DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: movable mechanism in Claims 1-7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hügler (DE 102016118462 A1) in view of Furukawa et al. (JP 2013-49128) (“Furukawa”). Hügler discloses:
Claim 1: a movable mechanism (17/etc.);
a support base (8) moved by the movable mechanism;
a horizontal arm (5) pivotable relative to the support base around a first axis (7) that is vertical;
a motor (arrows in Fig. 4 imply a motor; para. [0011]/[0015]/[0018]) to pivot the horizontal arm; and
a hand (6) disposed above the horizontal arm and rotatable relative to the horizontal arm around a second axis parallel to the first axis (10), the hand configured to hold a planar workpiece placed (422) thereon,
wherein the horizontal arm is provided with a rotation stage (4) configured to hold the planar workpiece (2) placed thereon,
the rotation stage being rotatable around a third axis (rotating axis of Fig. 7) parallel to the first axis and movable up and down along an axial direction of the third axis (arrows of Fig. 10/12), at least a part of the third axis being configured to extend within the inner space of the horizontal arm (Fig. 4/9),
the hand has a holding center corresponding to a center of the planar workpiece, the holding center being moved along a rotational trajectory extending across the third axis in plan view (Fig. 5-12);
Claim 6: wherein the support base is rotatable about a horizontal axis with respect to the movable mechanism (8 rotates with respect to 17/etc.).
Hügler does not directly show:
Claim 1: a motor provided in an inner space of the horizontal arm;
the rotation stage is rotated by an output of the motor provided in the horizontal arm;
Claim 2: wherein the rotation stage includes a rotation stage shaft for transmitting a rotational power to the rotation stage, wherein the rotation stage shaft, an output shaft of the motor and the first axis are provided with respective pulleys around which a belt passes in common;
Claim 3: a reduction gear provided between the pulley on the first axis and the support base;
Claim 5: wherein the motor, the pulley on the output shaft of the motor, the rotation stage shaft, the pulley on the rotation stage shaft, the pulley on the first axis, and the belt are provided within the inner space of the horizontal arm.
Furukawa shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: a motor (53) provided in an inner space of the horizontal arm (22);
the rotation stage is rotated by an output of the motor provided in the horizontal arm (figures 3 and/or 5A-5C suggest outputting the motor in the inner space to multiple rotational structures/shafts/ pulleys with a common belt 56/55a);
Claim 2: wherein the rotation stage includes a rotation stage shaft for transmitting a rotational power to the rotation stage, wherein the rotation stage shaft, an output shaft of the motor and the first axis are provided with respective pulleys around which a belt passes in common (figures 3 and/or 5A-5C suggest outputting the motor in the inner space to multiple rotational structures/shafts/pulleys with a common belt 56/55a);
Claim 3: a reduction gear provided between the pulley on the first axis and the support base (51);
Claim 5: wherein the motor, the pulley on the output shaft of the motor, the rotation stage shaft, the pulley on the rotation stage shaft, the pulley on the first axis, and the belt are provided within the inner space of the horizontal arm (figures 3 and/or 5A-5C);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of miniaturizing the robot to decrease the required robot size/volume to transfer a wafer to its required destination during production (para. [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hügler as taught by Furukawa and include Furukawa’s similar device having:
Claim 1: a motor provided in an inner space of the horizontal arm;
the rotation stage is rotated by an output of the motor provided in the horizontal arm;
Claim 2: wherein the rotation stage includes a rotation stage shaft for transmitting a rotational power to the rotation stage, wherein the rotation stage shaft, an output shaft of the motor and the first axis are provided with respective pulleys around which a belt passes in common;
Claim 3: a reduction gear provided between the pulley on the first axis and the support base;
Claim 5: wherein the motor, the pulley on the output shaft of the motor, the rotation stage shaft, the pulley on the rotation stage shaft, the pulley on the first axis, and the belt are provided within the inner space of the horizontal arm;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of miniaturizing the robot to decrease the required robot size/volume to transfer a wafer to its required destination during production.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hügler in view of Furukawa and Yazawa et al. (KR20070058980A) (“Yazawa”). Hügler discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Hügler does not directly show:
Claim 4: wherein the reduction gear has a reduction ratio in a range of 1/160 and 1/50.
Yazawa shows a similar device having:
Claim 4: wherein the reduction gear has a reduction ratio in a range of 1/160 and 1/50 (“1/128”);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of maintaining horizontal arm position over a long period of run time to a known value for better reliability and cost-effectiveness of the apparatus’ functionality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hügler and Furukawa as taught by Yazawa and include Yazawa’s similar device having:
Claim 4: wherein the reduction gear has a reduction ratio in a range of 1/160 and 1/50;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of maintaining horizontal arm position over a long period of run time to a known value for better reliability and cost-effectiveness of the apparatus’ functionality.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hügler in view of Furukawa and Ueda (US 2018/0286741). Hügler discloses all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
Hügler does not directly show:
Claim 7: wherein the movable mechanism includes a first arm and a second arm that are rotatable about an additional horizontal axis with respect to each other, and the support base is disposed at an end of the second arm.
Yazawa shows a similar device having:
Claim 7: wherein the movable mechanism includes a first arm and a second arm that are rotatable about an additional horizontal axis with respect to each other, and the support base is disposed at an end of the second arm (21/22; FIG. 1, 23a);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the load on the leading shaft of the robot during wafer transfer at different heights to increase the positioning accuracy of the robot and increase the versatility/reach of the robot (para. [0042]/[0047]/[0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hügler and Furukawa as taught by Yazawa and include Yazawa’s similar device having:
Claim 7: wherein the movable mechanism includes a first arm and a second arm that are rotatable about an additional horizontal axis with respect to each other, and the support base is disposed at an end of the second arm;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the load on the leading shaft of the robot during wafer transfer at different heights to increase the positioning accuracy of the robot and increase the versatility/reach of the robot.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12291406 (“USPN”) in view of Furukawa.
USPN clearly claims most of the subject matter of Claims 1-5.
USPN does not directly show:
Claim 1: a motor provided in an inner space of the horizontal arm;
Claim 5: wherein the belt are provided within the inner space of the horizontal arm.
Furukawa shows a similar device having:
Claim 1: a motor (53) provided in an inner space of the horizontal arm (22);
Claim 5: wherein the belt are provided within the inner space of the horizontal arm (figures 3 and/or 5A-5C);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of miniaturizing the robot to decrease the required robot size/volume to transfer a wafer to its required destination during production (para. [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify USPN as taught by Furukawa and include Furukawa’s similar device having:
Claim 1: a motor provided in an inner space of the horizontal arm;
Claim 5: wherein the belt are provided within the inner space of the horizontal arm;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of miniaturizing the robot to decrease the required robot size/volume to transfer a wafer to its required destination during production.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over USPN in view of Hügler and Furukawa. USPN claims all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
USPN does not directly show:
Claim 6: wherein the support base is rotatable about a horizontal axis with respect to the movable mechanism.
Hügler shows a similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein the support base is rotatable about a horizontal axis with respect to the movable mechanism (8 rotates with respect to 17/etc.);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a robot with high throughput during wafer transfer (para. [0025]/[0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify USPN and Furukawa as taught by Hügler and include Hügler’s similar device having:
Claim 6: wherein the support base is rotatable about a horizontal axis with respect to the movable mechanism;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a robot with high throughput during wafer transfer.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over USPN in view of Hügler, Furukawa, and Ueda. USPN claims all the limitations of the claims as discussed above.
USPN does not directly show:
Claim 7: wherein the movable mechanism includes a first arm and a second arm that are rotatable about an additional horizontal axis with respect to each other, and the support base is disposed at an end of the second arm.
Yazawa shows a similar device having:
Claim 7: wherein the movable mechanism includes a first arm and a second arm that are rotatable about an additional horizontal axis with respect to each other, and the support base is disposed at an end of the second arm (21/22; FIG. 1, 23a);
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the load on the leading shaft of the robot during wafer transfer at different heights to increase the positioning accuracy of the robot and increase the versatility/reach of the robot (para. [0042]/[0047]/[0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify USPN, Hügler, and Furukawa as taught by Yazawa and include Yazawa’s similar device having:
Claim 7: wherein the movable mechanism includes a first arm and a second arm that are rotatable about an additional horizontal axis with respect to each other, and the support base is disposed at an end of the second arm;
with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the load on the leading shaft of the robot during wafer transfer at different heights to increase the positioning accuracy of the robot and increase the versatility/reach of the robot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0179488 discloses rotation stage 108.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gerald McClain whose telephone number is (571)272-7803. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and at gerald.mcclain@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 (II)).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Gerald McClain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights