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 .
Claim Objection
Claim 4 and 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “an apex angle excluding a base angle” is awkward phrasing; intent (the vertex angle at the first pad portion) is understandable but could be clarified.
Claim 17 contains a typographical error: “relative to the suction portion first surface**.**” uses a period mid-sentence—should be a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 and 20 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 recites “an average angle of a base angle”—averaging a single angle is logically ambiguous (the spec [0078] refers to averaging two base angles X and Y). Recommend “average of the base angles.”
Claim 20 recites “a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.” Claim 19 introduces “a first direction.” Claim 20 depends from claim 18 (not claim 19), so “the first direction” in claim 20 lacks antecedent basis when claim 20 is read as depending from claim 18.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by TAE HOON LEE (US 11935779 B2).
Re claim 1, LEE et al. teaches a wafer transfer device, “FIG. 8, the first transfer hand 2000 according to an embodiment of the inventive concept may include” (Col. 13, lines 57-58). A blade compromising a first surface configured to receive a wafer, “When the charged substrate W is seated on the first transfer hand 2000, the grounded first body 2100” (Col. 13, lines 66-67). The first body is the receiving surface of the first transfer hand where the substrate will be placed. A vacuum pad removably secured to the blade and configured to absorb the wafer to the blade, “the first vacuum assembly 2500 may be installed on the first body 2100. In addition, the first vacuum assembly 2500 may adsorb and support the substrate W.” (Col 14, lines 47-48) (FIG. 9). The blade comprises: a pair of arm portions in spaced apart, parallel relationship with each other, and a support portion connecting the pair of arm portions, “the first finger 2110 may extend from the first main body 2102 and formed integrally with the first main body 2102. In addition, the first body 2100 may have a 1-1 finger 2111 and a 1-2 finger 2112.” (Col. 14, lines 12-15) (FIG. 8). wherein the vacuum pad comprises: a first pad portion on the support portion, and a pair of second pad portions, each second pad portion on a respective one of the pair of arm portions, FIG. 1 demonstrates a vacuum assembly 2500 on each finger 2111, 2112 and the main body 2102. Wherein the first pad portion and the pair of second pad portions define a triangle with the first pad portion and the pair of second pad portions as three vertexes of the triangle, the configuration of the vacuum assembly 2500 are 3 points arranged on the surface of the first body 2100, shown in FIG. 1 arranged in a triangular shape.
LEE et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a length of a base of the triangle formed by the pair of second pad portions is less than a length of a height of the triangle. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to design the base of the triangle, length of the distance between the arms shorter than the height of the triangle, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Altering the design of the triangle will improve the stability of supporting the wafer on the transfer arm.
Re claim 2, LEE et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a ratio of the length of the base to the length of the height is equal to or greater than 1.4 and equal to or less than 1.8. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to modify the ratio of the base length to the height length between 1.4 and 1.8, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Providing this modification will allow for stably supporting the wafer under any warp condition.
Re claim 3, LEE et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein an average angle of a base angle of the triangle is equal to or greater than 60 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to adjust the base angle of the triangle to 60 degrees or more, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This modification allows for the vacuum pads positions to stably support the wafer on the transfer device.
Re claim 4, LEE et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein an angle of an apex angle excluding a base angle of the triangle is less than 60 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to modify the apex angle to less than 60 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This modification ensures a configuration of the vacuum pads to stably support the wafer on the transfer device.
Re claim 5, LEE at al. teaches wherein the vacuum pad comprises a suction portion configured to adsorb the wafer, “The first head portion 2511 may be in contact with the lower surface of the substrate W.” (Col. 13, lines 53-54, FIG. 11). A raised rim extending circumferentially around an outer periphery of the suction portion, “the first ring protrusion 2512 may be formed along the outer circumference of the upper surface of the first vacuum pad 2510.” (Col. 16, lines 28-30, FIG. 11). wherein the suction portion comprises a first surface and an opposite second surface, FIG. 11 illustrates the vacuum pad 2510 with a surface facing up towards the wafer W and second surface facing down towards the surface of the main body 2102. And wherein the raised rim comprises a third surface that is spaced apart from the first surface of the suction portion, FIG. 9 illustrates a raised surface on the first ring protrusion 2512. An attachment portion extending outward from the suction portion second surface, “A first insertion portion 2516 of the first vacuum pad 2510” (Col. 15, line 18, FIG. 11). And a vacuum aperture extending through the attachment portion and in fluid communication with the suction portion, FIG. 11 illustrates a vacuum hole 2572 extending from the upper surface of the vacuum pad 2510, extending throughout the insertion portion 2516.
Re claim 6, LEE et al. teaches wherein the vacuum aperture is in fluid communication with a vacuum passageway in the blade, FIG. 11 illustrates the vacuum hole 2572 in communication with the vacuum line 2400 in the main body 2102.
Re claim 10, LEE et al teaches wherein the blade comprises an internal bore, and wherein the attachment portion is inserted within the internal bore to removably secure the vacuum pad to the blade, FIG. 11 illustrates the vacuum pad 2500 insertion portion 2516 is placed into a recess portion in the main body 2102 of the transfer hand.
Re claim 13, LEE et al. teaches the wafer transfer device of claim 5, wherein the raised rim further comprises a wall on the third surface, “the first support protrusions 2513 may be formed inside the first ring protrusion 2512 and on an upper surface of the first vacuum pad 2510” (Col. 16, lines 39-41). And wherein the wall comprises a first portion with a first height and a second portion with a second height, and wherein the first portion is higher than the second portion. “an upper end height of the first support protrusion 2513 may be lower than an upper end height of the first ring protrusion 2512.” (Col 16, lines 46-48).
Re claim 15, LEE et al. teaches a wafer transfer device, “FIG. 8, the first transfer hand 2000 according to an embodiment of the inventive concept may include” (Col. 13, lines 57-58). A blade compromising a first surface configured to receive a wafer, “When the charged substrate W is seated on the first transfer hand 2000, the grounded first body 2100” (Col. 13, lines 66-67). The first body is the receiving surface of the first transfer hand where the substrate will be placed. A vacuum pad removably secured to the blade and configured to absorb the wafer to the blade, “the first vacuum assembly 2500 may be installed on the first body 2100. In addition, the first vacuum assembly 2500 may adsorb and support the substrate W.” [78] (FIG. 9). Wherein the vacuum pad comprises a suction portion configured to adsorb the wafer, “The first head portion 2511 may be in contact with the lower surface of the substrate W.” (Col. 13, lines 53-54, FIG. 11). A raised rim extending circumferentially around an outer periphery of the suction portion, “the first ring protrusion 2512 may be formed along the outer circumference of the upper surface of the first vacuum pad 2510.” (Col. 16, lines 28-30, FIG. 11). wherein the suction portion comprises a first surface and an opposite second surface, FIG. 11 illustrates the vacuum pad 2510 with a surface facing up towards the wafer W and second surface facing down towards the surface of the main body 2102. And wherein the raised rim comprises a third surface that is spaced apart from the first surface of the suction portion, FIG. 9 illustrates a raised surface on the first ring protrusion 2512. An attachment portion extending outward from the suction portion second surface, “A first insertion portion 2516 of the first vacuum pad 2510” (Col. 15, line 18, FIG. 11). Wherein the blade comprises an internal bore, and wherein the attachment portion is inserted within the internal bore to removably secure the vacuum pad to the blade, FIG. 11 illustrates the vacuum pad 2500 insertion portion 2516 is placed into a recess portion in the main body 2102 of the transfer hand.
Re claim 16, LEE et al. teaches wherein the raised rim third surface comprises a first seating portion, a second seating portion, “In addition, a first ring protrusion 2512 may be formed on an upper surface of the first vacuum pad 2510… In addition, a first support protrusion 2513 may be formed on the upper surface of the first vacuum pad 2510. A plurality of first support protrusions 2513 may be formed on the upper surface of the first vacuum pad 2510” (Col. 16, lines 24-25 & 35-38). And at least one of the first seating portion, the second seating portion, each having a respective different height relative to the vacuum pad first surface. “an upper end height of the first support protrusion 2513 may be lower than an upper end height of the first ring protrusion 2512” (Col. 16, lines 46-48).
LEE et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a third seating portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to increase the number of seating portions on the vacuum pad and renumbering them since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. to increase the stability of supporting the wafer on the transfer device.
LEE discloses the claimed invention except for third seating portion is radially further from the center of the vacuum pad than the first seating portion and the second seating portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the location of the third seating portion to the circumferential edge of the vacuum pad, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. to conform to the different shapes of wafers.
LEE discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of the first seating portion, the second seating portion, and the third seating portion, each having a respective different height relative to the vacuum pad first surface. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to alter the height of each seating portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). to support the different shapes of wafers.
Re claim 17, LEE et al. teaches wherein, relative to the suction portion first surface the second seating portion is higher than the first seating portion, “an upper end height of the first support protrusion 2513 may be lower than an upper end height of the first ring protrusion 2512” (Col. 16, lines 46-48).
LEE et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the third seating. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to increase the number of seating portions with different heights, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. to increase the efficiency of stabilizing the wafer on the transfer device.
LEE discloses the claimed invention except for the third seating portion lower than the second seating portion. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to alter the heights of the second and third seating portion, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). to support different shapes of wafers.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE HOON LEE (US 11935779 B2) in view of MASATOSHI FURUICHI (US 20150015014 A1).
Re claim 7, LEE et al. does not teach further comprising a vacuum pump connected to the vacuum passageway and configured to supply vacuum pressure to the vacuum aperture.
FURUICHI teaches that it is known to use a vacuum pump to supply constant vacuum pressure to the vacuum pads, “the vacuum source 40 performs sucking through the vacuum path 14 and the wafer W is sucked to the pads 13.” [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified the wafer transfer device of LEE et al. adding a vacuum source per the teachings of FURUICHI to ensure securely gripping the wafer onto the surface of the vacuum pads on the wafer blade.
Claim(s) 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE HOON LEE (US 11935779 B2) in view of YOSHIKI FUKUZAKI (US 11688617 B2).
Re claim 8, LEE et al. does not teach the wafer transfer device of claim 6, wherein the vacuum passageway is formed in the blade and comprises a portion exposed through a second surface of the blade and wherein tape is arranged over the exposed portion of the vacuum passageway and forms steps in the second surface of the blade.
FUKUZAKI teaches that it is known for a flow path to contain an exposed surface in the wafer transfer hand and to be sealed by a second layer, “A flow path 19 is formed in a substantially Y shape on the top surface of the lower plate-shaped member 18b.” (COL. 6, lines 22-23). “The finger 18 of the present embodiment is configured by airtightly bonding two plate-shaped members 18a, 18b formed in a substantially Y shape.[0021]”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified the vacuum channel of LEE et al. per the teachings of FUKUZAKI to create a sealed vacuum channel applying efficient pressure to the vacuum pads.
Re claim 9, LEE et al in view of FUKUZAKI discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising a coated portion on the second surface of the blade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to increase the number of layers of the blade transfer arm, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. to provide a secure layer on the exposed vacuum channel ensuring no loss of vacuum pressure.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE HOON LEE (US 11935779 B2) in view of RAYMOND SOMMA (US 2523157 A).
Re claim 11, LEE et al does not teach wherein the internal bore comprises internal threads, wherein the attachment portion comprises external threads, and wherein the attachment portion is threadingly engaged with the internal bore to removably secure the vacuum pad to the blade.
SOMMA, on the other hand, teaches that it is known for vacuum pads can be threadedly engaged into the transfer arm, “the valve 30 and the vacuum cup 29 in assembled relationship, as 66 shown in Figs. 3 and 4. - The valve or metal disk 30 is provided on its upper surface with a centrally-disposed upwardly- projecting stud 45 threaded exteriorly as at 46, so as to be screwed into a threaded aperture 47 in the outer end of the transfer-arm 11.” (Col. 4, lines 53-60)(FIG. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified the attachment portion of LEE et al. vacuum pads per the teachings of SOMMA to allow for secure attachment and easy replacement of vacuum pads.
Claim(s) 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE HOON LEE (US 11935779 B2) in view of ROIE TABOCH (12327753 B2).
Re claim 12, LEE et al does not teach wherein the internal bore comprises a circumferential groove, and wherein the attachment portion comprises a circumferential lip configured to engage the circumferential groove so as to secure the attachment portion within the internal bore with a snap-fit.
TABOCH, on the other hand, teaches the readily secured vacuum pad attachment with a snap fit, “For example, in order to attach suction gripper 41 to a circular opening in gripper surface 13, stem 42 of suction gripper 41 may be inserted into the opening until lip 46 passes through the opening” (Col. 8, lines 66-67, Col. 9, lines 1-2) (FIG. 3 & FIG. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified the attachment portion of LEE et al. vacuum pad per the teachings of TABOCH to allow for secure attachment and easy replacement of vacuum pads.
Re claim 18, LEE et al. teaches a wafer transfer device, “FIG. 8, the first transfer hand 2000 according to an embodiment of the inventive concept may include” (Col. 13, lines 57-58). A blade compromising a first surface configured to receive a wafer, “When the charged substrate W is seated on the first transfer hand 2000, the grounded first body 2100” (Col. 13, lines 66-67). The first body is the receiving surface of the first transfer hand where the substrate will be placed. A vacuum pad removably secured to the blade and configured to absorb the wafer to the blade, “the first vacuum assembly 2500 may be installed on the first body 2100. In addition, the first vacuum assembly 2500 may adsorb and support the substrate W.” (Col 14, lines 47-48) (FIG. 9). A core portion configured to support the blade, “The rotation shaft 1330 may be coupled with a lower surface of the support plate 1310.” (Col. 10, lines 41-42). And a rotation portion connected to the core portion, the core portion (1330) connected to the rotation portion (1350) (FIG. 6). The blade comprises: a pair of arm portions in spaced apart, parallel relationship with each other, and a support portion connecting the pair of arm portions, “the first finger 2110 may extend from the first main body 2102 and formed integrally with the first main body 2102. In addition, the first body 2100 may have a 1-1 finger 2111 and a 1-2 finger 2112.” (Col. 14, lines 12-15) (FIG. 8). wherein the vacuum pad comprises: a first pad portion on the support portion, and a pair of second pad portions, each second pad portion on a respective one of the pair of arm portions, FIG. 1 demonstrates a vacuum assembly 2500 on each finger 2111, 2112 and the main body 2102. And wherein the rotation portion is configured to rotate the blade. “The rotation shaft 1330 may be rotated by power transmitted from the rotation driver 1350.” (Col. 10, lines 44-46).
LEE et al. does not teach wherein the vacuum pad and the blade are removably secured together by a snap-fit.
TABOCH, on the other hand, teaches the readily secured vacuum pad attachment with a snap fit, “For example, in order to attach suction gripper 41 to a circular opening in gripper surface 13, stem 42 of suction gripper 41 may be inserted into the opening until lip 46 passes through the opening” (Col. 8, lines 66-67, Col. 9, lines 1-2) (FIG. 3 & FIG. 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified the attachment portion of LEE et al. vacuum pad per the teachings of TABOCH to allow for secure attachment and easy replacement of vacuum pads.
LEE discloses the claimed invention except for an apex angle formed with the first pad portion as a vertex and an angle of less than 50 degrees. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date to modify the apex angle to less than 50 degrees, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This modification ensures a configuration of the vacuum pads to stably support the wafer on the transfer device.
Re claim 19, LEE et al. teaches a first moving portion connected to the rotation portion wherein the first moving portion is configured to move the blade in a first direction, “The rotation shaft 1330 may be rotated by power transmitted from the rotation driver 1350.” (Col. 10, lines 44-46).
Re claim 20, LEE et al. teaches a second moving portion connected to the rotation portion wherein the second moving portion is configured to move the blade in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction. “The rotation shaft 1330 may be rotated by power transmitted from the rotation driver 1350.” (Col. 10, lines 44-46).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAE HOON LEE (US 11935779 B2) in view of (JP 4597696 B2).
Re claim 14, Lee et al does not teach wherein the first portion has an X-shape.
JP ‘696, on the other hand, discloses an x-pattern as shown in FIG. 1 on the surface of the vacuum pad.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to have modified the shape of LEE et al. first portion per the teachings of JP ‘696 to improve the surface contact between the surface of the wafer and the vacuum pads.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicants’ disclosure.
Reference F teaches a substrate transfer robot. Reference O teaches a wafer transfer alignment apparatus. Reference P teaches a anti-slip pad for a wafer transfer robot arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARWIN L MONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-0434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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.
/SAUL RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3652
/Darwin L Montes/ Examiner, Art Unit 3652
