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 .
Summary
Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are pending. Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 are rejected herein. This is a Final Rejection as necessitated by the amendment and arguments (hereinafter “the Response”) dated 30 July 2026.
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 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAGIWARA et al. (US 20210362957) in view of TOKUNAGA (JP 2006310349), IKENAGA et al. (US 20170057750), and LEE et al. (US 20240077878). Please note that a machine translation of TOKUNAGA was included with the office action dated 30 April 2026. All references to text in TOKUNAGA are to that machine translation.
Regarding claim 1: HAGIWARA discloses: A vibration measurement device (FIG. 7) mountable on a container transported by a transport vehicle (3T3 in FIG. 7), the device comprising: a vibration measurer (S1) configured to measure vibration (para. 36); a position information obtainer (para. 35) configured to obtain position information indicating a position of the transport vehicle (para. 35); a state information obtainer (obstacle sensor in para. 27) configured to obtain vehicle state information indicating a state of the transport vehicle (para. 27); a recorder (31, 32) configured to record a measurement result from the vibration measurer, the vehicle state information, and the position information in an associated manner (The vehicle controller 31 uses the storage unit 33 to store inspection data as discussed in para. 47.); and an output unit (32) configured to output information recorded in the recorder (“The communication unit 32 may periodically transmit inspection data stored in the detection result storage unit 33 to the facility controller H.” Para. 47).
HAGIWARA does not explicitly disclose that the vibration measurer is accommodated in the container. FIG. 7 only gives a schematic view showing the vibration sensor S1 on the transport vehicle 3T3.
TOKUNAGA however does teach a vibration measurement device (17 in FIG. 5; para. 28-29) including a vibration measurer (51; para. 28-29) that is accommodated in a container (FOUP 16 in FIG. 4; para. 45-48) transported by the transport vehicle (31 in FIG. 3; para. 26).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to install the vibration sensor of HAGIWARA on a wafer-like support stored in the container as taught by TOKUNAGA because the purpose of the device is to prevent damage to the wafers such as cracking due to improper handling (para. 52 of TOKUNAGA). Therefore measuring the vibration at the location of the wafers when they are transported will give the best measurement of the impact of vibration on the wafers (para. 52 of TOKUNAGA).
HAGIWARA discloses determining position information, but does explicitly associate that information with the vibration measurements.
IKENAGA however does teach determining vibration (para. 5) caused by a joint, step, or particle on the rail (para. 5, 112) and explicitly associating the position of the vehicle with the location of step, which is the source of the vibration (“information on the position at which a step is formed along the travel path…can be readily outputted” in para. 112). Please note that the invention of IKENAGA is an article transport facility of the same type as HAGIWARA and that shown in FIG. 1 of the present application, and all three references have the same assignee.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to associate the detection of vibration of HAGIWARA with a location of the vehicle as taught by IKENAGA so that maintenance personnel can know where to make repairs (para. 92, 112 of IKENAGA).
HAGIWARA discloses determining position information, but does explicitly associate that information with state information.
LEE however does teach obtaining state information (from distance detection sensor 12) installed on a vehicle (10 in FIG. 1) that hangs from a rail (10a) and associating that state information with the position of the transport vehicle (para. 55, 56).
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to use the distance detection sensor of LEE as the state obtainer of HAGIWARA and associating location information with the sensor measurements so that obstacles can be detected (para. 55-56 of LEE) in a semiconductor manufacturing facility (para. 52 of LEE).
Regarding claim 2: HAGIWARA discloses: the vehicle state information comprises at least one of a travel speed (para. 35) of the transport vehicle, an acceleration state of the transport vehicle, an operation state of a traveler in the transport vehicle (state of motor using a torque sensor as discussed in para. 34), and a detection state of a sensor in the transport vehicle (output of object detection sensor in para. 27).
Regarding claim 5: All of the limitations of claim 5 are addressed in the rejection of claim 1 (see above), except that claim 5 recites an article transport facility (FIG. 1, abstract of HAGIWARA), and that the vibration measurement device is mounted in the container, which HAGIWARA does not explicitly disclose. FIG. 7 of HAGIWARA only gives a schematic view showing the vibration sensor S1 on the transport vehicle 3T3.
TOKUNAGA however does teach a vibration measurement device (17 in FIG. 5; para. 28-29) including a vibration measurer (51; para. 28-29) that is accommodated in a container (FOUP 16 in FIG. 4; para. 45-48) transported by the transport vehicle (31 in FIG. 3; para. 26). TOKUNAGA also teaches that the container has a plurality of slots (to accommodate the processing wafer and the measuring wafer 17 as discussed in para. 27-28) to receive a plate member (processing wafer in para. 27-28) that is an article to be transported in the container by the transport vehicle (para. 27-28), the vibration measurer comprises a vibration sensor (61 in FIG. 6; para. 29-30) and a transmitter (communication circuit 63; para. 32) configured to transmit the measurement result from the vibration sensor, and the recorder (control circuit 64; para. 33) comprises a receiver configured to receive the measurement result from the transmitter and a storage (memory 62; para. 32) configured to store the measurement result received by the receiver, thus meeting the limitations of claim 6 except for the separate structures addressed in the next paragraph.
The measuring wafer 17 of TOKUNAGA has all of the structures of claim 6 (vibration sensor, transmitter, recorder, and storage) integrated onto a single support as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. Therefore it does not have two separate supports and does not need to be installed in two separate slots as shown in FIG. 8 of the present application.
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to make the components of the measurement device of TOKUNAGA separate based on the size of the components and available space in the container. Regarding making parts separable MPEP 2144.04 (V) (c) states:
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”).
Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969). In the present case, having the four elements installed on two separate supports as recited in claim 6 does not produce any new or unexpected results over having the four elements installed on a single support. In both cases the vibration of the container is measured, stored, and transmitted.
One skilled in the art at the time the application was effectively filed would be motivated to install the vibration sensor of HAGIWARA on a wafer-like support stored in the container as taught by TOKUNAGA because the purpose of the device is to prevent damage to the wafers such as cracking due to improper handling (para. 52 of TOKUNAGA). Therefore measuring the vibration on a in the location where the wafers are transported will give the best measurement of the impact on the wafers (para. 52 of TOKUNAGA).
Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 is rejected with the same reasoning as claim 5.
Response to Amendment/Argument
The cancelation of claims 3 and 4 to overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are acknowledged and said rejections are accordingly withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued (pages 6-7 of the Response) that HAGIWARA does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 as currently amended. The Examiner agrees and new art has been introduced to address these limitations as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 NATHANIEL J KOLB whose telephone number is (571)270-7601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Laura M Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATHANIEL J KOLB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights