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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the claimed horizontal drive mechanism is both (a) horizontal drive mechanism and (b) horizontal moving mechanism in the orig. spec. The terminology should be consistently the former or the latter (one or the other, not both) to reduce confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: horizontal drive mechanism (Claims 1-16), advance and retreat drive mechanism (Claims 1-7,9-16), control unit (Claims 1-16), outer peripheral surface detection unit (Claims 5,8-9), drive current detection unit (Claim 8), position information detection unit (Claim 8), placement detection unit (Claim 12), and placement unit (Claim 15).
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 1-16 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 “horizontal drive mechanism” 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. There is only a box in Fig. 6 that does not denote specific structure. 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.
Claim limitation “drive current detection 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 not clear if the phrase, “The grasping control unit 97A corresponds to a ‘drive circuit’ and a ‘drive current detection unit’ in the present invention,” in the orig. spec. denotes another 112(f) recitation grasping control unit 97A which is not specific structure. Further, it is not clear if the grasping control unit 97A is the structure for the drive current detection unit; box 97A in Fig. 24 does not denote structure. 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.
Claim limitation “placement detection 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. The orig. spec. discloses, “The tactile sensor 73 corresponds to a ‘placement detection unit’ in the present invention.” It is unclear if this is the same as the outer peripheral surface detection unit tactile sensor; it is unclear if the placement detection unit is the same as the outer peripheral surface detection unit. 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.
Re. claim 15, the claimed clearance distance is a function of the location of the lower surface of the substrate which depends on the substrate thickness. Since the thickness of the substrate is variable, the claim is rendered indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II).
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) 1-6, 9-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki (JP 2015-79820 A).
Claim 1: a hand configured to hold the substrate in a horizontal posture (10);
a horizontal drive mechanism configured to drive the hand to advance and retreat in a horizontal plane in order to transfer the substrate (3; para. [0025]);
at least two guides disposed on the hand, and configured to hold the substrate away from the hand by grasping an outer peripheral surface of the substrate (20/30 at 20a/30a);
an advance and retreat drive mechanism configured to drive at least one of the at least two guides as a movable guide to advance and retreat with respect to the substrate (figure 8, 62/64); and
a control unit configured to control the advance and retreat drive mechanism to adjust a biasing force by the movable guide to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate (65; para. [0037]-[0040] and [0056]-[0057]);
Claim 2: wherein the control unit adjusts the biasing force of the movable guide to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate according to a shape of the substrate (thickness is a type of shape; para. [0037]-[0040] and [0056]-[0057]);
Claim 3: wherein the control unit adjusts the biasing force of the movable guide to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate such that the biasing force decreases as a thickness of the substrate decreases (para. [0037]-[0040] and [0056]-[0057]; para. [0018], the force decreases for lower thickness so substrate is not damaged due to excessive gripping force);
Claim 4: wherein the control unit adjusts the biasing force of the movable guide to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate such that the biasing force decreases as warpage of the substrate increases (para. [0007] and [0018]-[0019);
Claim 5: an outer peripheral surface detection unit configured to detect that the movable guide abuts on the outer peripheral surface of the substrate, wherein
the control unit adjusts the biasing force after the outer peripheral surface detection unit detects that the movable guide abuts on the outer peripheral surface of the substrate (after disposed between 20/30, para. [0037]);
Claim 6: wherein all of the guides are movable guides, and
when the substrate is held by the hand, the control unit moves all of the movable guides to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate by operating respective advance and retreat drive mechanisms, and adjusts biasing forces for the all of the movable guides by the respective advance and retreat drive mechanisms (figure 8; para. [0037]-[0040], [0007[, [0056]-[0057], and [0018]);
Claim 9: wherein the outer peripheral surface detection unit is provided for the movable guide at an attachment portion to the hand (attachment portion shown in figure 1/2/8/etc.);
Claim 10: wherein the guide is attached to a lower surface of the hand (attached at lower portions/surface of 61/42 inside 10);
Claim 11 wherein the guide has a columnar shape (circular post/columnar shape);
Claim 12: wherein the guide includes an inclined surface and a grasping portion, the inclined surface being lowered toward a center side of the substrate, the grasping portion being erected along the outer peripheral surface of the substrate (angle relative to vertical; figure 8 at 20a/30a),
when receiving the substrate, the hand grasps the substrate by pressing the substrate against the grasping portion by the movable guide applying a biasing force to the outer peripheral surface of the substrate after the substrate is once placed on the inclined surface (figure 8 at 20a/30a), and
the guide includes a placement detection unit configured to detect that the substrate is placed on the inclined surface (figure 8; para. [0037]-[0040], [0007[, [0056]-[0057], and [0018]);
Claim 16: a processor configured to perform predetermined processing on the substrate (para. [0036]-[0040]).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Fujimori et al. (JP 2022-91240 A) (“Fujimori”). Aoki discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Aoki does not directly show:
Claim 7: wherein the outer peripheral surface detection unit is a tactile sensor including a detection surface capable of detecting a force applied to each of three orthogonal axes.
Fujimori shows a similar device having:
Claim 7: wherein the outer peripheral surface detection unit is a tactile sensor including a detection surface capable of detecting a force applied to each of three orthogonal axes (“a plurality [of] tactile sensors 6a, 6b, 6c”; para. [0027]-[0062]; contacts “in the vicinity of the peripheral edge of the substrate”; “The sensor element 61 can detect the force applied from the substrate W in the three-axis directions (X-axis direction, Y-axis direction, and Z-axis direction described later)”; “The sensor element 61 is provided so as to be convex upward with respect to the hand body portion 32.”);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a simple and useful configuration to convey a substrate without damaging the substrate (para. [0006]/[0009]-[0010]). 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 Aoki as taught by Fujimori and include Fujimori’s similar device having:
Claim 7: wherein the outer peripheral surface detection unit is a tactile sensor including a detection surface capable of detecting a force applied to each of three orthogonal axes;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a simple and useful configuration to convey a substrate without damaging the substrate.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Chano et al. (KR 2020-0067251 A) (“Chano”). Aoki discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Aoki does not directly show:
Claim 8: wherein the advance and retreat drive mechanism includes a motor, a drive circuit, and an encoder, the motor driving the guide to advance and retract, the drive circuit applying a drive current for driving the motor, the encoder detecting a rotational position of the motor,
the outer peripheral surface detection unit includes at least one of a drive current detection unit and a position information detection unit, the drive current detection unit detecting the abutment based on drive current information of the drive circuit, the position information detection unit detecting the abutment based on position information output from the encoder, and
the control unit determines the abutment based on at least one of the drive current information and the position information.
Chano shows a similar device having:
Claim 8: wherein the advance and retreat drive mechanism includes a motor, a drive circuit, and an encoder, the motor driving the guide to advance and retract, the drive circuit applying a drive current for driving the motor, the encoder detecting a rotational position of the motor (para. [0027]/[0029]),
the outer peripheral surface detection unit includes at least one of a drive current detection unit and a position information detection unit, the drive current detection unit detecting the abutment based on drive current information of the drive circuit, the position information detection unit detecting the abutment based on position information output from the encoder (position information detection unit, para. [0029]), and
the control unit determines the abutment based on at least one of the drive current information and the position information (para. [0029], 75/etc.);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage of the substrate due to pressure on the substrate (para. [0002]/[0023]/[0031]). 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 Aoki as taught by Chano and include Chano’s similar device having:
Claim 8: wherein the advance and retreat drive mechanism includes a motor, a drive circuit, and an encoder, the motor driving the guide to advance and retract, the drive circuit applying a drive current for driving the motor, the encoder detecting a rotational position of the motor,
the outer peripheral surface detection unit includes at least one of a drive current detection unit and a position information detection unit, the drive current detection unit detecting the abutment based on drive current information of the drive circuit, the position information detection unit detecting the abutment based on position information output from the encoder, and
the control unit determines the abutment based on at least one of the drive current information and the position information;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of damage of the substrate due to pressure on the substrate.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Kim et al. (KR 2011-0080863 A) (“Kim”). Aoki discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Aoki does not directly show:
Claim 13: wherein the hand further includes a nozzle configured to supply a treatment liquid to an upper surface of the substrate grasped by the guide;
Claim 14: wherein the hand includes two extending portions and a beam portion, the extending portions extending from a proximal end to a distal end, the beam portion being suspended between the two extending portions so as to pass through a center portion of the substrate grasped by the hand, and
the nozzle is provided for the beam portion and supplies the treatment liquid to the substrate grasped by the hand.
Kim shows a similar device having:
Claim 13: wherein the hand further includes a nozzle configured to supply a treatment liquid to an upper surface of the substrate grasped by the guide (260; para. [0053]);
Claim 14: wherein the hand includes two extending portions and a beam portion (230/270), the extending portions extending from a proximal end to a distal end (figures 6-8), the beam portion being suspended between the two extending portions so as to pass through a center portion of the substrate grasped by the hand (figures 6-8), and
the nozzle is provided for the beam portion and supplies the treatment liquid to the substrate grasped by the hand (figures 6-8);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a wet state of the substrate can be sufficiently maintained while the substrate is transferred, so that water spot formation due to natural drying on the substrate can be sufficiently suppressed (para. [0024]). 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 Aoki as taught by Kim and include Kim’s similar device having:
Claim 13: wherein the hand further includes a nozzle configured to supply a treatment liquid to an upper surface of the substrate grasped by the guide;
Claim 14: wherein the hand includes two extending portions and a beam portion, the extending portions extending from a proximal end to a distal end, the beam portion being suspended between the two extending portions so as to pass through a center portion of the substrate grasped by the hand, and
the nozzle is provided for the beam portion and supplies the treatment liquid to the substrate grasped by the hand;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a wet state of the substrate can be sufficiently maintained while the substrate is transferred, so that water spot formation due to natural drying on the substrate can be sufficiently suppressed.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Furuya (KR 2019-0031462 A). Aoki discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Aoki does not directly show:
Claim 15: wherein the hand includes two types of pickup hands including an upper pickup hand having the guide on a lower surface thereof and a lower pickup hand having the guide on an upper surface thereof, and
according to a clearance as a distance between an upper surface of a placement unit as a transfer destination and a lower surface of the substrate, the substrate is transferred to and from the placement unit by using the lower pickup hand for the placement unit having a large clearance, and using the upper pickup hand for the placement unit having a small clearance.
Furuya shows a similar device having:
Claim 15: wherein the hand includes two types of pickup hands including an upper pickup hand having the guide on a lower surface thereof and a lower pickup hand having the guide on an upper surface thereof (figures 4-7, 22b1/22b2/21b1/22b2), and
according to a clearance as a distance between an upper surface of a placement unit as a transfer destination and a lower surface of the substrate, the substrate is transferred to and from the placement unit by using the lower pickup hand for the placement unit having a large clearance, and using the upper pickup hand for the placement unit having a small clearance (intended use; MPEP 2115; substrates have different thicknesses, therefore the clearance may depend on the substrate thicknesses which are different);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the number of substrates that are transferred at one time to increase productivity of processing wafers (para. [0069]). 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 Aoki as taught by Furuya and include Furuya’s similar device having:
Claim 15: wherein the hand includes two types of pickup hands including an upper pickup hand having the guide on a lower surface thereof and a lower pickup hand having the guide on an upper surface thereof, and
according to a clearance as a distance between an upper surface of a placement unit as a transfer destination and a lower surface of the substrate, the substrate is transferred to and from the placement unit by using the lower pickup hand for the placement unit having a large clearance, and using the upper pickup hand for the placement unit having a small clearance;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing the number of substrates that are transferred at one time to increase productivity of processing wafers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7374393 discloses position sensor 930.
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