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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-202089, filed on 11/29/2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites the limitation “a reverse portion”. As used in the claim, “a reverse portion that reverses one surface of the hand”, the reverse portion is actively being used to reverse the surface of the hand. While this limitation is not indefinite as written, it would benefit from claim clarity to use the adjective form of reverse, reversing, rather than the verb reverse. This is a more common phrasing within the art. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitation “a reverse portion” is instead phrased “a reversing portion” in this claim as all other claims. This change is suggested but not required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites the limitation “one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the hand”. The use of the word “and” implies that a guide is located at least on an upper and a lower surface of the hand. This seems to contradict with the later limitation of the claim “the hand includes a reverse portion that reverses one surface on which the guide is provided and an other surface on which the guide is not provided”. These limitations in combination imply that, because both the upper and lower surfaces of the hand have guides, the reversing portion must reverse the hand to some third surface of the hand on which a guide is not provided, such as the side of the hand. However, based on the specifications, this does not seem to be the intention of the claim. For purposes of examination, based on the specification, this claim is interpreted as “The substrate transfer apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the hand includes the guide on one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the hand, and the hand includes a reverse portion that reverses one surface on which the guide is provided and an other surface on which another guide is provided.”. If this is the desired claim interpretation, appropriate correction of the claim language is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: recites the limitation “one of the processing unit”. Claim 7, on which claim 19 is dependent, only recites the existence of one processing unit. Thus, the use of the limitation “one of the processing unit” may cause confusion to the existence of potentially more than one processing units. While claim 11 recites multiple types of processing units, claim 19 is not dependent on it and thus still recites only one processing unit. Appropriate correction is suggested.
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 1-21 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 1 recites the limitation "the guide". The claim also recites the limitations “at least two guides” and “one of the at least two guides to advance and retract with respect to the substrate as a movable guide”. These limitations in combination imply the existence of two types of guides, movable ones and non-movable ones. The limitation “the guide” is indefinite as it fails to adequately describe which guide type is being referenced. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the guide” is interpreted to be referencing “one or more of the at least two guides” in both instances used. In addition, this interpretation will be used for the further use of the limitation in dependent claims 2-4 and 6.
Claims 2-6 inherit the above limitation and interpretation based on their dependence on claim 1. They are likewise indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites a first section “a temporary placement part on which the substrate unloaded from the carrier placement part is temporarily placed before being loaded into the processing unit” and a second section “and a processing unit that performs predetermined processing on the substrate loaded from the carrier or the temporary placement part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the processing unit” in the claim. The limitation “the processing unit” in the first section references a processing unit that has not been established yet. Thus, it would be necessary to establish the processing unit before establishing the temporary placement part, as is done in the second section. However, the limitation “the temporary placement part” in the second section makes this change likewise have an antecedent basis issue. Thus, as currently written, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation in the claim is interpreted as “a temporary placement part on which the substrate unloaded from the carrier placement part is temporarily placed before being loaded into a processing unit, wherein said processing unit performs predetermined processing on the substrate loaded from the carrier or the temporary placement part”.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites the limitation "the guide". The claim also recites the limitations “at least two guides” and “one of the at least two guides to advance and retract with respect to the substrate as a movable guide”. These limitations in combination imply the existence of two types of guides, movable ones and non-movable ones. The limitation “the guide” is indefinite as it fails to adequately describe which guide type is being referenced. For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the guide” is interpreted to be referencing “one or more of the at least two guides” in both instances used. In addition, this interpretation will be used for the further use of the limitation in dependent claim 17.
Claims 8-21 inherit the above limitation and interpretation based on their dependence on claim 7. They are likewise indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 14, in addition to the rejection above for claim 7, further recites the limitation “changes the upper holding hand to the lower holding hand or changes the lower holding hand to the upper holding hand”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An upper loading hand and a lower loading hand were established in claim 2. However, claim 14 is not dependent on claim 2. Thus, this claim is indefinite. Furthermore, the limitation of “the control unit changes” is indefinite as it does not describe how the control unit is changing the upper holding hand to the lower holding hand. There are multiple interpretations for how this change can be accomplished, for example switching the designation of which hand the upper hand and lower hands are, respectively, or switching the position of the hands such that the one below the other is changed to be above the other. Because of this, the limitation is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this claim is interpreted as “The substrate transfer apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the substrate transfer apparatus includes a plurality of the hands, wherein at least one of the plurality of hands is an upper holding hand in which the guide is provided on a lower surface of the hand, and at least one of the plurality of hands is a lower holding hand in which the guide is provided on an upper surface of the hand, wherein the control unit changes the position of the upper holding hand to the position of lower holding hand or changes the position of the lower holding hand to the position of the upper holding hand.”
Claim 15, in addition to the rejection above for claim 7, further recites the limitation “the upper surface” and “the lower surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear whether the upper surface and lower surface here are referencing a surface of the hand, as used in claims 2-6, or a surface of the substrate. Thus, this claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, 14-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Furuya (US 20170287767).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches
A substrate transfer apparatus for transferring a substrate, the apparatus comprising
(Figure 1, a first transfer robot 12 and a second transfer robot 14; Paragraph 0025, a first transfer robot (substrate transfer apparatus) 12, … a second transfer robot (substrate transfer apparatus) 14):
a hand that holds the substrate in a horizontal posture (Figure 4, first gripping plate 21 and second gripping plate 22; Paragraph 0047, first gripping plate 21; Paragraph 0050, second gripping plate 22);
a horizontal drive mechanism that advances and retracts the hand in a horizontal plane in order to deliver the substrate (Figures 3 and 4, arm 24; Paragraph 0064, The arm 24 is extensible and retractable, and holds the gripping part 23 to move the gripping part 23 together with the first gripping plate 21 and the second gripping plate 22 in a horizontal linear direction);
at least two guides that are provided on the hand (Figure 4, first claw 21b and second claw 22b; Paragraph 0047, a first claw 21b; Paragraph 0050, a second claw 22b)
and clamp an outer peripheral surface of the substrate to separate and hold the substrate from the hand (Figure 3, substrate W, first claw 21b, second claw 22b; Figure 5, abutment surfaces M1; Paragraph 0047, the first claw 21b has abutment surfaces M1 (M1a, M1b), which abut on the outer peripheral surface (side surface) of the substrate W; Paragraph 0048, As described above, the first claw 21b has the abutment surfaces M1 (M1a, M1b) above and below (in the Z direction) the horizontal plane (X-Y plane) of the first gripping plate 21 as a reference plane);
and an advancing/retracting drive mechanism that drives at least one of the at least two guides to advance and retract with respect to the substrate as a movable guide (Figure 4, gripping part 23; Paragraph 0052, the gripping part 23 moves the first gripping plate 21 and the second gripping plate 22 relative to each other such that each of the first claws 21b and each of the second claws 22b move close to and away from each other in a direction crossing the outer peripheral surface of the substrate W (e.g., in the horizontal direction)),
wherein the hand has modes for holding the substrate including (It is implied that the modes claimed correlate to different arrangements of holding the substrate):
an upper holding in which the hand is positioned above the substrate and the guide clamps an outer peripheral surface of the substrate in a state where the hand and the substrate are separated from each other (Figure 12, see substrate W, first claw 21b, and second claw 22b; Paragraph 0049, the lower surface (the back surface opposite to the front surface) of the first gripping plate 21 extends in the X-Y plane so as to face the main surface (front surface) of the substrate when the substrate W is held on the lower side);
and a lower holding in which the hand is positioned below the substrate, and the guide clamps an outer peripheral surface of the substrate in a state where the hand and the substrate are separated from each other (Figure 7, see substrate W, first claw 21b, and second claw 22b; Paragraph 0049, The upper surface (front surface) of the first gripping plate 21 extends in the X-Y plane so as to face the main surface (the surface opposite to the surface to be processed) of the substrate W when the substrate W is held on the upper side).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya further teaches
a plurality of the hands (Figure 2, upper arm unit 14a and lower arm unit 14b; Paragraph 0093, upper and lower arm units 14a and 14b),
wherein at least one of the plurality of hands is an upper holding hand in which the guide is provided on a lower surface of the hand, and at least one of the plurality of hands is a lower holding hand in which the guide is provided on an upper surface of the hand (Figure 3, see upper arm unit 14a with first claw 21b and second claw 22b and lower arm unit 14b with first claw 21b and second claw 22b; Paragraph 0097, the second arm unit 14b, which transfers the substrates W between the processing chambers 15a, may be formed to hold the substrates with only one of the upper side (each of the upper claws 21b1, each of the upper claws 22b1) or the lower side (each of the lower claws 21b2, each of the lower claws 22b2). In this case, the other claws that are not used can be appropriately omitted).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya further teaches
wherein the hand is a double-sided hand in which the guide is provided on both an upper surface and a lower surface of the hand (Figure 5, see first claw 21b; Figure 6, see second claw 22b; Paragraph 0047, the first claw 21b has abutment surfaces M1 (M1a, M1b), which abut on the outer peripheral surface (side surface) of the substrate W; Paragraph 0048, As described above, the first claw 21b has the abutment surfaces M1 (M1a, M1b) above and below (in the Z direction) the horizontal plane (X-Y plane) of the first gripping plate 21 as a reference plane).
Regarding claim 7, Furuya teaches
A substrate processing apparatus, comprising (Figure 1, substrate processing apparatus 10; Paragraph 0029, a substrate processing apparatus):
a control unit that controls the substrate transfer apparatus (Figure 1, control unit 16b; Paragraph 0039, a control unit (controller) 16b);
a carrier placement part on which a carrier capable of housing a plurality of substrates stacked with a gap is placed (Figure 1, opening/closing units 11; Paragraph 0029, a plurality of opening/closing units (storage) 11);
a temporary placement part on which the substrate unloaded from the carrier placement part is temporarily placed before being loaded into the processing unit (Figure 1, buffer unit 13; Paragraph 0032, In the buffer unit 13, the substrates W are stored as being stacked at predetermined intervals);
and a processing unit that performs predetermined processing on the substrate loaded from the carrier or the temporary placement part (Figure 1, substrate processing units 15; Paragraph 0029, a plurality of substrate processing units 15).
The remaining limitations are exactly the same as those from claim 1 and thus are likewise taught by Furuya as described above.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya further teaches
wherein the control unit changes the upper holding hand to the lower holding hand or changes the lower holding hand to the upper holding hand (Paragraph 0039, The control unit 16b controls each unit such as each of the opening/closing units 11, the first transfer robot 12, the second transfer robot 14, each of the substrate processing units 15, and the like, based on the various programs and the substrate processing information; It is implied that the control unit can control the hands as needed).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya further teaches
wherein the control unit changes a surface for holding a substrate from the upper surface to the lower surface, or changes a surface for holding a substrate from the lower surface to the upper surface (Paragraph 0039, The control unit 16b controls each unit such as each of the opening/closing units 11, the first transfer robot 12, the second transfer robot 14, each of the substrate processing units 15, and the like, based on the various programs and the substrate processing information; Figure 12, see substrate W, first claw 21b, and second claw 22b; Paragraph 0049, the lower surface (the back surface opposite to the front surface) of the first gripping plate 21 extends in the X-Y plane so as to face the main surface (front surface) of the substrate when the substrate W is held on the lower side; Figure 7, see substrate W, first claw 21b, and second claw 22b; Paragraph 0049, The upper surface (front surface) of the first gripping plate 21 extends in the X-Y plane so as to face the main surface (the surface opposite to the surface to be processed) of the substrate W when the substrate W is held on the upper side; It is implied that the control unit can control the hands as needed).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya further teaches
wherein the substrate transfer apparatus can transfer the substrate placed in the carrier to one of the processing unit and the temporary placement part (Figure 1, see opening/closing units 11, first transfer robot 12, buffer unit 13, second transfer robot 14, and substrate processing units 15; Paragraph 0029, a first transfer robot (substrate transfer apparatus) 12; Paragraph 0031, The first transfer robot 12 takes out an unprocessed substrate W from the special case, the door of which has been opened by one of the opening/closing units 11. The first transfer robot 12 moves in the first transfer direction to the vicinity of the buffer unit 13 as necessary, and stops. Then, the first transfer robot 12 turns at the stop position and transfers the unprocessed substrate W into the buffer unit 13).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya further teaches
wherein the substrate transfer apparatus loads the substrate unloaded from the carrier into the temporary placement part (Figure 1, see opening/closing units 11, first transfer robot 12, and buffer unit 13; Paragraph 0029, a first transfer robot (substrate transfer apparatus) 12; Paragraph 0031, The first transfer robot 12 takes out an unprocessed substrate W from the special case, the door of which has been opened by one of the opening/closing units 11. The first transfer robot 12 moves in the first transfer direction to the vicinity of the buffer unit 13 as necessary, and stops. Then, the first transfer robot 12 turns at the stop position and transfers the unprocessed substrate W into the buffer unit 13).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya further teaches
wherein the substrate transfer apparatus transfers the substrate unloaded from the temporary placement part to the processing unit (Figure 1, see buffer unit 13, second transfer robot 14, and substrate processing units 15; Paragraph 0029, a second transfer robot (substrate transfer apparatus) 14; Paragraph 0033, The second transfer robot 14 takes out an unprocessed substrate W from the buffer unit 13. The second transfer robot 14 moves in the second transfer direction to the vicinity of a desired one of the substrate processing units 15 as necessary, and stops. Then, the second transfer robot 14 turns at the stop position and transfers the unprocessed substrate W into the desired one of the substrate processing units 15).
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.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya (US 20170287767) in view of Oyama et al (US 20120230808), hereinafter Oyama.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches fully for claim 2, on which claim 3 is dependent, as seen above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Furuya fails to teach wherein the hand of at least one of the upper holding hand and the lower holding hand includes a reverse portion that reverses one surface of the hand on which the guide is provided and an other surface of the hand on which the guide is not provided.
However, Oyama teaches wherein the hand of at least one of the upper holding hand and the lower holding hand includes a reverse portion that reverses one surface of the hand on which the guide is provided and an other surface of the hand on which the guide is not provided (Oyama Figure 8, upper fork 54, first grip module 61, and second grip module 62; See Figures 13C and 14A, transfer module 27; Paragraph 0128, The upper fork 54 is returned and turned upside down, so that the wafer W1 is arranged in the lower fork 53 (the first process)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an upside-down turning capability of a substrate holder, as taught by Oyama, to the gripping plate of Furuya. One would have been motivated to do this to allow easier transportation of a substrate between a substrate holder and an accommodating part or another substrate holder (Oyama Paragraph 0020, a second fork arranged to be reversible and disposed above the first fork to be movable in a forward/backward direction to an accommodating part that accommodates the substrates and the spacer members, to transport a substrate or a spacer member between the accommodating part and the first fork).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Oyama to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches fully for claim 4, on which claim 5 is dependent, as seen above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Furuya fails to teach wherein the double-sided hand includes a reverse portion that reverses the upper surface and the lower surface of the double-sided hand.
However, Oyama teaches wherein the double-sided hand includes a reverse portion that reverses the upper surface and the lower surface of the double-sided hand (Oyama Figure 8, upper fork 54, first grip module 61, and second grip module 62; See Figures 13C and 14A, transfer module 27; Paragraph 0128, The upper fork 54 is returned and turned upside down, so that the wafer W1 is arranged in the lower fork 53 (the first process)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an upside-down turning capability of a substrate holder, as taught by Oyama, to the gripping plate of Furuya. One would have been motivated to do this to allow easier transportation of a substrate between a substrate holder and an accommodating part or another substrate holder (Oyama Paragraph 0020, a second fork arranged to be reversible and disposed above the first fork to be movable in a forward/backward direction to an accommodating part that accommodates the substrates and the spacer members, to transport a substrate or a spacer member between the accommodating part and the first fork).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Oyama to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches fully for claim 1, on which claim 6 is dependent, as seen above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Furuya further teaches wherein the hand includes the guide on one of an upper surface and a lower surface of the hand (Furuya Figure 5, see first claw 21b; Figure 6, see second claw 22b; Paragraph 0047, the first claw 21b has abutment surfaces M1 (M1a, M1b), which abut on the outer peripheral surface (side surface) of the substrate W; Paragraph 0048, As described above, the first claw 21b has the abutment surfaces M1 (M1a, M1b) above and below (in the Z direction) the horizontal plane (X-Y plane) of the first gripping plate 21 as a reference plane).
Furuya fails to teach wherein the hand includes a reverse portion that reverses one surface on which the guide is provided and an other surface on which the guide is not provided.
However, Oyama teaches wherein the double-sided hand includes a reverse portion that reverses the upper surface and the lower surface of the double-sided hand (Oyama Figure 8, upper fork 54, first grip module 61, and second grip module 62; See Figures 13C and 14A, transfer module 27; Paragraph 0128, The upper fork 54 is returned and turned upside down, so that the wafer W1 is arranged in the lower fork 53 (the first process)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an upside-down turning capability of a substrate holder, as taught by Oyama, to the gripping plate of Furuya. One would have been motivated to do this to allow easier transportation of a substrate between a substrate holder and an accommodating part or another substrate holder (Oyama Paragraph 0020, a second fork arranged to be reversible and disposed above the first fork to be movable in a forward/backward direction to an accommodating part that accommodates the substrates and the spacer members, to transport a substrate or a spacer member between the accommodating part and the first fork).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Oyama to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya (US 20170287767) in view of Goto et al (US 20180104827), hereinafter Goto.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches fully for claim 7, on which claim 8 is dependent, as seen above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit selects either the upper holding or the lower holding with respect to a mode of the hand to be inserted into the carrier or the temporary placement part according to a shape of the carrier or the substrate accommodated in the carrier or the temporary placement part.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit selects either the upper holding or the lower holding with respect to a mode of the hand to be inserted into the carrier or the temporary placement part according to a shape of the carrier or the substrate accommodated in the carrier or the temporary placement part (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4; Goto Paragraph 0041, The controller 30 is a computer. The controller 30 includes, for example, a processor (not shown) such as a microcontroller, CPU, MPU, PLC, DSP, ASIC or FPGA, and a memory section (not shown) such as ROM or RAM. Programs to be executed by the processor, fixed data, etc., are stored in the memory section. In addition, teaching point data used to control the operation of the robot arm 4, data relating to the shape and dimension of the robot hand 5, data relating to the shape and dimension of a substrate W retained by the robot hand 5, etc., are stored in the memory section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case as well as the data related to the shape and dimension of a substrate, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose the upper holding or the lower holding, which correlates to the use status, based on the shape of the substrate, which correlates to the case based on shape data. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as the shapes and dimension of a substrate. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches fully for claim 7, on which claim 9 is dependent, as seen above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit selects either the upper holding or the lower holding with respect to a mode of the hand to be inserted into the carrier or the temporary placement part according to gap information between the substrates placed in the carrier or the temporary placement part.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit selects either the upper holding or the lower holding with respect to a mode of the hand to be inserted into the carrier or the temporary placement part according to gap information between the substrates placed in the carrier or the temporary placement part (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4; Goto Paragraph 0073, in a case where the substrates W are carried into and out of a case (cassette) containing a plurality of substrates W arranged with specified gaps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose the upper holding or the lower holding, which correlates to the use status, based on pre-specified gaps between substrates, which correlates to the gap information, as taught by Goto. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as the specified gaps. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya in view Goto of teaches fully for claim 9, on which claim 10 is dependent, as seen above.
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit selects one of the upper holding and the lower holding with respect to a mode of the hand to be inserted into the carrier or the temporary placement part according to gap information formed at an uppermost portion in the carrier or the temporary placement part.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit selects one of the upper holding and the lower holding with respect to a mode of the hand to be inserted into the carrier or the temporary placement part according to gap information formed at an uppermost portion in the carrier or the temporary placement part (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4; Goto Paragraph 0073, in a case where the substrates W are carried into and out of a case (cassette) containing a plurality of substrates W arranged with specified gaps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose the upper holding or the lower holding, which correlates to the use status, based on pre-specified gaps between substrates inside the cassette, which correlates to the gap information, as taught by Goto. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as the specified gap between the top of the substrate cassette and the uppermost substrate. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches fully for claim 7, on which claim 11 is dependent, as seen above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”. Furuya further teaches
wherein the processing unit has at least two types of a first processing unit, a second processing unit, and a third processing unit (Furuya Paragraph 0029, a plurality of substrate processing units 15; Furuya Paragraph 0065, In the case of performing different processes, a first process is performed in the first processing chamber, while a process (second process) subsequent to the first process is performed in the second processing chamber).
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the first processing unit has the upper holding as a mode of the hand in which a substrate is loaded and unloaded, the second processing unit has the lower holding as a mode of the hand in which a substrate is loaded and unloaded, the third processing unit has both the upper holding and the lower holding as a mode of the hand in which a substrate is loaded and unloaded.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a finite number of possible solutions related to a loading and unloading condition of a substrate from one or more processing units in regards to a substrate holding position related to a gripping plate, as taught by Furuya. These solutions comprise having a substrate when loading and unloading from a processing unit as having the substrate:
Above a gripping plate
coplanar a gripping plate
below a gripping plate
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the limitations of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursuing these finite number of identified predictable potential solutions to the teaching of Furuya. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Furthermore, Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit selects a mode of the hand according to a type of the processing unit.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit selects a mode of the hand according to a type of the processing unit (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4. Goto Paragraph 0041, teaching point data used to control the operation of the robot arm 4, data relating to the shape and dimension of the robot hand 5, data relating to the shape and dimension of a substrate W retained by the robot hand 5, etc., are stored in the memory section; It is implied that one of the teaching point data options could correspond to the type of processing unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose a upper holding or the lower holding, which correlates to the use status, based on type of processing unit as taught by Goto. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as type of processing unit. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya teaches fully for claim 7, on which claim 12 is dependent, as seen above in the section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102”.
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein a mode of the hand when a substrate is loaded and unloaded is the upper holding or the lower holding.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try a finite number of possible solutions related to a loading and unloading condition of a substrate in regards to a substrate holding position related to a gripping plate, as taught by Furuya. These solutions comprise having a substrate when loading and unloading as having the substrate:
Above a gripping plate
coplanar a gripping plate
below a gripping plate
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the limitations of this claim with a reasonable expectation of success by pursuing these finite number of identified predictable potential solutions to the teaching of Furuya. For further information regarding this rationale, see MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Furthermore, Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit changes a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier or the temporary placement part according to a mode of the hand when the substrate is loaded into the processing unit.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit changes a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier or the temporary placement part according to a mode of the hand when the substrate is loaded into the processing unit (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4. Goto Paragraph 0041, teaching point data used to control the operation of the robot arm 4, data relating to the shape and dimension of the robot hand 5, data relating to the shape and dimension of a substrate W retained by the robot hand 5, etc., are stored in the memory section; It is implied that one of the teaching point data options could correspond to the type of processing unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose an above or below holding of a substrate, which correlates to the use status, based on how the substrate is loaded into a processing unit. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as how a substrate is loaded into a processing unit. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya in view of Goto teaches fully for claim 12, on which claim 13 is dependent, as seen above.
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit changes a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier in accordance with a mode of the hand in which a substrate is loaded into the processing unit in a state where a substrate unloaded from the carrier is temporarily placed in the temporary placement part.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit changes a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier in accordance with a mode of the hand in which a substrate is loaded into the processing unit in a state where a substrate unloaded from the carrier is temporarily placed in the temporary placement part (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose an above substrate holding or a below substrate holding, which correlates to the use status, based on loading and unloading conditions. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as loading and unloading conditions. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya in view of Goto teaches fully for claim 12, on which claim 16 is dependent, as seen above.
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit changes a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier in accordance with a mode of the hand in which a substrate is loaded into the processing unit in a state where a substrate unloaded from the carrier is temporarily placed in the temporary placement part.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit changes a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier in accordance with a mode of the hand in which a substrate is loaded into the processing unit in a state where a substrate unloaded from the carrier is temporarily placed in the temporary placement part (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose an above substrate holding or a below substrate holding, which correlates to the use status, based on loading and unloading conditions. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as loading and unloading conditions. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Furuya in view of Goto teaches fully for claim 12, on which claim 18 is dependent, as seen above.
Furuya fails to fully teach wherein the control unit does not perform the change in a case where a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier or the temporary placement part is the same as a mode of the hand in which the substrate is loaded into the processing unit.
However, Goto teaches wherein the control unit does not perform the change in a case where a mode of the hand in which a substrate has been unloaded from the carrier, or the temporary placement part is the same as a mode of the hand in which the substrate is loaded into the processing unit. (Goto Paragraph 0011, the use status of the constituents of one hand which support (hold) the substrates can be changed depending on a case; Goto Paragraph 0034 a control unit 6 which controls the operation of the robot arm 4; It is implied that when analyzing a use case, it is possible to not change the support).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Goto, in which a use status is chosen based on a case, to modify the apparatus of Furuya to have its control unit choose an above substrate holding or a below substrate holding, which correlates to the use status, based on loading and unloading conditions. While Goto teaches the case to choose the use status as to whether the substrate has been contaminated or not, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply this case logic to other data sets, such as loading and unloading conditions. One would be motivated to make this addition to increase throughput of the system (Goto Paragraph 0008, object of the present invention is to provide a substrate transfer robot which can change the use status of constituents of one end effector which support (hold) substrates, depending on a case, and can increase throughput).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya (US 20170287767) in view of Goto (US 20180104827) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Oyama (US 20120230808).
Furuya further teaches wherein the control unit changes a mode of the hand (Furuya Paragraph 0039, The control unit 16b controls each unit such as each of the opening/closing units 11, the first transfer robot 12, the second transfer robot 14, each of the substrate processing units 15, and the like, based on the various programs and the substrate processing information).
Furuya and Goto fail to teach by controlling a reverse portion that reverses one surface on which the guide is provided and an other surface on which the guide is not provided.
However, Oyama teaches by controlling a reverse portion that reverses one surface on which the guide is provided and an other surface on which the guide is not provided (Oyama Figure 8, upper fork 54, first grip module 61, and second grip module 62; See Figures 13C and 14A, transfer module 27; Paragraph 0128, The upper fork 54 is returned and turned upside down, so that the wafer W1 is arranged in the lower fork 53 (the first process)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a control unit of Furuya to apply an upside-down turning capability of a substrate holder, as taught by Oyama, to the gripping plate of Furuya. One would have been motivated to do this to allow easier transportation of a substrate between a substrate holder and an accommodating part or another substrate holder (Oyama Paragraph 0020, a second fork arranged to be reversible and disposed above the first fork to be movable in a forward/backward direction to an accommodating part that accommodates the substrates and the spacer members, to transport a substrate or a spacer member between the accommodating part and the first fork).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Goto and Oyama to Furuya because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (substrate handling), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that related to one or more the of the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN THOMAS KOSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 am - 4:30 pm EST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/J.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights