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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 2-7 are not black and white line drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the robotic arm must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The original disclosure does not provide a reference numeral for the claimed “support surface.” As best understood, this term seems to refer to one of elements 41 or 45, which both could provide support for a wafer. Claims 11 and 13 diverge from one another with reference to (respectively) a “ledge,” correlating with element 41, and “a convex surface,” correlating to element 45. The term “support surface” is understood in the broad sense of something that can support something else. Claim 1 is interpreted as being generic to either element 41 or 45, and is rejected as such below.
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 3 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 3 requires a first and second mount section via dependency on claim 1, but then requires “a mount section” again, and additionally “a further mount section.” These recitations are not clear. Are these the same mount sections as set forth in claim 1, or newly required mount sections. It is recommended to use the same verbiage as the specification for elements 13a-e (if this is the intended meaning of claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, 13-14, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,393,662 B2 (hereinafter “Fujii”).
Regarding claim 1 Fujii discloses an end effector (3) for carrying a wafer (S) or a wafer assembly (S) placed thereon, the end effector (3) being integrated with, or configured to attach to, a robotic arm (2);
the end effector (3) comprising a peripheral mount (8) arranged circumferentially around a base portion (B; see annotated fig. below),
PNG
media_image1.png
257
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the peripheral mount (8) comprising at least first and second mount sections (MS, see annotated fig. below);
PNG
media_image2.png
386
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the base portion (B) having a (at least one) substantially flat horizontal upper surface (US, see annotated fig. below), and each mount section (MS) of the peripheral mount (8) having a substantially flat horizontal upper surface (HS) being elevated with respect to the upper surface (US) of the base portion (B), the end effector (3) thereby being configured to hold a wafer assembly (S) bridging the upper surfaces (HS) of the mount sections (MS) at a first height above the base portion (B);
PNG
media_image3.png
292
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
there being a step region (SR) between the base portion (B) and the peripheral mount (8) at each mount section (MS);
each step region (SR) comprising a support surface (6 or 8d) being elevated with respect to the upper surface (US) of the base portion (B), the end effector (3) thereby being configured to hold (capable of holding, i.e. this is a functional recitation) a wafer (S) bridging the support surfaces (6 or 8d) at a second height above the base portion (B).
Regarding claim 2 Fujii discloses the above end effector, and further discloses two spaced apart prongs (5) extending from a connector body (4), wherein the connector body (4) is configured to attach (per fig. 2) to the robotic arm (2).
Regarding claim 3 Fujii discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the connector body (4) comprises a mount section (MS), and each prong comprises a part of the base portion (B) and a further mount section (MS), the further mount section (MS) being at a distal end from the connector body (4).
Regarding claim 10 Fujii discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the first height (i.e. of HS, above) is greater than the second height (i.e. of 6 or 8d).
Regarding claim 11 Fujii discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the support surface (6 or 8d) comprises (is) a ledge.
Regarding claim 13 Fujii discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the support surface (6 or 8d) comprises a convex surface.
Regarding claim 14 Fujii discloses the above end effector, and further discloses wherein the ledge (i.e. of 6) is adjacent (near) the base portion (B) and the convex surface adjoins the ledge and the peripheral mount (8).
Regarding claim 19 Fujii discloses a semiconductor processing device comprising
a robotic arm (2) and an end effector (3);
the end effector (3) being integrated with, or attached to, the robotic arm (2);
the end effector (3) comprising a peripheral mount (8) arranged radially outside of a base portion (B, see annotated fig. below),
PNG
media_image1.png
257
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the peripheral mount (8) comprising at least first and second mount sections (MS, see annotated fig. below);
PNG
media_image2.png
386
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the base portion (B) having a substantially flat horizontal upper surface (US, see annotated fig. below), and each mount section (MS) of the peripheral mount (8) having a substantially flat horizontal upper surface (HS) being elevated with respect to the upper surface (US) of the base portion (B), the end effector (3) thereby being configured to hold (capable of holding; i.e. this is a functional recitation) a wafer assembly (S) bridging the upper surfaces of the mount sections (MS) at a first height above the base portion (B);
PNG
media_image3.png
292
705
media_image3.png
Greyscale
there being a step region (SR) between the base portion (B) and the peripheral mount (8) at each mount section (MS);
each step region (SR) comprising a support surface (6 or 8d) being elevated with respect to the upper surface (US) of the base portion (B), the end effector (3) thereby being configured to hold a wafer (S) bridging the support surfaces (6 or 8d) at a second height above the base portion (B).
Regarding claim 20 Fujii discloses the above end effector (see claim 1), and further discloses a method of transporting a wafer (S) using a semiconductor processing device comprising a robotic arm (2) and an end effector (3) according to the above (see claim 1), the end effector (3) being integrated with, or attached to, the robotic arm (2), the method comprising the steps of: placing the wafer (S) onto the end effector (3) such that the wafer (S) bridges the support surfaces (6 or 8d) of each step region (SR); transporting the wafer (S) by moving the robotic arm (2).
Regarding claim 21 Fujii discloses the above end effector (see claim 1), and further discloses a method of transporting a wafer assembly (S) using a semiconductor processing device comprising a robotic arm (2) and an end effector (3) according to the above (see claim 1), the end effector (3) being integrated with, or attached to, the robotic arm (2), the method comprising the steps of: placing the wafer assembly (S) onto the end effector (3) such that the wafer assembly (S) bridges the upper surfaces of each mount section (see paragraph 10; i.e. “8a, 8b, 8c which come into contact with the peripheral edge of the substrate S…”); transporting the wafer assembly (S) by moving the robotic arm (2).
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 5-9, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii.
Regarding claim 5-9, 12, and 15-16 Fujii teaches the above end effector, but fails to mention any specific measurements. Specific measurements to embody an idea are considered well within the skill of an ordinary craftsperson. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make each of the components of Fujii of any convenient measurement (including those required by claims 5-9, 12, and 15-16) with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to fully embody the teachings of Fujii for use with a particular wafer assembly.
Claims 4 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of US 2021/0100141 A1 (hereinafter “Natu”).
Regarding claim 4 Fujii teaches the above end effector, but fails to wherein the prongs narrow towards a distal end from the connector body. This appears to be an obvious variation in view of Natu. Natu teaches an end effector (102) for a semiconductor wafer (see par. 22-23). Natu further teaches the end effector (102) comprises prongs which narrow towards a distal end from a connector body (see figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the prongs of Fujii thicker at the base and narrower towards their ends, as taught by Natu, with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to strengthen the prongs of Fujii against bending or breaking under load.
Regarding claims 17-18 Fujii teaches the above end effector, but fails to mention a material from which the end effector is made. Natu teaches using either a ceramic or a metal, and using a coating with an electrostatic discharge material (see paragraphs 41-42). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the end effector of Fujii with metal coated with electrostatic discharge material with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to “avoid arcing and sudden conductive events between the end effector… and/or wafer thereon” (Natu par. 42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time.
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, Victoria P Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
