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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 6/11/2026, with respect to the rejections of claim(s) 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive insofar as the cited prior art combination of Tan in view of Kang has not been relied upon as explicitly disclosing that the parameter data comprises upcoming hotspot information associated with the specific test site, and controlling a thermal management function of the specific test site in real-time according to the parameter data to mitigate the hot spot. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of US 2017/0199238 to Tan et al. (Tan) and US 2014/0253155 to Armstrong et al. (Armstrong).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14-16, 18-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0199238 to Tan et al. (Tan) in view of US 2014/0253155 to Armstrong et al. (Armstrong)
Regarding claim 1, Tan discloses a system for testing a device under test (DUT), the system comprising:
a handler comprising a real time tester interface (Tan, e.g., Figs. 1, 3-4B and paragraphs 25-31, handler in the form of at least burn-in-board 104 that includes one or more the microcontroller units (MCUs) 422 of a corresponding one or more burn-in daughter boards 314, with each daughter board 314 containing an IC 106 to be accelerated stress tested; note that each burn-in daughter board 314 includes a connector 428 that plugs into a connector 318 on a burn-in mother board 104, with the burn-in mother board 104 in turn being plugged into a communication socket 110, with the communication socket 110 being in communication with a computer (PC) 100 via a driver interface board 102, with the PC 100 controlling accelerated stress testing; the connection between the burn-in mother board 104 and the communication socket 110 (Fig. 1) defines a real time tester interface of the handler);
an automated test equipment (ATE) coupled to the real time tester interface (see Tan as discussed above, Tan’s PC 100 constitutes an ATE coupled to the real time tester interface); and
a plurality of test sites (see Tan as discussed above, each daughter board 314 containing an IC 106 to be accelerated stress tested, with the IC 106 being received in a heater socket 316 that defines a test site);
wherein the handler is operable to:
receive a test site specific signal comprising parameter data from the ATE via the real time tester interface, wherein the test site specific signal corresponds to the specific test sitemother board 104 and to perform accelerated stress testing after the MCUs 422 are programmed; also see Tan, e.g., paragraph 37); and
control a thermal management function of the specific test site in real-time according to the parameter data
Tan is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the parameter data comprises upcoming hotspot information associated with the specific test site, and controlling a thermal management function of the specific test site in real-time according to the parameter data to mitigate the hot spot. In related art, Armstrong discloses transmitting a test site specific signal that includes parameter data from an ATE to a handler, with the test site specific signal corresponding to a specific test site, with the parameter data including upcoming hotspot information associated with the specific test site, and with the handler controlling a thermal management function of the specific test site in real-time according to the parameter data to mitigate the hot spot (Armstrong, e.g., Fig. 2A and paragraph 27, if the temperature varies beyond acceptable guardbands, test yield may suffer; pretrigger communication between the ATE and the ATC allows the slow-responding ATC to advantageously start responding to an imminent thermal change before the thermal change occurs; the ATE controls the test execution and knows when changes in power levels can occur; using this knowledge, the ATE 208 uniquely generates a pretrigger signal 215 with sufficient head-way to allow the ATC 207 thermal flow rates to be modulated in a fashion to minimize temperature excursions; also see Armstrong, e.g., Fig. 2B and paragraph 32). It 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 to modify Tan such that the parameter data comprises upcoming hotspot information associated with the specific test site and such that controlling a thermal management function of the specific test site in real-time includes controlling the thermal management function according to the parameter data to mitigate the hot spot. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Armstrong, temperature control can be modulated in a fashion to minimize temperature excursions.
Regarding claim 2, Tan in view of Armstrong discloses wherein the test site specific signal comprises a test site specific alarm (see Tan in view of Armstrong as applied to claim 1, Armstrong, e.g., paragraph 27, Armstrong’s pretrigger communication from the ATE constitutes a test site specific alarm), and wherein the handler is further operable to:
detect a temperature malfunction of the DUT (see Tan as applied to claim 1; note that Tan’s accelerated testing applies a stress voltage and stress temperature to the IC 106; Tan’s detection of a packaged IC 106 failure is therefore detection of a temperature malfunction of the IC because it occurs at least in part as a result of the application of a stress temperature);
perform test site specific alarm handling (see Tan as applied to claim 1, particularly paragraph 39, Tan’s MCU 422 sends notification of an IC 106 failure to the burn-in PC 100, which constitutes site specific handling of an alarm); and
execute a test site specific shutdown (see Tan as applied to claim 1, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs 32-48, particularly paragraph 40, the decision is made by the burn-in PC 100 or the MCU 422 to either terminate the test on the failing packaged IC 106 or to continue stress testing in step 508; the examiner notes that termination of a test on the failed IC 106 by MCU 422 constitutes execution of a test site specific shutdown).
Regarding claim 3, Tan in view of Armstrong discloses wherein the handler is further operable to influence data handling of the DUT by the ATE using the test site specific signal via the real time tester interface (see Tan as applied to claim 1, Tan discloses that the MCU 422 is operable to influence data handling of a failed packaged IC 106 by the burn-in PC 100, see, e.g., paragraph 40, the decision is made by the burn-in PC 100 or the MCU 422 to either terminate the test on the failing packaged IC 106 or to continue stress testing in step 508).
Claim 7 recites automated test equipment (ATE) for testing a device under test, the ATE comprising:
a processor; and
a real time handler interface coupled to a handler, wherein the handler is operable to:
control thermal management functions of the plurality of test sites;
receive a test site specific signal over the real time handler interface, the test site specific signal comprising parameter data used for thermal control of a specific test site to test a DUT coupled to the handler, wherein the DUT is disposed in the specific test site of the plurality of test sites, and wherein the parameter data comprises upcoming hot spot information associated with the specific test site, and
control a thermal management function of the specific test site in real-time according to the upcoming hot spot information to mitigate the hot spot,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, recognizing that Tan’s PC 100 constitutes an ATE and comprises a processor and a real time handler interface, e.g., interface of PC 100 connected to driver interface board 102 in Fig. 3. The examiner notes with respect to the recitation “a real time handler interface coupled to a handler, wherein the handler is operable to …” that the handler is regarded by the examiner as a required element of the claimed ATE.
Claim 8 recites wherein the test site specific signal comprises a test site specific alarm, and wherein the processor is operable to handle the test site specific alarm and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claims 2-3, e.g., Tan, Fig. 5 and paragraphs 32-48, particularly paragraph 39, if the MCU 422 on one of the burn-in daughter boards 314 detects a packaged IC 106 failure, it sends a signal to the burn-in PC 100 that the packaged IC 106 has failed; it may also send data regarding the accelerated stress conditions applied to the packaged IC 106 at the time the failure occurred; the signal from the MCU 422 of one of the burn-in daughter boards 314 that detects a packaged IC 106 failure communicating the failure and data pertaining to accelerated stress conditions applied to the packaged IC 106 at the time the failure occurred constitutes a test site specific alarm; also see paragraph 40, the decision is made by the burn-in PC 100 or the MCU 422 to either terminate the test on the failing packaged IC 106 or to continue stress testing in step 508).
Regarding claim 9, Tan in view of Armstrong discloses wherein the processor is further operable to perform a test site specific shutdown based on the test site specific alarm (see Tan as applied to claim 8, Tan, e.g., paragraph 40, the decision is made by the burn-in PC 100 or the MCU 422 to either terminate the test on the failing packaged IC 106 or to continue stress testing in step 508).
Regarding claim 10, Tan in view of Armstrong discloses wherein the processor is operable to influence data handling of the device under test in response to a signal received from the handler (see Tan as applied to claim 7, Tan discloses that the PC 100 is operable to influence data handling of an IC 106 in response to a signal received from the MCU 422, Tan, e.g., Fig. 5 and paragraphs 32-48, particularly paragraph 39, if the MCU 422 on one of the burn-in daughter boards 314 detects a packaged IC 106 failure, it sends a signal to the burn-in PC 100 that the packaged IC 106 has failed; it may also send data regarding the accelerated stress conditions applied to the packaged IC 106 at the time the failure occurred; the signal from the MCU 422 of one of the burn-in daughter boards 314 that detects a packaged IC 106 failure communicating the failure and data pertaining to accelerated stress conditions applied to the packaged IC 106 at the time the failure occurred constitutes a test site specific alarm; also see paragraph 40, the decision is made by the burn-in PC 100 or the MCU 422 to either terminate the test on the failing packaged IC 106 or to continue stress testing in step 508).
Claim 14 recites a method of testing a device under test (DUT), the method comprising:
accessing a test site specific signal transmitted by an automated test equipment (ATE) coupled to a handler via a real time tester interface, wherein the test site specific signal comprises parameter data; and
testing the DUT according to the test site specific signal, wherein the DUT is disposed in a test site of the plurality of test sites, wherein the test site specific signal is associated with a specific test site of the plurality of test sites and wherein the parameters comprise upcoming hot spot information associated with the specific test site, wherein the handler is operable to:
control thermal management functions for the specific test site based on the upcoming hot spot information to mitigate the hot spot,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Claim 15 recites wherein the test site specific signal comprises a test site specific alarm, and wherein the method further comprises performing a test site specific shutdown based on the test site specific alarm and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 2.
Claim 16 recites influencing data handling of the DUT in response to the test site specific signal and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 3.
Claim 18 recites a method of testing a device under test (DUT), the method comprising:
an automated test equipment (ATE) transmitting a test site specific signal to a handler via a real time tester interface; and
testing a DUT coupled to the handler, wherein the DUT is disposed in a specific test side of a plurality of test sites, wherein the handler is operable to:
control thermal management functions of the specific test site according to the test site specific signal, wherein the test site specific signal comprises information pertaining to an upcoming hot spot, and wherein the handler is further operable to mitigate the hot spot according to the information pertaining to the upcoming hot spot,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Claim 19 recites wherein the test site specific signal comprises a test site specific alarm, and wherein the method further comprises performing a test site specific shutdown based on the test site specific alarm and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 2.
Claim 21 recites a handler for testing a device under test (DUT), the handler comprising:
a circuit; and
a real time tester interface operable to couple the circuit with an automated test equipment (ATE), wherein the ATE is coupled to a plurality of test sites, wherein the circuit is operable to:
control thermal management functions of the plurality of test sites;
receive a test site specific signal to the ATE via the real time tester interface to test a DUT coupled to a specific test site of the plurality of test sites, wherein the test site specific signal corresponds to the specific test site and comprises parameter data pertaining to an upcoming hot spot of the specific test site, wherein said circuit is further operable to control thermal management functions of the specific test site to mitigate the thermal hot spot according to the parameter data,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 1.
Claim 22 recites wherein the test site specific signal comprises a test site specific alarm, and wherein the circuit is further operable to:
detect a temperature malfunction of the DUT;
perform test site specific alarm handling; and
execute a test site specific shutdown,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 2.
Claim 23 recites wherein the handler is further operable to influence data handling of the DUT by the ATE using the test site specific signal via the real time tester interface and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tan in view of Armstrong for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 17, 20 and 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights