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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “interval adjustment unit configured to adjust”, “abnormality detection unit configured to detect” in claim 1, “light amount measurement part configured to measure”, “abnormality determination part configured to determine” in claim 7, “determination criterion storage part configured to store” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 20080232937 A1) in view of Shimizu (US 20220250255 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Abe teaches A substrate transfer device comprising: ([0047] The substrate transfer apparatus 100)
a plurality of end-effectors extending in a first direction ([0051] The wafer transport mechanism 4 includes five substantially horizontal retention arms (forks 41 (41 a-41 e)), which retain wafers W, and a transport base 5, which supports the forks 41 a-41 e while allowing them to freely advance and retract.) and disposed in multi-stages in a second direction crossing the first direction to support substrates, respectively; (Fig. 6 forks 41a-41c along VII direction)
an abnormality detection unit configured to detect an abnormality of each of the plurality of end-effectors,([0071] the judgment means 72 a of the control section 7 judges that an abnormality exists in the postures of the forks 41 a-41 e. An example shown in FIG. 10B indicates that the leading end of the fourth fork 41 d is inclined downward.)
Abe does not expressly disclose but Shimizu discloses an interval adjustment unit configured to adjust an interval between the plurality of end-effectors; and ([0025] after the linkage mechanism 30 adjusts the intervals V1-V4 of the base parts 20-24, the blades 10-15 are finely adjusted so as to be parallel to each other. The fine adjustment of the blades 10-15 is adjusted so that the first blade 11, the second blade 12, the third blade 13, and the fourth blade 14 become parallel to each other with respect to the fixed blade 10.)
wherein the plurality of end-effectors comprise: (Fig. 6 101 blades)
a reference end-effector that is fixed in position; and ([0025] fixed blade 10)
a variable end-effector that is adjusted in distance from the reference end-effector with respect to the reference end-effector. ([0025] The fine adjustment of the blades 10-15 is adjusted so that the first blade 11, the second blade 12, the third blade 13, and the fourth blade 14 become parallel to each other with respect to the fixed blade 10.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success by finely adjusting intervals of blades which transfer wafers as taught by Shimizu ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Abe teaches The substrate transfer device of claim 1, wherein the abnormality detection unit comprises a light emitting part and a light receiving part, ([0058] the optical sensor 62 has a light emission section 63, which is mounted on one sidewall of the housing 61, and a light reception section 64, which is positioned on the optical axis L of the light emission section 63 to face the light emission section 63)
wherein the light emitting part comprises a plurality of light sources provided in numbers corresponding to the number of plurality of end-effectors.([0098] the same number of optical sensors as retention arms may be used to simultaneously inspect for abnormal front-rear postures of the retention arms relative to the horizontal plane. Alternatively, a plurality of optical sensors may be used to simultaneously inspect some of the plurality of retention arms for an abnormal posture.)
Regarding Claim 3, Abe teaches The substrate transfer device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of light sources are fixed at positions different from each other in the second direction. ([0058] the optical sensor 62 has a light emission section 63, which is mounted on one sidewall of the housing 61)
Regarding Claim 7, Abe teaches The substrate transfer device of claim 2, wherein the abnormality detection unit comprises:
a light amount measurement part configured to measure an amount of light received by the light receiving part; and ([0058] the optical sensor 62 has a light emission section 63, which is mounted on one sidewall of the housing 61, and a light reception section 64, which is positioned on the optical axis L of the light emission section 63 to face the light emission section 63.)
an abnormality determination part configured to determine an abnormality of each of the plurality of end- effectors through the measured light amount. ([0071] If, on the other hand, any acquired data conflicts with the data in the reference table T1 as shown in FIG. 10B, the judgment means 72 a of the control section 7 judges that an abnormality exists in the postures of the forks 41 a-41 e. An example shown in FIG. 10B indicates that the leading end of the fourth fork 41 d is inclined downward. In this case, the fourth fork 41 d does not exist, for instance, at the seventh height Z7; therefore, the data fed from the optical sensor 62 is “1”, which indicates that the light is received.)
Regarding Claim 8, Abe teaches The substrate transfer device of claim 7, wherein the abnormality detection unit further comprises a determination criterion storage part configured to store the amount of light received by the light receiving part according to the interval between plurality of end-effectors. ([0064] The acquired data storage section 74 acquires and stores the height of the transport base 5 and the light-reception/no-light-reception data fed from the optical sensor 62 when the transport base 5 of the wafer transport mechanism 4 for an inspection target ascends or descends relative to the optical axis L)
Regarding Claim 9, Abe does not expressly disclose but Shimizu discloses The substrate transfer device of claim 1, wherein the variable end-effector is provided in plurality, and
the plurality of variable end-effectors are disposed symmetrically with respect to the reference end-effector. (Fig. 2 blade 11-12 and 13-14 to fixed blade 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success by finely adjusting intervals of blades which transfer wafers as taught by Shimizu ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 10, Abe teaches A method for determining an abnormality of a substrate transfer device, the method comprising: ([0047] The substrate transfer apparatus 100)
storing an amount of light received to a light receiving part of an abnormality detection unit from a light emitting part of the abnormality detection unit for each interval of a plurality of end-effectors, ([0064] The acquired data storage section 74 acquires and stores the height of the transport base 5 and the light-reception/no-light-reception data fed from the optical sensor 62 when the transport base 5 of the wafer transport mechanism 4 for an inspection target ascends or descends relative to the optical axis L [0071] the judgment means 72 a of the control section 7 judges that an abnormality exists in the postures of the forks 41 a-41 e. An example shown in FIG. 10B indicates that the leading end of the fourth fork 41 d is inclined downward.)
first measuring an amount of light received by the light receiving part in a state in which the interval between the plurality of end-effectors is set to a first interval; ([0064] The light-reception/no-light-reception data supplied from the optical sensor 62 is acquired as “1 (ON)” when light is received or as “0 (OFF)” when the light is not received.)
comparing the stored amount of light at the first interval with the amount of light measured in the first measuring; ([0063] The reference data storage section 73 stores reference tables T1-Tn. The reference tables T1-Tn predefine the relationship between the height data about the transport base 5 that prevails while the front-rear posture of each fork 41 a-41 e relative to the horizontal plane is normal and the light-reception/no-light-reception data (detection result) that is fed from the optical sensor 62 to indicate whether the optical axis L is intercepted in the above instance. The forks 41 a-41 e are configured so that the vertical arrangement intervals between them can be changed. Therefore, not only a plurality of reference tables related to the arrangement intervals but also a reference table for use in an inspection based on a different method described later are prepared and stored in the reference data storage section 73.)
second measuring the amount of light received by the light receiving part in a state in which the interval between the plurality of end-effectors is set to a second interval different from the first interval; and ([0087] the distance data prevailing when the optical axis L is positioned between vertically neighboring forks 41 a-41 e is greater than the distance data prevailing when the forks 41 a-41 e cross the optical axis L. Therefore, the data fed from the distance sensor 68 may be acquired as light-reception/no-light-reception data, which indicates that light is received (“1 (ON)”) when the acquired distance data is smaller than a preset reference value or indicates that the light is not received (“0 (OFF)”) when the acquired distance data is greater than the reference value)
comparing the stored amount of light at the second interval with the amount of light measured in the second measuring. ([0064] The acquired data storage section 74 acquires and stores the height of the transport base 5 and the light-reception/no-light-reception data fed from the optical sensor 62 when the transport base 5 of the wafer transport mechanism 4 for an inspection target ascends or descends relative to the optical axis L)
Abe does not expressly disclose but Shimizu discloses while adjusting the interval between the plurality of end-effectors comprising a reference end-effector and a variable end-effector; ([0025] after the linkage mechanism 30 adjusts the intervals V1-V4 of the base parts 20-24, the blades 10-15 are finely adjusted so as to be parallel to each other. The fine adjustment of the blades 10-15 is adjusted so that the first blade 11, the second blade 12, the third blade 13, and the fourth blade 14 become parallel to each other with respect to the fixed blade 10.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success by finely adjusting intervals of blades which transfer wafers as taught by Shimizu ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 11, Abe teaches The method of claim 10, wherein the stored amount of light at the second interval is different from the stored amount of light at the first interval. ([0063] The reference data storage section 73 stores reference tables T1-Tn. The reference tables T1-Tn predefine the relationship between the height data about the transport base 5 that prevails while the front-rear posture of each fork 41 a-41 e relative to the horizontal plane is normal and the light-reception/no-light-reception data (detection result) that is fed from the optical sensor 62 to indicate whether the optical axis L is intercepted in the above instance. The forks 41 a-41 e are configured so that the vertical arrangement intervals between them can be changed. Therefore, not only a plurality of reference tables related to the arrangement intervals but also a reference table for use in an inspection based on a different method described later are prepared and stored in the reference data storage section 73.)
Regarding Claim 12, Abe teaches The method of claim 10, wherein the second measuring is performed when a difference between the stored amount of light at the first interval and the amount of light measured in the first measuring is within an allowable error range. ([0082] If, for instance, the error between the height amounts of the forks 41 a-41 e that are indicated by the acquired data 83 and the height amounts of the forks 41 a-41 e that are indicated by the data in the reference table T2 is within a predetermined range, the control section 7 judges that the postures of the forks 41 a-41 e are normal, and causes the wafer transport mechanism 4 to start removing the wafers W from the carrier C. If, on the other hand, the error is outside the predetermined range, the control section 7 judges that an abnormality exists, and controls the wafer transport mechanism 4 so that the wafer transport mechanism 4 stops removing the wafers W from the carrier C. Subsequently, the operator adjusts the forks 41 a-41 e)
Regarding Claim 13, Abe teaches The method of claim 10, further comprising additionally measuring the amount of light received by the light receiving part in a state in which the interval between the plurality of end-effectors is set to an interval other than the first interval and the second interval so as to be compared with the stored amount of light at the interval other than the first and second intervals. ([0085] The control section 7 includes a judgment means that compares the distance data, which is obtained at a predetermined inspection height during inspection, against the data in the reference table T3, and judges whether the postures of the forks 41 a-41 e are normal.)
Regarding Claim 18, Abe does not expressly disclose but Shimizu discloses The method of claim 10, wherein the variable end-effector is provided in plurality, and the plurality of variable end-effectors are disposed symmetrically with respect to the reference end-effector. (Fig. 2 blade 11-12 and 13-14 to fixed blade 10)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Shimizu with a reasonable expectation of success by finely adjusting intervals of blades which transfer wafers as taught by Shimizu ([0006]).
Claims 4-6 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (US 20080232937 A1) in view of Shimizu (US 20220250255 A1) in further view of Nanbu (US 5565034 A)
Regarding Claim 4, Abe does not expressly disclose but Nanbu discloses The substrate transfer device of claim 2 wherein the plurality of light sources comprise:
a first light source corresponding to the reference end- effector; and (FIG. 15, transmission protrusion position detection sensors 56)
a second light source provided at a position different from that of the first light source in the second direction. (Col 10 Line 62-64 As shown in FIG. 15, transmission protrusion position detection sensors 56 constituted by light-emitting portions 56a)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Nanbu with a reasonable expectation of success by specifying the positions of the protruding wafers as taught by Nanbu (Col 11 Line 3-4).
Regarding Claim 5, Abe does not expressly disclose but Nanbu discloses The substrate transfer device of claim 4, wherein the second light source is provided in plurality, and
a distance between the first light source and the second light source, which are adjacent to each other, is different from a distance between the second light sources that are adjacent to each other. (Col 10 Line 53-61 In addition to the wafer protrusion detection sensor 54, as shown in FIG. 14, a line sensor 55 constituted by a light-emitting portion 55a which emits linear light, and a light-receiving portion 55b obtained by linearly arranging microscopic sensor elements is mounted in front of the light-emitting portion 54a and the light-receiving portion 54b of the wafer protrusion detection sensor 54 or instead of the wafer protrusion detection sensor 54, thereby detecting protrusion distances of the wafers W and Wd)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Nanbu with a reasonable expectation of success by specifying the positions of the protruding wafers as taught by Nanbu (Col 11 Line 3-4).
Regarding Claim 6, Abe teaches The substrate transfer device of claim 5, wherein the distance between the first light source and the second light source, which are adjacent to each other, is greater than or equal to a minimum interval between the plurality of end-effectors and is less than the distance between the second light sources that are adjacent to each other. ([0087] In the above instance, the distance data prevailing when the optical axis L is positioned between vertically neighboring forks 41 a-41 e is greater than the distance data prevailing when the forks 41 a-41 e cross the optical axis L. Therefore, the data fed from the distance sensor 68 may be acquired as light-reception/no-light-reception data, which indicates that light is received (“1 (ON)”) when the acquired distance data is smaller than a preset reference value or indicates that the light is not received (“0 (OFF)”) when the acquired distance data is greater than the reference value)
Regarding Claim 14, Abe does not expressly disclose but Nanbu discloses The method of claim 10, wherein the light emitting part comprises a plurality of light sources provided in numbers corresponding to the number of plurality of end- effectors, and the first interval and the second interval are determined depending on positions of the plurality of light sources. (Col 10 Line 61-67 - Col 11 Line 1 As shown in FIG. 15, transmission protrusion position detection sensors 56 constituted by light-emitting portions 56a and light-receiving portions 56b corresponding the number of wafers W and the dummy wafers Wd, e.g., 60 wafers, accommodated in the wafer boats 41 and the dummy wafer boat 45 are mounted at opposing positions of right and left frame members 53b of the flame 53. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Nanbu with a reasonable expectation of success by specifying the positions of the protruding wafers as taught by Nanbu (Col 11 Line 3-4).
Regarding Claim 15, Abe teaches The method of claim 14, wherein light irradiated from a first light source corresponding to the reference end-effector among the plurality of light sources is at least partially blocked by the reference end-effector in a normal state. ([0078] As shown in FIG. 11, the present invention can use a reflective optical sensor 65 as the optical sensor. In this case, a light emission section 66 and a light reception section 67 are positioned so that the light emitted from the light emission section 66 bounces off the circumferential side surfaces of the forks 41 a-41 e when the forks 41 a-41 e are inserted into the inspection position within the housing 61, and that the light reception section 67 is positioned on the optical axis L of the bounced light.)
Regarding Claim 16, Abe does not expressly disclose but Nanbu discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of light sources further comprise a second light source provided at a position different from that of the first light source, and one or less variable end-effectors are disposed between the first light source and the second light source, which are adjacent to each other. (Col 10 Line 62-64 As shown in FIG. 15, transmission protrusion position detection sensors 56 constituted by light-emitting portions 56a)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Abe with the teachings of Nanbu with a reasonable expectation of success by specifying the positions of the protruding wafers as taught by Nanbu (Col 11 Line 3-4).
Regarding Claim 17, Abe teaches The method of claim 14, wherein an interval between the plurality of end-effectors is adjusted by driving a motor, and the method further comprises storing motor encoder (motor encoder) values of the first interval and the second interval. ([0062] The control section 7 further includes an inspection program 72, which checks the front-rear posture of each fork 41 a-41 e of the wafer transport mechanism 4 relative to the horizontal plane, a reference data storage section 73, and an acquired data storage section 74. The control section 7 is connected to the elevator mechanism 52 for the forks 41 a-41 e, encoder 54, optical sensor 62, computer display means 81, and alarm generation means 82, and configured to send predetermined control signals to such connected components)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH TRAN whose telephone number is (313)446-6642. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm M-F.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/S.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights