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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The following claim 1 recites “End effector comprising…” and should be amended to recite “An end effector comprising…”
The following claims 3-7 recite “End effector according to claim…” and should be amended to recite “The end effector according to claim…” to properly address the end effector of Independent claim 1.
The following claim 8 recites “Robot comprising…” and should be amended to recite “A robot comprising…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbertson et al (U.S Patent 9,827,678) (“Gilbertson”) in view of Park et al (U.S Pub 2022/0028718) (“Park”).
Regarding Claim 1, Gilbertson discloses an end effector (Abstract) comprising:
a first gripping unit configured to pick up and hold individual wafers (Col 5, lines 47-58; Col 7, lines 27-43 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gilbertson discloses wherein the gripping units can hold silicon wafers);
a second gripping unit configured to pick up and hold a wafer (Abstract; Col 6, lines 16-28; Col 7, lines 44-58 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gilbertson discloses a second end effector that is a gripper (i.e., suction gripper) configured to pick up and move a wafer), wherein the first and second gripping units are connected to each other such that they are attachable to a common robot arm and that they are arranged at an angle to each other such that they do not interfere with each other in operation (Col 7, lines 59-67 and Col 8, lines 1-13 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gilbertson discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are branched from the same base linkage control robotic arm and can move only in or parallel to the same plane).
Gilbertson, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the gripping unit is configured to pick up and hold a wafer cassette.
Park teaches the end effector above wherein the gripping unit is configured to pick up and hold a wafter cassette #112 (Abstract; Figures 1 and 18; paragraphs [0005] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Park teaches wherein the system includes a cassette positioned in a wet bath for holding a set of wafers #118) for the purpose of positioning the cassette in a particular angle within a wet bath for maintaining the position and holding the wafer (paragraphs [0005] and [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Gilbertson wherein the gripping unit is configured to pick up and hold a wafer cassette, as taught by Park, because doing so would help to position the cassette in a particular angle within a wet bath for maintaining the position and holding the wafers.
Regarding Claim 2, Gilbertson discloses the end effector according to claim 1, wherein the first and second gripping units are arranged at an angle of approximately 180 to each other (Abstract; Col 19, lines 55-67 and Col 20, lines 1-25 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gilbertson discloses wherein the first end and the second end effectors are situated and rotated at particular angles).
Regarding Claim 3, Gilbertson discloses the end effector according to claim 1, wherein the first and second gripping units are connected to one another via a coupling unit, wherein the coupling unit can be connected to the common robot arm in such a way that the coupling unit connects at least one connection terminal for a working medium, preferably the same connection terminal, with the first and second gripping units for the actuation of the respective gripping units (Col 7, lines 59-67 and Col 8, lines 1-13 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gilbertson discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are branched from the same base linkage control robotic arm and can move only in or parallel to the same plane).
Regarding Claim 4, Gilbertson discloses the end effector according to claim 1, further comprising a rotary unit by means of which the end effector can be attached to the robot arm so as to be rotatable back and forth between at least two positions, the position of the end effector determining the readiness for use of the first or the second gripping unit (Abstract; Col 1, lines 36-56; Col 2, lines 12-39 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gilbertson discloses wherein the first end and the second end effectors are connected to a robotic arm base linkage that have multiple rotational joints).
Regarding Claim 5, Gilbertson in view of Park teach the end effector according to claim 1, wherein the first gripping unit is formed as a vacuum gripper, Bernoulli gripper or edge gripper (Park: paragraphs [0033], vacuum attachment #158 used as a grip for holding the wafer #118).
Regarding Claim 6, Gilbertson in view of Park teach the end effector according to claim 1, wherein the second gripping unit has movable jaws, wherein the contour of the jaws is formed in such a way that they can accommodate at least two different wafer cassette sizes or -types with the same amount of travel (Park: Abstract; Figures 1 and 18; paragraphs [0005] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Park teaches wherein the system includes a cassette positioned in a wet bath for holding a set of wafers #118).
Regarding Claim 7, Gilbertson in view of Park teach the end effector according to claim 6, wherein the movable jaws are movable via a cylinder unit, wherein the jaws are mechanically biased into a gripping position (Park: Figures 1 and 18; paragraphs [0005] and [0022] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Park teaches wherein the system includes a cassette positioned in a wet bath for holding a set of wafers #118).
Regarding Claim 8, Gilbertson discloses a robot comprising a drive train with at least one robot arm which carries at its distal end an end effector according to claim 1 (Col 6, lines 16-28; Col 7, lines 44-67 and Col 8, lines 1-13 [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gilbertson discloses wherein the first end effector and the second end effector are branched from the same base linkage control robotic arm and can move only in or parallel to the same plane).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Duhamel et al (U.S Patent 10,204,811) – discloses a substrate transport apparatus comprising a drive mechanism and a movable arm assembly that comprises an end effector (Abstract).
Dai et al (U.S Pub 2019/0039238) – discloses a robot assembling system comprising a first and second assembling workstation that is configured to assemble a contact of a connector assembly and a light guide pipe (Abstract; paragraph [0006]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30pm, Telework Mondays and Fridays.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ASHISH K VARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674
Prosecution Insights