The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made to the amendment received January 30, 2026, amending Claims 1-20. Claims 21-25 were previously cancelled.
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 use the word “means”, “step”, or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “apparatus” in Claims 1-20, “signal processing unit” in Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 20, and “data transmission unit” in Claims 12 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakami JP 2003077881 A (hereafter Kawakami).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Kawakami anticipates:
1. An apparatus (device shown in Figures 1 and 2) configured to process a substrate (semiconductor wafer 11) having a notch (notch 12), the
a plurality of rollers (rollers 7) contacting a circumference of the substrate (shown in Figure 2) and configured to rotate the substrate (shown in Figure 2);
a first sensor (acceleration sensor 13) positioned below a first roller (roller 7 mounted on first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1) of the plurality of rollers and configured to sense impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate and output a first sensing signal (vibration detection) corresponding to the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (“When the semiconductor wafer 11 rotates and the notch 12 hits the roller 7, vibration is generated, and the vibration is detected by the acceleration sensor 13 provided on the first movable body 2 and input to the signal processing device 15”); and
a signal processing unit (signal processing device 15) configured to receive from the first sensor the first sensing signal corresponding to the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (shown in Figure 8), and detect revolutions per unit time (one revolution per time T shown in Figure 8 with four roller impacts shown) of the substrate, based on the first sensing signal output by the first sensor (“In the signal processor 15, the vibration waveform and the pulse waveform during one rotation of the semiconductor wafer 11 are detected, and the number of pulse signals is counted and integrated”).
Regarding Amended Claim 2, Kawakami anticipates:
2. The
Regarding Amended Claim 3, Kawakami anticipates:
3. The
Regarding Amended Claim 4, Kawakami anticipates:
4. The 1 to t4”).
Regarding Amended Claim 5, Kawakami anticipates:
5. The
a first support pillar (first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1) supporting the first roller (roller 7 mounted on first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1) mounted on the first support pillar (shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Amended Claim 6, Kawakami anticipates:
6. The
a sensor bracket (guide body 4) on which the first sensor (acceleration sensor 13) is mounted (as shown in Figure 1, acceleration sensor 13 is mounted on first movable body 2 which is mounted on guide body 4),
wherein the sensor bracket is coupled to the first support pillar (first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1).
Regarding Amended Claim 11, Kawakami anticipates:
11. The
Regarding Amended Claim 13, Kawakami anticipates:
13. The
Regarding Amended Claim 14, Kawakami anticipates:
14. An apparatus (device shown in Figures 1 and 2) configured to process a substrate (semiconductor wafer 11) having a notch (notch 12), the
a plurality of rollers (rollers 7) arranged along a circumference of the substrate (shown in Figure 2), and configured to rotate the substrate (shown in Figure 2);
a first support pillar (first movable body 2) configured to support a first roller (roller 7 mounted on first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1) which is one of the plurality of rollers;
a first sensor bracket (guide body 4) coupled to the first support pillar (as shown in Figure 1, acceleration sensor 13 is mounted on first movable body 2 which is mounted on guide body 4);
a first sensor (acceleration sensor 13) mounted on the first sensor bracket below the first roller (shown in Figure 1), and configured to sense vibrations generated by impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (“When the semiconductor wafer 11 rotates and the notch 12 hits the roller 7, vibration is generated, and the vibration is detected by the acceleration sensor 13 provided on the first movable body 2 and input to the signal processing device 15”) and output a first sensing signal corresponding to the impacts between the plurality or rollers and the substrate (“In the signal processor 15, the vibration waveform and the pulse waveform during one rotation of the semiconductor wafer 11 are detected, and the number of pulse signals is counted and integrated”); and
a signal processing unit (signal processing device 15) configured to receive from the first sensor the first sensing signal corresponding to the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (shown in Figure 8), and detect a contact period between each of the plurality of rollers and the notch of the substrate based on the first sensing signal output by the first sensor (“In the signal processor 15, the vibration waveform and the pulse waveform during one rotation of the semiconductor wafer 11 are detected, and the number of pulse signals is counted and integrated”).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 7, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami JP 2003077881 A (hereafter Kawakami).
Regarding Claim 7, Kawakami teaches:
7. The
a second support pillar (second movable body 3) supporting a second roller (roller 7 mounted on second movable body 3 as shown in Figure 1) which is one of the plurality of rollers (rollers 7); and
a second sensor (see discussion below) positioned below the second roller (mounted similarly to first acceleration sensor 13), mounted on the second support pillar, and configured to sense the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (semiconductor wafer 11) and output a second sensing signal corresponding to the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (operates similarly to first acceleration sensor 13),
wherein the signal processing unit (signal processing device 15) is configured to receive from the second sensor the second sensing signal corresponding to the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate, and detect the revolutions per unit time (one revolution per time T shown in Figure 8 with four roller impacts shown) of the substrate based on the first sensing signal and the second sensing signal output by the second sensor (see discussion below).
Kawakami discloses an acceleration sensor 13 mounted on first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1. When the semiconductor wafer 11 rotates and the notch 12 hits the roller 7, vibration is generated, and the vibration is detected by the acceleration sensor 13 provided on the first movable body 2 and provides input to the signal processing device 15 as shown in Figure 8. Therefore, the acceleration sensor is an essential working part of a device, since the device would be non-functional without it. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an acceleration sensor onto at least one other, or all of the rollers, mounted to the movable bodies as shown in Figure 1, with the motivation to provide redundancy and improve the precision of the measurements, 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.
Regarding Claim 10, Kawakami teaches:
10. The
Kawakami discloses the placement of the accelerometer 13 on the first movable body 2 which holds an idler roller 7. Kawakami discloses a driving roller 7 on a second movable body 3 rotated by pulse motor 9 as shown in Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the pulse motor 9 to the first movable body 2 which would convert the idler roller 7 into a driven roller motivated by mere design choice, since, as shown in Figure 3, the movable body structures are identical. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 15, Kawakami teaches:
15. The
a second support pillar (second movable body 3) configured to support a second roller (roller 7 mounted on second movable body 3 as shown in Figure 1) which is one of the plurality of rollers (rollers 7);
a second sensor bracket (guide body 4 – two shown Figure 1) coupled to the second support pillar (Figure 1); and
a second sensor (see discussion below) mounted on the second sensor bracket below the second roller (mounted similarly to first acceleration sensor 13), and configured to sense the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (operates similarly to first acceleration sensor 13),
wherein the signal processing unit (signal processing device 15) is configured to detect a contact period between each of the plurality of rollers and the notch of the substrate (one revolution per time T shown in Figure 8 with four roller impacts shown), based on the first sensing signal and a second sensing signal output by the second sensor (see discussion below).
Kawakami discloses an acceleration sensor 13 mounted on first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1. When the semiconductor wafer 11 rotates and the notch 12 hits the roller 7, vibration is generated, and the vibration is detected by the acceleration sensor 13 provided on the first movable body 2 and provides input to the signal processing device 15 as shown in Figure 8. Therefore, the acceleration sensor is an essential working part of a device, since the device would be non-functional without it. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an acceleration sensor onto at least one other, or all of the rollers, mounted to the movable bodies as shown in Figure 1, with the motivation to provide redundancy and improve the precision of the measurements, 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.
Regarding Claim 16, Kawakami teaches:
16. The .
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami JP 2003077881 A (hereafter Kawakami) in view of Tachi et al. US 2023/0223285 (hereafter Tachi et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kawakami teaches:
8. The
wherein the first sensor (acceleration sensor 13) is configured to sense the impacts between the plurality of rollers (rollers 7) and the substrate (semiconductor wafer 11) in a first sensing direction, a second sensing direction, and a third sensing direction, which are perpendicular to each other (see discussion below),
wherein the first sensing signal comprises first sub sensing data of the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (“When the semiconductor wafer 11 rotates and the notch 12 hits the roller 7, vibration is generated, and the vibration is detected by the acceleration sensor 13 provided on the first movable body 2 and input to the signal processing device 15”), sensed in the first sensing direction, second sub sensing data of the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate, sensed in the second sensing direction, and third sub sensing data of the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate, sensed in the third sensing direction, and
wherein the signal processing unit (signal processing device 15) is configured to detect the revolutions per unit time (one revolution per time T shown in Figure 8 with four roller impacts shown) of the substrate based on at least one of the first through third sub sensing data (based on accelerometer sensor 13 signal which would obviously be three dimension acceleration data as modified by Tachi et al. as discussed below).
Kawakami discloses an acceleration sensor 13 that detects the vibration created by rollers impacting a notch in the substrate allowing an accurate determination of slip relative to the substrate rotation speed. Kawakami does not disclose the type of acceleration sensor used for measuring vibration. It would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a three axis accelerometer as a reliable sensor that simultaneously measures vibrations in three different directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the Kawakami device to use a three axis accelerometer as the vibration sensor with the motivation to select an off-the-shelf product with high accuracy. The reference Tachi et al. discloses evidence in Paragraphs [0037], [0099] and [0100], that three-axis accelerometers 75 are commonly used to measure vibration in three orthogonal axial directions in units of milliseconds allowing minute changes in the vibration frequency to be measured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the Kawakami device based on Tachi et al. to use three axis accelerometers as the acceleration sensor with the motivation to measure minute changes in the vibration in three different directions which would improve the accuracy of the substrate speed calculation.
Regarding Claim 9, Kawakami teaches:
9. The
As discussed in Claim 8, the obvious modification of Matsuda et al. to use three-axis accelerometer for the vibration sensors would result in measurements in the claimed directions.
Claims 12, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami JP 2003077881 A (hereafter Kawakami) in view of Matsuda et al. US 2025/016497 (hereafter Matsuda et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Kawakami teaches:
12. The generated by the signal processing unit.
Kawakami discloses the detection of impacts with the notch per revolution and comprises a signal processing device 15 for processing the data. Kawakami does not disclose that a data transmission unit that is configured to transmit, the data to a server. Matsuda et al. discloses a substrate cleaning device 16 that employs a plurality of rollers 42a-42d that rotate a notched substrate W. Matsuda et al. discloses a signal processing controller 30 with rotation speed calculation section 52 that is configured to detect revolutions per unit of time of the substrate in a fashion similar to the Kawakami device. Matsuda et al. discloses a data transmission unit (abnormality alarm activation section 55) configured to transmit, to a server (central control device 61 or cloud server 62), the revolutions data transmitted by the signal processing unit (Paragraphs [0170]-[0171]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kawakami device to include a data transmission unit as taught by Matsuda et al. that can transmit an alarm state (or other recorded data) to a central control server with the motivation provide an external alert to a user or record operational/error states for quality assurance/diagnostic purposes.
Regarding Claim 17, Kawakami teaches:
17. A
a plurality of rollers (rollers 7) arranged along a circumference of the substrate (shown in Figure 2), and configured to rotate the substrate (shown in Figure 2);
a first support pillar (first movable body 2) configured to support a first roller (roller 7 mounted on first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1) which is one of the plurality of rollers;
a first sensor bracket (guide body 4) coupled to the first support pillar (as shown in Figure 1, acceleration sensor 13 is mounted on first movable body 2 which is mounted on guide body 4);
a first sensor (acceleration sensor 13) mounted on the first sensor bracket below the first roller (shown in Figure 1), and configured to sense impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (“When the semiconductor wafer 11 rotates and the notch 12 hits the roller 7, vibration is generated, and the vibration is detected by the acceleration sensor 13 provided on the first movable body 2 and input to the signal processing device 15”) and output a first sensing signal corresponding to the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (“In the signal processor 15, the vibration waveform and the pulse waveform during one rotation of the semiconductor wafer 11 are detected, and the number of pulse signals is counted and integrated”);
a signal processing unit (signal processing device 15) configured to receive from the first sensor the first sensing signal corresponding to the impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (shown in Figure 8), detect revolutions per unit time (one revolution per time T shown in Figure 8 with four roller impacts shown) of the substrate based on the first sensing signal output by the first sensor, and
a data transmission unit (see discussion below) configured to transmit, to a server, the revolutions data generated by the signal processing unit;
a cleaning brush (upper cleaning brush 27) configured to physically clean a main surface (top surface) of the substrate, and rotate (rotation about axis of drive motor 29 shown in Figure 2) with respect to a direction in parallel with the main surface of the substrate (shown in Figure 2); and a cleaning liquid spray nozzle (“The cleaning liquid is supplied to the contact portions with the nozzles by nozzles not shown”) configured to spray cleaning liquid to the substrate.
Kawakami discloses the detection of impacts with the notch per revolution and comprises a signal processing device 15 for processing the data. Kawakami does not disclose that a data transmission unit that is configured to transmit, the data to a server. Matsuda et al. discloses a substrate cleaning device 16 that employs a plurality of rollers 42a-42d that rotate a notched substrate W. Matsuda et al. discloses a signal processing controller 30 with rotation speed calculation section 52 that is configured to detect revolutions per unit of time of the substrate in a fashion similar to the Kawakami device. Matsuda et al. discloses a data transmission unit (abnormality alarm activation section 55) configured to transmit, to a server (central control device 61 or cloud server 62), the revolutions data transmitted by the signal processing unit (Paragraphs [0170]-[0171]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Kawakami device to include a data transmission unit as taught by Matsuda et al. that can transmit an alarm state (or other recorded data) to a central control server with the motivation provide an external alert to a user or record operational/error states for quality assurance/diagnostic purposes.
Regarding Claim 19, Kawakami teaches:
19. The
Kawakami discloses the placement of the accelerometer 13 on the first movable body 2 which holds an idler roller 7. Kawakami discloses a driving roller 7 on a second movable body 3 rotated by pulse motor 9 as shown in Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relocate the pulse motor 9 to the first movable body 2 which would convert the idler roller 7 into a driven roller motivated by mere design choice, since, as shown in Figure 3, the movable body structures are identical. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 20, Kawakami teaches:
20. The
a second support pillar (second movable body 3) supporting a second roller (roller 7 mounted on second movable body 3 as shown in Figure 1) which is one of the plurality of rollers (rollers 7);
a second sensor bracket (guide body 4 – two shown Figure 1) coupled to the second support pillar; and
a second sensor (see discussion below) mounted on the second sensor bracket below the second roller (mounted similarly to first acceleration sensor 13), and configured to sense impacts between the plurality of rollers and the substrate (operates similarly to first acceleration sensor 13),
wherein the first sensor (acceleration sensor 13) and the second sensor comprise an acceleration sensor (acceleration sensor), and wherein the signal processing unit (signal processing device 15) is configured to detect the revolutions per unit time (one revolution per time T shown in Figure 8 with four roller impacts shown) of the substrate based on the first sensing signal and a second sensing signal output by the second sensor (see discussion below).
Kawakami discloses an acceleration sensor 13 mounted on first movable body 2 as shown in Figure 1. When the semiconductor wafer 11 rotates and the notch 12 hits the roller 7, vibration is generated, and the vibration is detected by the acceleration sensor 13 provided on the first movable body 2 and provides input to the signal processing device 15 as shown in Figure 8. Therefore, the acceleration sensor is an essential working part of a device, since the device would be non-functional without it. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an acceleration sensor onto at least one other, or all of the rollers, mounted to the movable bodies as shown in Figure 1, with the motivation to provide redundancy and improve the precision of the measurements, 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami JP 2003077881 A (hereafter Kawakami) in view of Matsuda et al. US 2025/016497 (hereafter Matsuda et al.) and Tachi et al. US 2023/0223285 (hereafter Tachi et al.).
Regarding Claim 18, Kawakami teaches:
18. The
Kawakami discloses an acceleration sensor 13 that detects the vibration created by rollers impacting a notch in the substrate allowing an accurate determination of slip relative to the substrate rotation speed. Kawakami does not disclose the type of acceleration sensor used for measuring vibration. It would have been obvious common knowledge to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a three axis accelerometer as a reliable sensor that simultaneously measures vibrations in three different directions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the Kawakami device to use a three axis accelerometer as the vibration sensor with the motivation to select an off-the-shelf product with high accuracy. The reference Tachi et al. discloses evidence in Paragraphs [0037], [0099] and [0100], that three-axis accelerometers 75 are commonly used to measure vibration in three orthogonal axial directions in units of milliseconds allowing minute changes in the vibration frequency to be measured. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the Kawakami device based on Tachi et al. to use three axis accelerometers as the acceleration sensor with the motivation to measure minute changes in the vibration in three different directions which would improve the accuracy of the substrate speed calculation.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection(s) of Claims 1-7, 10, 12-14, 17, and 19 under Matsuda et al. US 2025/016497 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the rejections have been modified to reflect the Kawakami JP 2003077881 A as the primary reference since it more closely aligns with the current claim language.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with amendments, filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of Claims 11 and 15 under Matsuda et al. US 2025/016497, and Claims 8, 9, 16, 18, and 20 under Matsuda et al. US 2025/016497 in view of Tachi et al. US 2023/0223285 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. However, as necessitated by amendment, the rejections have been modified to reflect the Kawakami JP 2003077881 A as the primary reference since it more closely aligns with the current claim language.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon a primary reference not challenged in the arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (571) 272-8548. 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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights