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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the colon should be removed, and the semicolons should be removed and/or replaced by (a) comma(s). 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).
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: storage unit (Claims 1-33) and holding unit (Claims 16-17).
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 § 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 16-17 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.
Claim limitation “holding unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is disclosed that, “The system 100 may comprise a holding unit for receiving and holding the storage unit 102. The system 100 may comprise a plurality of such holding units.” The specific structure of the holding unit is neither disclosed nor shown. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-17, 24, 27-30, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Babbs et al. (US 6326755) (“Babbs”). The 102 rejections below are based on the GB OA for application GB2208951.0 on the 12 December 2024 IDS, X-reference WO 01/79091 A1 (US 6326755 is the US equivalent).
Claim 1: three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12, col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; “parallel processing of workpieces”); and
a robotic arm comprising a first set of end effectors including three or more end effectors (FIG. 10-12; col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
wherein the robotic arm is configured to pick up, from a storage unit (354) configured to store a plurality of wafer-shaped articles (“Assemblies 354 are in general provided for receiving a container such as a SMIF pod or a bar cassette, separating the cassette from the container (when a container is provided), and presenting the cassette to the robot 100 for transfer by the robot of the workpieces therein.”), a respective wafer-shaped article with each of the three or more end effectors (400X), and load one of the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of the three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12, col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 2: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously load the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of the three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12, col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 3: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously pick up the respective wafer-shaped articles with each of the three or more end effectors from the storage unit (FIG. 10-12, col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 4: wherein the three or more processing stations are configured to operate simultaneously (FIG. 10-12, col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 5: wherein each of the three or more end effectors is pivotably mounted about a first common axis (FIG. 10-12; 108/250/252/etc.)
Claim 6: wherein the three or more end effectors are configured to be aligned to pick up the respective wafer-shaped articles from the storage unit (FIG. 10-12, col. 2; line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; col. 10, lines 51-63 imply this)
Claim 7: wherein the three or more end effectors are configured to be fanned- out to load the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of the three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12, col. 2; line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 8: wherein the three or more end effectors are configured to be at different pivot angles about the first common axis to load the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of the three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12, col. 2; line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; col. 10, lines 51-63 imply this);
Claim 9: wherein the three or more end effectors are arranged one above another along the first common axis (FIG. 10-12, col. 2; line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; col. 10, lines 51-63 imply this);
Claim 10: wherein the robotic arm comprises a first forearm, and wherein the three or more end effectors are pivotably mounted to the first forearm, the three or more end effectors being pivotable relative to the first forearm about a first common axis (FIG. 10-12, col. 2; line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; col. 10, lines 51-63 imply this);
Claim 11: wherein the three or more end effectors are pivotable relative to the first forearm between a first arrangement where the three or more end effectors are aligned with one another along the first common axis,
and a second arrangement where the three or more end effectors are at different pivot angles about the first common axis (FIG. 10-12, col. 2; line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; col. 10, lines 51-63 imply this);
Claim 12: wherein the robotic arm is configured to load the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of the three or more processing stations by:
moving the first forearm towards the three or more processing stations, with the three or more end effectors in the first arrangement; and
moving the three or more end effectors from the first arrangement to the second arrangement, such that each of the three or more end effectors is above an associated one of the three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12, col. 2; line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; col. 10, lines 51-63 imply this);
Claim 16: wherein the system further comprises a holding unit configured to hold the storage unit (FIG. 10-12; “Assemblies 354 are in general provided for receiving a container such as a SMIF pod or a bar cassette, separating the cassette from the container (when a container is provided), and presenting the cassette to the robot 100 for transfer by the robot of the workpieces therein.”);
Claim 17: wherein the system comprises a plurality of the holding units (FIG. 10-12);
Claim 24: a shutter, the shutter being movable between a closed state in which it isolates the robotic arm from the three or more processing stations, and an open state in which it allows the robotic arm to access the three or more processing stations (US 6082949 is 08/730,643, “The load port assemblies 354 may be of conventional design, such as for example as disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 08/730,643 entitled "LOAD PORT OPENER", which application is assigned to the owner of the present application and is incorporated by reference in its entirety herein.” At least door 46 in US 6082949, which application is assigned to the owner of the present application [of Babbs] and is incorporated by reference in its entirety herein);
Claim 27: using a robotic arm comprising a first set of end effectors including three or more end effectors (FIG. 10-12; col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49), picking up from a storage unit (354) a respective wafer-shaped article (400X) with each of the three or more end effectors (“Assemblies 354 are in general provided for receiving a container such as a SMIF pod or a bar cassette, separating the cassette from the container (when a container is provided), and presenting the cassette to the robot 100 for transfer by the robot of the workpieces therein.); and
loading, with the robotic arm, one of the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12, col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49; “parallel processing of workpieces”);
Claim 28: wherein the respective wafer-shaped articles are simultaneously loaded into each of the three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12; col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 29: wherein the respective wafer-shaped articles are simultaneously picked up with each of the three or more end effectors (FIG. 10-12; col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 30: following the loading of the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of the three or more processing stations, operating the three processing stations to process the respective wafer-shaped articles (FIG. 10-12; col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
Claim 32. (Original) A robotic arm comprising a first set of end effectors including three or more end effectors (FIG. 10-12; col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49);
wherein the robotic arm is configured to pick up, from a storage unit configured to store a plurality of wafer-shaped articles, a respective wafer-shaped article with each of the three or more end effectors, and load one of the respective wafer-shaped articles into each of three or more processing stations (FIG. 10-12; col. 2, line 50 to col. 3, line 21, col. 11, line 24-26, col. 14, lines 26-33, col. 15, lines 19-49).
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) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs in view of Hohenwarter et al. (US 9316443) (“Hohenwarter”). Babbs discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Babbs does not directly show:
Claim 13: wherein: each of the three or more processing stations comprises a rotary chuck having a set of retaining pins for retaining the respective wafer-shaped article; and
each rotary chuck is configured to rotate when the three or more end effectors are moved to the second arrangement, to prevent contact between the set of retaining pins and the associated end effector;
Claim 14: wherein each rotary chuck is configured to rotate in synchronisation with the movement of the associated end effector.
Hohenwarter shows a similar device having:
Claim 13: wherein: each of the three or more processing stations comprises a rotary chuck having a set of retaining pins for retaining the respective wafer-shaped article; and
each rotary chuck is configured to rotate when the three or more end effectors are moved to the second arrangement, to prevent contact between the set of retaining pins and the associated end effector (Hohenwarter suggests rotary chuck 1 having rotating pins 10-X);
Claim 14: wherein each rotary chuck is configured to rotate in synchronisation with the movement of the associated end effector (Babbs shows moving end effector, Hohenwarter shows the rotary chuck);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving consistency of system performance across all wafer-shaped articles to obtain more consistent processing tolerances among all wafer-shaped articles (col. 1, last line to col. 2, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babbs as taught by Hohenwarter and include Hohenwarter’s similar device having:
Claim 13: wherein: each of the three or more processing stations comprises a rotary chuck having a set of retaining pins for retaining the respective wafer-shaped article; and
each rotary chuck is configured to rotate when the three or more end effectors are moved to the second arrangement, to prevent contact between the set of retaining pins and the associated end effector;
Claim 14: wherein each rotary chuck is configured to rotate in synchronisation with the movement of the associated end effector;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving consistency of system performance across all wafer-shaped articles to obtain more consistent processing tolerances among all wafer-shaped articles.
Claim(s) 15 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2014/0374024) (“Nguyen”). Babbs discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Babbs does not directly show:
Claim 15: wherein the three or more processing stations are arranged at different vertices of a triangle;
Claim 25: a first set of three or more processing stations and a second set of three or more processing stations, the first set and the second set of three or more processing stations being arranged adjacent to one another, wherein the robotic arm is configured to selectively load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the three or more processing stations of the first set or the three or more processing stations of the second set.
Nguyen shows a similar device having:
Claim 15: wherein the three or more processing stations are arranged at different vertices of a triangle (at least 110/112/120 in FIG. 1);
Claim 25: a first set of three or more processing stations and a second set of three or more processing stations, the first set and the second set of three or more processing stations being arranged adjacent to one another, wherein the robotic arm is configured to selectively load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the three or more processing stations of the first set or the three or more processing stations of the second set (first set 110/111/112; second set 132/120/128);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing an overall footprint and cost of the processing system (para. [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babbs as taught by Nguyen and include Nguyen’s similar device having:
Claim 15: wherein the three or more processing stations are arranged at different vertices of a triangle;
Claim 25: a first set of three or more processing stations and a second set of three or more processing stations, the first set and the second set of three or more processing stations being arranged adjacent to one another, wherein the robotic arm is configured to selectively load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the three or more processing stations of the first set or the three or more processing stations of the second set;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing an overall footprint and cost of the processing system.
Claim(s) 19-22 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs in view of Hudgens et al. (US 2021/0146554 A1) (“Hudgens”). Babbs discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Babbs does not directly show:
Claim 19: wherein: the robotic arm further comprises a second set of end effectors including three or more end effectors; and
wherein the robotic arm is configured to pick up, with each end effector in the second set, a respective wafer-shaped article from each of the three or more processing stations, and load the respective wafer-shaped articles into a storage unit;
Claim 20: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously pick up the respective wafer-shaped articles with each of the three or more end effectors of the second set of end effectors from each of the three or more processing stations;
Claim 21: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the storage unit;
Claim 22: wherein the robotic arm comprises a second forearm, and wherein the three or more end effectors in the second set are pivotably mounted to the second forearm, the three or more end effectors being pivotable relative to the second forearm about a second common axis;
Claim 31: wherein the robotic arm further comprises a second set of end effectors including three or more end effectors, the method further comprising:
following the processing of the respective wafer-shaped articles, picking up, with each end effector in the second set, one of the respective wafer-shaped articles from one of the three or more processing stations; and
loading the respective wafer-shaped articles into a storage unit.
Hudgens shows a similar device having:
Claim 19: wherein: the robotic arm further comprises a second set of end effectors including three or more end effectors (Babbs discloses, “It is understood that the wafer sorter 350 is one of many possible embodiments in which the robot 100 may be used to accomplish parallel workpiece processing.”; Hudgens shows in at least FIG. 7 a second set of end effectors 732A/732B/para. [0126] three or more end effectors); and
wherein the robotic arm is configured to pick up, with each end effector in the second set (FIG. 7; para. [0093]-[0108]), a respective wafer-shaped article from each of the three or more processing stations, and load the respective wafer-shaped articles into a storage unit (Babbs shows three or more processing stations and storage unit);
Claim 20: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously pick up the respective wafer-shaped articles with each of the three or more end effectors of the second set of end effectors from each of the three or more processing stations (Babbs shows three or more processing stations and storage unit; Hudgens shows in at least FIG. 7 a second set of end effectors 732A/732B/para. [0126] three or more end effectors);
Claim 21: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the storage unit (Babbs shows three or more processing stations and storage unit; Hudgens shows in at least FIG. 7 a second set of end effectors 732A/732B/para. [0126] three or more end effectors);
Claim 22: wherein the robotic arm comprises a second forearm, and wherein the three or more end effectors in the second set are pivotably mounted to the second forearm, the three or more end effectors being pivotable relative to the second forearm about a second common axis (FIG. 7, 710/713);
Claim 31: wherein the robotic arm further comprises a second set of end effectors including three or more end effectors, the method further comprising:
following the processing of the respective wafer-shaped articles, picking up, with each end effector in the second set, one of the respective wafer-shaped articles from one of the three or more processing stations; and
loading the respective wafer-shaped articles into a storage unit (Babbs shows three or more processing stations and storage unit; Hudgens shows in at least FIG. 7 a second set of end effectors 732A/732B/para. [0126] three or more end effectors);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of significantly improving the throughput and efficiency of an electronics device processing system in some use cases, such as cases in which transfer time (the time that it takes to transfer wafers into and/or out of a process chamber) is greater than process time (the time used to actually perform a process on wafers in a process chamber) (para. [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babbs as taught by Hudgens and include Hudgens’s similar device having:
Claim 19: wherein: the robotic arm further comprises a second set of end effectors including three or more end effectors; and
wherein the robotic arm is configured to pick up, with each end effector in the second set, a respective wafer-shaped article from each of the three or more processing stations, and load the respective wafer-shaped articles into a storage unit;
Claim 20: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously pick up the respective wafer-shaped articles with each of the three or more end effectors of the second set of end effectors from each of the three or more processing stations;
Claim 21: wherein the robotic arm is configured to simultaneously load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the storage unit;
Claim 22: wherein the robotic arm comprises a second forearm, and wherein the three or more end effectors in the second set are pivotably mounted to the second forearm, the three or more end effectors being pivotable relative to the second forearm about a second common axis;
Claim 31: wherein the robotic arm further comprises a second set of end effectors including three or more end effectors, the method further comprising:
following the processing of the respective wafer-shaped articles, picking up, with each end effector in the second set, one of the respective wafer-shaped articles from one of the three or more processing stations; and
loading the respective wafer-shaped articles into a storage unit;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of significantly improving the throughput and efficiency of an electronics device processing system in some use cases, such as cases in which transfer time (the time that it takes to transfer wafers into and/or out of a process chamber) is greater than process time (the time used to actually perform a process on wafers in a process chamber).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs in view of Schmidt et al. (US 6322119) (“Schmidt”). Babbs discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Babbs does not directly show:
Claim 18: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the first set of end effectors.
Schmidt shows a similar device having:
Claim 18: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the first set of end effectors (via 302 (FIG. 6B/10) suggests flipping end effectors; col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 21);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a robotic arm with increased flexibility of movement (col. 2, lines 59-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babbs as taught by Schmidt and include Schmidt’s similar device having:
Claim 18: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the first set of end effectors;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a robotic arm with increased flexibility of movement.
Claim(s) 23 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs in view of Hudgens and Schmidt. Babbs discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Babbs does not directly show:
Claim 23: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the second set of end effectors;
Claim 33: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the first set of effectors.
Schmidt shows a similar device having:
Claim 23: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the second set of end effectors (via 302 (FIG. 6B/10) suggests flipping end effectors; col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 21);
Claim 33: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the first set of effectors (via 302 (FIG. 6B/10) suggests flipping end effectors; col. 7, line 51 to col. 8, line 21);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a robotic arm with increased flexibility of movement (col. 2, lines 59-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babbs and Hudgens as taught by Schmidt and include Schmidt’s similar device having:
Claim 23: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the second set of end effectors;
Claim 33: wherein the robotic arm is configured to flip the first set of effectors;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a robotic arm with increased flexibility of movement.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs in view of Rice (US 2019/0355600). Babbs discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Babbs does not directly show:
Claim 26: two or more levels arranged one above another, wherein each level comprises a respective set of three or more processing stations, wherein the robotic arm is configured to selectively load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the set of three or more processing stations of one of the two or more levels.
Rice shows a similar device having:
Claim 26: two or more levels arranged one above another, wherein each level comprises a respective set of three or more processing stations, wherein the robotic arm is configured to selectively load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the set of three or more processing stations of one of the two or more levels (para. [0033]; FIG. 1-3; 217a/217b at two or more levels arranged one above another);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing system and manufacturing costs and improving process throughput (para. [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babbs as taught by Rice and include Rice’s similar device having:
Claim 26: two or more levels arranged one above another, wherein each level comprises a respective set of three or more processing stations, wherein the robotic arm is configured to selectively load the respective wafer-shaped articles into the set of three or more processing stations of one of the two or more levels;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing system and manufacturing costs and improving process throughput.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0399077 discloses end effectors 110A-110C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (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 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.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights