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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and considered below.
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 (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 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 -2, 5, 9 -10, 14 – 16, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (KR20060074775A) in view of Yang (KR20100060913A).
As per claim 1, Seo teaches the limitations of:
a wafer transfer apparatus (See at least abstract; The present invention relates to a robot arm of a UV device for semiconductor manufacturing that transports a wafer), comprising:
a transfer arm configured to transfer a wafer (See at least abstract);
a blade coupled to an end portion of the transfer arm and configured to support the wafer; and (See at least abstract and page 7 paragraph 2; wherein a wafer adsorption plate for transporting the wafer is fixedly coupled to the upper body … the robot arm 100 are each consists of a binary possible upper and lower two of the main body (102, 104) before and after separate, the upper body 102 in the conventional wafer suction plate 140 is fixedly coupled);
a light irradiation unit on the robot arm and configured to irradiate ultraviolet light toward the wafer (See at least abstract; robot arm of a UV device for semiconductor manufacturing that transports a wafer, which is a process object, for UV irradiation through a UV lamp in a UV device … an illuminance measuring plate, wherein an illuminance measuring sensor for measuring the illuminance of the UV lamp is provided at the tip, is fixedly coupled to the lower body);
Seo does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
a light irradiation unit on the blade.
Yang teaches the limitation of:
a light irradiation unit on the blade (See at least page 5 paragraph 1; The sensing unit 200 may be positioned on the upper surface of the blades 110 and may include a light emitting unit 210 and a light receiving unit 220. The light emitting unit 210 may be disposed on the upper surface of one of the blades 110 and may irradiate light across the upper portion of the wafer 10. The light receiving unit 220 may include a light emitting unit 210, The control unit 300 may be provided on the upper surface of the other of the blades 110 so as to face the light emitting unit 210).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a light irradiation unit on the blade as taught by Yang in the system of Seo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches the limitations of:
wherein the blade is configured to support the wafer on a first surface of the blade, and the light irradiation unit is on a second surface of the blade, opposite to the first surface of the blade, and at least a portion of the blade has a light transmitting region through which ultraviolet light irradiated by the light irradiation unit is configured to pass through (Seo, see at least abstract and figure 2 – 3 and Yang, see at least at least page 5 paragraph 1).
As per claim 5, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches the limitations of:
wherein the light irradiation unit includes at least one ultraviolet light-emitting diode lamp (Seo, see at least abstract).
As per claim 9, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches the limitations of:
wherein the light irradiation unit is on one surface of the blade configured to support the wafer (Seo, see at least abstract and figure 2 – 3 and Yang, see at least at least page 5 paragraph 1).
As per claim 10, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches the limitations of:
wherein the light irradiation unit is in an interior of the blade (Seo, see at least abstract and figure 2 – 3 and Yang, see at least at least page 5 paragraph 1).
As per claim 14, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches the limitations of:
wherein a coupling portion between the end portion of the transfer arm and one end of the blade is formed in a straight or a curved shape (Seo, see at least abstract and figure 2 – 3 and Yang, see at least at least figure 11).
As per claim 20, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches the limitations of:
wherein the light irradiation unit is configured to have a fixed position or a movable position on the blade (Seo, see at least abstract).
Regarding claims 15 – 16 and 19:
Claims 15 – 16 and 19 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 2, 5, 9 – 10 and 14 above, respectively.
Claims 3 – 4 and 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo and Yang and in further view of Goodwin et al. (Hereinafter Goodwin) (WO 89/12907).
As per claim 3, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches all the limitations of claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
wherein the blade is comprised of a light-transmitting material.
Goodwin teaches the limitations of
wherein the blade is comprised of a light-transmitting material (See page 13 paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the blade is comprised of a light-transmitting material as taught by Goodwin in the system of the combination of Seo and Yang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 4, the combination of Seo, Yang and Goodwin teaches the limitation of:
wherein the blade includes at least one of acrylic polymer, silicone polymer, quartz, and fumed silica (Goodwin, see page 13 paragraph 3).
As per claim 11, the combination of Seo, Yang and Goodwin teaches the limitation of:
wherein the light irradiation unit has an irradiation range configured to irradiate ultraviolet light toward an entire region of the wafer (Seo, see at least abstract and figure 2 – 3 and Yang, see at least at least page 5 paragraph 1 and Goodwin, see page 13 paragraph 3).
As per claim 12, the combination of Seo, Yang and Goodwin teaches the limitation of:
wherein the end portion of the transfer arm and one end of the blade are fitted and coupled (Goodwin, see at least page 28 line 15 – 28).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo and Yang and in further view of Kida et al. (Hereinafter Kida) (US 2002/0089655 A1).
As per claim 6, the combination of Seo and Yang teaches all the limitations of claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitation of:
wherein the light irradiation unit includes a plurality of light-emitting diode lamps spaced apart in a first direction of the blade.
Kida teaches the limitation of wherein the light irradiation unit includes a plurality of light-emitting diode lamps spaced apart in a first direction of the blade (See at least figure 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include wherein the light irradiation unit includes a plurality of light-emitting diode lamps spaced apart in a first direction of the blade as taught by Kida in the system of the combination of Seo and Yang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 8, 13 and 17 – 18 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US 2012/0181686 A1) discloses method of preparing semiconductor package and semiconductor die for semiconductor package.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights