Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/859,458

SUBSTRATE-CONVEYING ROBOT SYSTEM AND SUBSTRATE-CONVEYING ROBOT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 23, 2024
Examiner
RINK, RYAN J
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Kawasaki Jukogyo Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
367 granted / 470 resolved
+26.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
494
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§103
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 470 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . DETAILED ACTION This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and are addressed below. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. JP2022-072399 filed on 04/26/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (JP 2009/088184) Regarding claims 1 and 13: Takahashi teaches A substrate-conveying robot system comprising: a substrate-handling hand for conveying a substrate (robot arm, transfer mechanism 9, see at least Fig. 1, ¶0031); an image capturer (imaging camera 2, ¶0031, Fig. 1); and a controller (control device 8), wherein the controller acquires positional information on a notch or an orientation flat in the substrate conveyed by the substrate-handling hand based on an image captured by the image capturer from a lower side with respect to the substrate-handling hand in conveyance of the substrate (see at least ¶0019-0021, ¶0052-0053, ¶0092, Fig. 9). Regarding claim 2: Takahashi further teaches wherein the image of the substrate conveyed by the substrate-handling hand is captured at a position that overlaps a conveyance path of the substrate conveyed by the substrate-handling hand as viewed from an upper side by the image capturer from the lower side with respect to the substrate-handling hand (see at least ¶0040-0041). Regarding claim 3: Takahashi further teaches wherein the image capturer is arranged on the lower side with respect to the substrate-handling hand (see at least ¶0092). Regarding claim 6: Takahashi further teaches a horizontal multi-joint robot arm to which the substrate-handling hand is attached and that is arranged on the lower side with respect to the substrate-handling hand, wherein the image capturer is provided to the horizontal multi-joint robot arm (see at least Fig. 1, 4). Regarding claim 9: Takahashi further teaches a horizontal multi-joint robot arm to which the substrate-handling hand is attached and that is arranged on the lower side with respect to the substrate-handling hand (arm 9, see at least Fig. 1); and a base that is arranged on the lower side with respect to the horizontal multi-joint robot arm and to which the horizontal multi-joint robot arm is attached (see at least Fig. 1, 4), wherein the image capturer is arranged at a position that overlaps a conveyance path of the substrate conveyed by the substrate-handling hand as viewed from an upper side in the base, which is arranged on the lower side with respect to the substrate-handling hand (see at least ¶0092). Regarding claim 10: Takahashi further teaches wherein the image capturer is arranged at a position that overlaps a conveyance path of the substrate conveyed by the substrate-handling hand as viewed from an upper side on a floor surface arranged on the lower side with respect to the substrate-handling hand (see at least ¶0092). Regarding claim 11: Takahashi further teaches wherein the controller outputs the acquired positional information on the notch or the orientation flat in the substrate to a control apparatus for controlling a conveyance destination apparatus to which the substrate is conveyed (see at least ¶0057). Regarding claim 12: Takahashi further teaches wherein the controller controls capture of the image of the substrate conveyed by the substrate-handling hand from the lower side by using the image capturer in the conveyance of the substrate by using the substrate-handling hand in addition to acquisition of the positional information on the notch or the orientation flat in the substrate (see at least ¶0057). 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 of this title, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Cavins et al (US 2018/0068881). Regarding claim 4: Takahashi teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above. Takahashi further teaches an edge sensor detecting an outer edge of the substrate (see at least ¶0039). Takahashi does not explicitly teach the specifics of the edge sensor. Schaller teaches a substrate processing apparatus, including a sensor for detecting a part of an outline shape of the substrate in which an outer edge of the substrate overlaps the substrate-handling hand as viewed from the lower side (sensors 1350-1355, see at least Fig. 13C, ¶0049-0050), wherein the controller acquires the positional information on the notch or the orientation flat in the substrate conveyed by the substrate-handling hand based on the image captured by the image capturer from the lower side in the conveyance of the substrate and a detection result detected by the sensor in the conveyance of the substrate (see at least ¶0049-0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the substrate transfer apparatus as taught by Takahashi with the sensor mounted on the end effector as taught by Cavins in order to provide a simple, means for determining an alignment or misalignment of the substrate. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi and Cavins as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Shaller et al (US 2021/0013084). Regarding claim 5: Takahashi and Cavins teaches the limitations as in claim 4 above. Cavins further teaches wherein any suitable type of sensor may be used (see ¶0050). Cavins does not explicitly teach the sensor being a laser sensor. Shaller teaches a system and method of robotic substrate transfer wherein a substrate alignment is detected using a laser sensor to detect a notch in the substrate (see at least ¶0077, Fig. 6E). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the substrate transfer apparatus as taught by Takahashi and Cavins with the well-known laser irradiator as taught by Shaller as a matter of design choice. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Shintaro (JP 2011/134820). Takahashi does not explicitly teach a second arm connected to the first arm and the image sensor being mounted on the arm. Shintaro teaches a substrate transfer system and method including wherein the horizontal multi-joint robot arm includes a first arm, and a second arm arranged on the upper side with respect to the first arm and connected to the first arm; and the image capturer is arranged in an upper surface of the second arm (see at least Fig. 3, ¶0020-0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the substrate transfer apparatus as taught by Takahashi with the second arm as taught by Shintaro in order to increase efficiency, allowing parallel operations, having one arm perform an operation while the other arm finishes a first operation. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 8 is 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 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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. /Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601606
AUDIO OUTPUT DEVICE, AUDIO OUTPUT METHOD, PROGRAM AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591361
ROBOTIC FLOOR-CLEANING SYSTEM MANAGER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583477
Autonomous Vehicle Validation using Real-World Adversarial Events
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12509073
Prediction Variance Estimation
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12505925
INTERFACING WITH A MOBILE TELEPRESENCE ROBOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 470 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month