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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 4/30/2026. Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Remarks
Regarding claim 1, applicant asserts that the system of Ehrne would be rendered entirely incapable of detecting an urgent event if modified to incorporate Salter’s normally-opaque window (Remarks page 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ehrne teaches that a sensor is used to detect an event, wherein the sensor is a camera and sensor data is performed by image processing (para. [0038]). The sensor data is sent to a central computer to be displayed on a display unit (para. [0123], [0129]). Therefore it is not necessary for a user to view inside the enclosure to determine an event detected by the sensor and the viewing window may be opaque.
In response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the
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) 1-7, 9-11, 15, 16, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrne et al (US20190378734) in view of Salter et al (US11007853).
Regarding claim 1, Ehrne teaches a method, comprising:
receiving at least one semiconductor wafer (48 and 128 in fig. 2; para. [0099]) to a wafer carrier (fig. 2; para. [0089]), wherein the wafer carrier has an inspection window arranged on a side of the wafer carrier (viewing window 158 in fig. 2; para. [0152]);
transporting the wafer carrier between a plurality of semiconductor tools (para. [0099], During transport and/or storage of an object 128 by means of the wafer transport container 22); and
determining an urgent event (para. [0038], A change in color can in particular be read directly by an operator or by means of image processing of a camera. It is conceivable for the monitored sub-component of the wafer transfer system, in particular the wafer transport container, to have a transparent element, for example a viewing window).
Ehrne fails to teach configuring the inspection window to an opaque mode; and
switching the inspection window to a transparent mode for a predetermined period in response to an urgent event.
However Salter teaches configuring the inspection window to an opaque mode (col. 2 lines 33-37); and
switching an inspection window to a transparent mode for a predetermined period in response to an urgent event (col. 1 lines 56-60).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ehrne and Salter as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Salter into the method of Ehrne. The motivation to combine Salter and Ehrne would be to allow operators to see inside the window during an emergency (col. 3 lines 37-41 of Salter).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method further comprising generating an image of the at least one semiconductor wafer through the inspection window by an image sensor (para. [0034] of Ehrne, For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method further comprising determining a condition of the at least one semiconductor wafer based on the image (para. [0034] of Ehrne, For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method further comprising performing an image recognition operation to determine the condition of the at least one semiconductor wafer (para. [0034] of Ehrne, For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method, further comprising sensing an abrupt movement caused by the emergent event (col. 1 lines 56-60 of Salter, impact event).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method wherein the inspection window includes a liquid crystal layer configurable to be switched between the transparent mode and the opaque mode (col. 2 lines 33-37 of Salter, electrochromic glass is known to consist of Polymer Disperse Liquid Crystal).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a further comprising transmitting a triggering signal to apply a voltage on two ends of the liquid crystal layer of the inspection window (col. 2 lines 29-37 of Salter).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method further comprising moving the wafer carrier to a stocker along with the at least one semiconductor wafer (para. [0022] of Ehrne, transportation of wafer transport containers; para. [0061] of Ehrne, transportation of at least one wafer) in response to no urgent event occurs (para. [0022] of Ehrne, on the basis of sensor data. It would be obvious for the sensor data to indicate no event).
Regarding claim 10, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method further comprising continuing monitoring the wafer carrier as to whether any emergent event occurs (para. [0003] of Ehrne, monitoring of the wafer and/or of the environmental conditions around the wafer can advantageously be made possible).
Regarding claim 11, Ehrne teaches a method, comprising:
moving a wafer carrier (fig. 2; para. [0089]) to a semiconductor tool (fig. 1), wherein the wafer carrier has a door (para. [0009], the wafer transport container has a loading and/or unloading opening for loading and/or unloading of wafers into/out of the wafer transport container) and an inspection window arranged on the wafer carrier (viewing window 158 in fig. 2; para. [0152]);
receiving at least one semiconductor wafer to the wafer carrier from the semiconductor tool through the door (para. [0009], the wafer transport container has a loading and/or unloading opening for loading and/or unloading of wafers into/out of the wafer transport container);
determining an urgent event (para. [0038], A change in color can in particular be read directly by an operator or by means of image processing of a camera. It is conceivable for the monitored sub-component of the wafer transfer system, in particular the wafer transport container, to have a transparent element, for example a viewing window);
generating an image of the at least one semiconductor wafer (para. [0034], For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition); and
determining a condition of the at least one semiconductor wafer based on the image (para. [0034], For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition).
Ehrne fails to teach switching the inspection window to an opaque mode; and
in response to urgent event, switching the inspection window to a transparent mode.
However Salter teaches switching an inspection window to an opaque mode (col. 1 lines 64-67); and
in response to urgent event, switching the inspection window to a transparent mode (col. 1 lines 56-60).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ehrne and Salter as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Salter into the method of Ehrne. The motivation to combine Salter and Ehrne would be to allow operators to see inside the window during an emergency (col. 3 lines 37-41 of Salter).
Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method wherein the generating of the image comprises generating the image on an outside of the wafer carrier through the inspection window (para. [0034] of Ehrne, For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition).
Regarding claim 16, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method wherein the determining of the condition of the at least one semiconductor wafer comprises comparing the image with a reference image obtained from an image library (para. [0047] of Ehrne, wafer recognition would require comparing an image to a reference image to perform identification).
Regarding claim 21, Ehrne teaches a method, comprising:
receiving at least one semiconductor wafer (48 and 128 in fig. 2; para. [0099]) to a wafer carrier (fig. 2; para. [0089]), wherein the wafer carrier has an inspection window arranged on a side of the wafer carrier (viewing window 158 in fig. 2; para. [0152]);
transporting the wafer carrier between a plurality of semiconductor tools (para. [0099], During transport and/or storage of an object 128 by means of the wafer transport container 22); and
determining an urgent event (para. [0038], A change in color can in particular be read directly by an operator or by means of image processing of a camera. It is conceivable for the monitored sub-component of the wafer transfer system, in particular the wafer transport container, to have a transparent element, for example a viewing window); and
determining a condition of the at least one semiconductor wafer through the inspection window (para. [0034] of Ehrne, For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition).
Ehrne fails to teach configuring the inspection window to an opaque mode; and
in response to an urgent event, switching the inspection window to a transparent mode.
However Salter teaches configuring an inspection window to an opaque mode (col. 2 lines 33-37) and, in response to an urgent event, switching the inspection window to a transparent mode (col. 1 lines 56-60).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ehrne and Salter as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Salter into the method of Ehrne. The motivation to combine Salter and Ehrne would be to allow operators to see inside the window during an emergency (col. 3 lines 37-41 of Salter).
Regarding claim 22, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method further comprising generating an image of the at least one semiconductor wafer through the inspection window by an image sensor (para. [0034] of Ehrne, For example, the acquisition of the outer shape of the wafers, in particular of a deformation of the wafers, may be performed by means of the camera using automated image recognition).
Regarding claim 23, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method further comprising switching the inspection window to the opaque mode (col. 2 lines 33-37 of Salter) after the determining of the condition of the at least one semiconductor wafer (para. [0034] of Ehrne, it would be obvious to change the opacity as taught by Salter after a certain condition).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrne et al (US20190378734) and Salter et al (US11007853) in view of Shi (US20230221610).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Ehrne fails to explicitly teach a method wherein the liquid crystal layer includes a polymer material and a plurality of groups of liquid crystal molecules dispersed by the polymer material.
However Shi teaches a polymer material and a plurality of groups of liquid crystal molecules dispersed by the polymer material (para. [0053], A voltage applied to the electrochromic layer is controlled by the control signal, where the electrochromic layer may be a flexible or rigid sheet layer with adjustable transmittance and made of one layer of material or a combination of multiple layers of materials, including types such as polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) glass).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ehrne and Salter with Shi as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Shi into the method of Ehrne and Salter. The motivation to combine Salter, Shi and Ehrne would be to accurately control electrochromic so that an adjustment result reaches an expected target as much as possible (para. [0006] of Shi).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrne et al (US20190378734) and Salter et al (US11007853) in view of Wang et al (US20190129205).
Regarding claim 12, the modified method of Ehrne fails to teach a method wherein the inspection window comprises a liquid crystal layer including a plurality of liquid crystal droplets, wherein each of the liquid crystal droplets including liquid crystal molecules aligned to a same direction during the transparent mode.
However Wang teaches a plurality of liquid crystal droplets (para. [0041], PLDC has liquid crystal droplets in the form of molecules), wherein each of the liquid crystal droplets including liquid crystal molecules aligned to a same direction during the transparent mode (para. [0045], When a voltage is applied to the smart film 120, the molecules of the smart film 120 are forced into alignment).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ehrne and Salter with Wang as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Wang into the method of Ehrne and Salter. The motivation to combine Salter, Wang and Ehrne would be to provide a sleek and stylish look (para. [0003] of Wang).
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method wherein the inspection window further includes a first conductive layer and a second conductive layer disposed on two ends of the liquid crystal layer and configured to receive a biasing voltage that cause the transparent mode (para. [0045] of Wang, When a voltage is applied to the smart film 120, the molecules of the smart film 120 are forced into alignment, rendering it transparent. Receiving a voltage would require conductors).
Regarding claim 14, the modified method of Ehrne teaches a method wherein the liquid crystal layer further comprises a transparent polymer material separating the liquid crystal droplets (para. [0041] of Wang, PDLC).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrne et al (US20190378734) and Salter et al (US11007853) in view of Hu et al (US20190067057).
Regarding claim 17, the modified method of Ehrne fails to teach a method wherein the image shows a view of an interior of the wafer carrier from a top of the wafer carrier to a bottom of the wafer carrier.
However Hu teaches an image showing a view of an interior of a wafer carrier from a top of the wafer carrier to a bottom of the wafer carrier (para. [0029], [0060]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Ehrne and Salter with Hu as whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Hu into the method of Ehrne and Salter. The motivation to combine Salter, Hu and Ehrne would be to detect carrier defects (para. [0005] of Hu).
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 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 LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights