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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: October 14, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 14 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 6-9, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 9-11, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of additional prior art Delucco et al. US2005/0194989.
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, 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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao US2019/0324082 (previously cited), in view of Goodrich US2007/0186131 (previously cited) and further in view of Delucco et al. US2005/0194989 (called Delucco hereinafter and newly cited).
Regarding independent claim 11, Mao teaches a test fixture (Fig. 1) for coupling one or more Device Under Test (DUTs) (Fig. 1; DUT 15) to a measurement instrument (para [0019]; oscilloscope, vector network analyzers, spectrum analyzers or the like), the test fixture comprising:
a power delivery section (Fig. 1; connection member 12 with terminal 19b) formed on a substrate (Fig. 1; formed on test board 19), the power delivery section configured to be coupled to an energy source for testing the one or more DUTs (para [0020]; electrical contact on terminal 19b with connection member 12 connected with electrical contact on test board 19);
a measurement interface section (Fig. 1; connection member 12c with terminal 19a) configured to be coupled to the measurement instrument (para [0019]).
Mao fails to teach a press-fit device interface board for electrically connecting to one or more DUTs, the press-fit device interface board electrically coupled to the power delivery section and to the measurement interface section by first and second contacts that establish an electrical connection without solder.
Goodrich teaches a press-fit device interface board (Fig. 2A or 2B; intermediary device 116; para [0031-0032]; DUT mounted in a socket on the intermediary device or may be coupled in a removable manner with the intermediary device) for electrically connecting to one or more DUTs (Fig. 2A; DUT 190), the press-fit device interface board electrically coupled to the power delivery section and to the measurement interface section (para [0025]) by first and second contacts that establish an electrical connection without solder (Fig. 1; para [0024-0026 and 0031]; the testers are electrically connected to the intermediary device 116 by electrical couplers that do not require solder, such as cables, lines or links and may be docked in a removable manner with the test head 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Mao with the intermediary device as described by Goodrich for the purpose of allowing quicker exchange of components in the testing environment since the components are docked with each other and/or use electrical couplers that do not require soldering them to establish an electrical connection.
Mao and Goodrich fail to teach by pressing a first electrical surface of the press-fit device interface board to an electrical surface of the power delivery section to form a first contact and by pressing a second electrical surface of the press-fit device interface board to an electrical surface of the measurement interface section to form a second contact.
Delucco teaches by pressing a first electrical surface of the press-fit device interface board (Figs. 1-3; para [0018-0019]; device interface board 24) to an electrical surface of the power delivery section to form a first contact (Fig. 2; para [0032-0033]; power supply controller 72 feeds power to power module boards 74 and pins 84, the pins contact the lower surface of device interface board 24 through contact elements 26 to provide power to the DUTs) and by pressing a second electrical surface of the press-fit device interface board to an electrical surface of the measurement interface section to form a second contact (Figs. 1-3; para [0018-0019, 0034]; test signals are sent through contact elements 28 of the device interface board 24 to and from the DUTs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Mao and Goodrich power and test signal arrangement with the interface board as described by Delucco for the purpose of reducing the magnitude of variation in power supply voltage to the DUTs to allow the DUTs to operate properly and improve testing accuracy (para [0008-0009]).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, in view of Goodrich, in view of Delucco and further in view of Westwood US2022/0272834 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Mao, Goodrich and Delucco teach the test fixture according to claim 11, but fail to teach in which the first and second contacts each comprise a series of electrical contacts formed from a strip of copper having a length over 50% the width of the device interface board.
Westwood teaches the series of electrical contacts and the second series of electrical are each formed from a strip of copper having a length (Fig. 1; copper stripline conductor 14 used to carry signals in a DIB; para [0035 and 0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Mao, Goodrich and Delucco with the stripline conductor as electrical contacts as described by Westwood for the purpose of reducing or eliminating crosstalk, signal insertion loss, and/or reflections (para [0038]).
Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Westwood fail to teach a strip of copper having a length over 50% the width of the device interface board.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stripline conductor as described by Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Westwood to have the strip of copper having a length over 50% the width of the device interface board. Westwood teaches that the stripline conductor length may vary based on the distance between the center of the stripline conductor via and the DUTs (see para [0049]). Thus, one skilled in the art would be able to easily adjust the length of the stripline conductor to have a length that meets the claimed limitations for the purpose of increasing the distance between the stripline conductor and DUTs to allow more space for components used with the DUTs to be placed around the DUT and not interfere with the stripline conductor.
Regarding claim 13, Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Westwood teach the test fixture according to claim 12, Westwood further teaches in which at least one of the strips of copper has a non-planar shape (Fig. 1; conductor 11 on the surface and stripline conductor 14 inside the substrate).
Claim(s) 14-15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, in view of Goodrich, in view of Delucco and further in view of Song US2017/0023633 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 14, Mao, Goodrich and Delucco teach the test fixture according to claim 11, but fail to teach further comprising an electrical return path between the measurement interface section and the power delivery section.
Song teaches an electrical return path (Fig. 1; ground plane 114) between the measurement interface section and the power delivery section (Fig. 3C; the ATE and power supply are tied together to ground which is the ground plane; para [0081 and 0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Mao, Goodrich and Delucco with the ground plane as described by Song for the purpose of improving test reliability by preventing a potential difference between the power supply voltage and ground voltage from deviating from a margin of a driving voltage and allows the voltages to be stably maintained (para [0053]).
Regarding claim 15, Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song teach the test fixture according to claim 14, Song further teaches further comprising an insulator disposed between the device interface board and the electrical return path (Fig. 1; insulating layers surrounding ground plane 114).
Regarding claim 17, Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song teach the test fixture according to claim 14, in which the electrical return path is a metal plate having a thickness between approximately 3 to 10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ground plane as described by Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song to have a thickness between approximately 3 to 10 mm. Song teaches the ground plane (see Fig. 1; ground plane 114) has a thickness, but does not specify how thick. One skilled in the art would be easily able to adjust the thickness of the ground plane to be in the claimed range for the purpose of improving the amount of current that may be safely conducted through and/or improving the rigidity of the substrate which the ground plane resides in.
Regarding claim 19, Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song teach the test fixture according to claim 17, but fail to teach in which the metal plate is structured to carry at least 1 kA of current.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ground plane as described by Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song to have the ground plane to be structured to carry at least 1 kA of current. Song teaches the ground plane (see Fig. 1; ground plane 114) is used to carry current from the ATE and power supply (see Fig. 3C; the ATE and power supply are tied together to ground which is the ground plane; para [0081 and 0123]). One skilled in the art would be easily able to adjust the thickness/size of the ground plane to be in the claimed range for the purpose of improving the amount of current that may be safely conducted through while testing high current DUTs and/or improving the rigidity of the substrate which the ground plane resides in.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, in view of Goodrich, in view of Delucco, in view of Song and further in view of Kodama et al. US2006/0157703 (called Kodama hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song teach the test fixture according to claim 15, but fail to teach in which the insulator has a thickness within a range of between 5 μm and 1 mm.
Kodama teaches the insulator has a thickness within a range of between approximately 5 μm and 1 mm (Fig. 1; insulating substrate 21; para [0094 and 0097]; insulating thickness at 0.1 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song with the insulator thickness as described by Kodama for the purpose of preventing discharge in the space between the terminal and base substrate (para [0094]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, in view of Goodrich, in view of Delucco, in view of Song and further in view of Lee et al. US2020/0003802 (called Lee hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song teach the test fixture according to claim 17, but fail to teach in which the metal plate is a solid piece of copper or copper alloy.
Lee teaches the metal plate is a solid piece of copper or copper alloy (para [0018]; ground plane made of copper).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Mao, Goodrich, Delucco and Song with the copper ground plane as described by Lee for the purpose of improving the conductivity between a connection with the ground plane by using a copper material.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao, in view of Goodrich, in view of Delucco and further in view of Devey et al. US2006/0220671 (called Devey hereinafter and previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Mao, Goodrich and Delucco teach the test fixture according to claim 11, but fail to teach further comprising one or more capacitors coupled to the power delivery section and structured to provide energy to test the one or more DUTs.
Devey teaches one or more capacitors coupled to the power delivery section and structured to provide energy to test the one or more DUTs (para [0045]; regulating capacitors used to supply power to the DUT).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure as described by Mao, Goodrich and Delucco with the capacitors in the power supply as described by Devey for the purpose of reducing the voltage transients from the power supply to thus improving the stability of the voltage applied to the DUT (para [0045]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“a power delivery section formed on a substrate and electrically coupled to the device interface board through a series of electrical contacts, the power delivery section having a first planar conductor on a first side of the substrate and a second planar conductor on a second side of the substrate opposite the first side, wherein the device interface board is coupled to the first planar conductor on the first side of the power delivery section; …; and a metal plate coupled between and providing an electrical return path between the measurement interface section and the power delivery section, wherein the metal plate is coupled to the second planar conductor on the second side of the power delivery section,” when used in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-10 are indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dean et al. discloses “Intelligent probe chips/heads” (see US2008/0079450)
Bottoms et al. discloses “Flexible DUT interface assembly” (see US2004/0066207)
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 DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights