidance mechanisms’ axes). Simondet does not specifically teach the predetermined range of motion allowed by the guidance mechanism includes rotation θ, wherein θ is in a range of about +/- 5 degrees, about +/- 4 degrees, about +/- 3 degrees, about +/- 2 degrees, about +/- 1 degree, about +/- 0.5 degrees, about +/- 0.4 degrees, about +/- 0.3 degrees, about +/- 0.2 degrees, or about +/- 0.1 degree. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the predetermined range of motion allowed by the guidance mechanism with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Referring to claim 28: While Simondet likely teaches the clamping body returning to a fully open reference position when not gripping an item, Simondet does not specifically teach guidance mechanism is adapted to move the clamping body to a reference position with respect to the base in response to the fixation mechanism being in the free position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guidance mechanism taught by Simondet to be adapted to move the clamping body to a reference position with respect to the base in response to the fixation mechanism being in the free position with a reasonable expectation of success since it is well known in the art that clamping bodies often return to a fully open position when not gripping an item, in order to release a first item and have the ability to then go grip a second item.
Referring to claim 32: Simondet teaches a variety of grippers in a position allowing engagement with an edge of the substrate (column 7, lines 58-66). However, Simondet does not specifically teach the actuator comprising a spring for pre-tensioning a gripper, the spring pushing the gripper outward in a position allowing engagement with an edge of the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the actuator taught by Simondet to include a spring for pre-tensioning a gripper, the spring pushing the gripper outward in a position allowing engagement with an edge of the substrate with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claim 34: Simondet teaches a method comprising:
using an end-effector 26 comprising:
a base 28;
a clamping body 51, 53 comprising an actuator configured to switch between a first position, wherein a substrate 11 is fixed in position with respect to the clamping body, and a second position, wherein the substrate is released (column 7, lines 58-66);
a guidance mechanism (the unlabeled pins; two in 51 and two in 53; Fig. 5) connecting the clamping body to the base while allowing freedom of movement of the clamping body relative to the base within a predetermined range of motion; and
a fixation mechanism configured for switching a connection between the clamping body and the base between a fixed position, wherein the clamping body is fixated relative to the base, and a free position, wherein the clamping body can move relative to the base (column 7, lines 58-66);
moving the clamping body in lateral direction under a substrate (Fig. 7a);
raising the clamping body onto the substrate;
switching the fixation mechanism to the free position;
switching the actuator to the first position;
switching the fixation mechanism to the fixed position;
lifting the clamping body and the substrate and moving the clamping body to another location;
switching the actuator to the second position; and
lifting the clamping body without the substrate (column 6, lines 23-33; column 7, lines 58-66).
Simondet does not specifically teach the method comprising moving the clamping body in lateral direction covering a substrate; and lowering the clamping body onto the substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Simondet to include moving the clamping body to cover the substrate and lowering the clamping body onto the substrate with a reasonable expectation of success since one would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (namely, clamping onto either the top or the bottom of the substrate), both of which are known in the art.
Referring to claims 35 and 36: Simondet teaches the system comprises a suitable mechanism that provides a releasable engagement, such as vacuum engaging mechanism(s) (column 7, lines 58-66). However, Simondet does not specifically teach the switching the fixation mechanism to the fixed position comprises decreasing a pressure in a first vacuum line below a first threshold Pthr1 or the switching the fixation mechanism to the free position comprises increasing a pressure in the first vacuum line to exceed a second threshold Pthr2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the switching the fixation mechanism to the fixed and free positions to comprise decreasing and increasing a pressure in a first vacuum line below a first threshold Pthr1 and to exceed a second threshold Pthr2, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success since, based on the function of a vacuum line, an increase in P would either release to a free position or engage into a fixed position, and a decrease in P would do the opposite, so one would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
Referring to claim 37: Simondet teaches the system comprises a suitable mechanism that provides a releasable engagement, such as vacuum engaging mechanism(s) (column 7, lines 58-66). However, Simondet does not specifically teach the switching the actuator to the second position comprises decreasing a pressure in a second vacuum line to below a third threshold Pthr3 and/or the switching the actuator to the first position includes increasing a pressure in the second vacuum line to exceed a fourth threshold Pthr4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the switching the actuator to the second and/or first positions to comprise decreasing and increasing a pressure in a second vacuum line below a third threshold Pthr3 and to exceed a fourth threshold Pthr4, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success since, based on the function of a vacuum line, an increase in P would either release to a second position or engage into a first position, and a decrease in P would do the opposite, so one would be choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
Claims 22-25, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Simondet and in view of Phillips et al. (US 7,477,358 B2) (“Phillips”).
Referring to claim 22: Simondet does not specifically teach the guidance mechanism comprises at least one spring element, each spring element having a first end connected to the base and a second, opposite end connected to the clamping body. Phillips teaches using a spring 237 to exert clamping force onto the substrate (column 12, lines 3-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guidance mechanism taught by Simondet to include at least one spring element with a reasonable expectation of success in order to assist in apply force to the substrate or to assist in returning to an open position.
Referring to claim 23: Simondet and Phillips do not specifically teach the at least one spring element comprises a leaf spring, a bent piece of flexible material, spring steel, or a similar material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one spring element taught by Simondet and Phillips to be a leaf spring, a bent piece of flexible material, spring steel, or a similar material with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claim 24: Simondet and Phillips do not specifically teach the first and second ends of the at least one spring element are connected to the base and to the clamping body by one or more of an adhesive, welding, or soldering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connections of the at least one spring element taught by Simondet and Phillips to be by one or more of an adhesive, welding, or soldering with a reasonable expectation of success since such a modification would only require a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Referring to claim 25: Simondet, once modified as above, teaches the at least one spring element has a shape allowing relative motion of its opposite ends in a horizontal plane 29 (x, y) while preventing or at least limiting movement in a vertical direction (z).
Referring to claim 33: While Simondet teaches an apparatus comprising the end-effector of claim 20, Simondet does not specifically teach a lithographic apparatus. Phillips teaches a lithographic apparatus 50 (column 4, lines 38-52) comprising an end-effector 209 comprising a clamping body configured to fix a substrate 78, 150 in place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus taught by Simondet to include a lithographic apparatus as taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success since end-effectors are well known to be required to handle and move a variety of components in a variety of types of systems.
Referring to claim 38: Simondet does not specifically teach projecting a patterned beam of radiation onto the substrate. Phillips teaches projecting a patterned beam of radiation onto the substrate (column 4, lines 38-52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Simondet to include projecting a patterned beam of radiation onto the substrate as taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success since end-effectors are well known to be required in a variety of types of systems for various applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
30 September 2026
Prosecution Insights