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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al (2023/0290694).
With respect to Claim 1, Yang et al discloses a test key structure (Figures 2A-3 ) comprising: a substrate (Figure 3, 80 ); a first metal pad (Figure 3, 62P ) disposed on the substrate (Figure 3, 80 ); a second metal pad (Figure 3, 64P) disposed in proximity to the first metal pad (Figure 3, 62P ) on the substrate (Figure 3, 80 ); a gap (Figure 2B ) between the first metal pad (Figure 2B, 62P) and the second metal pad (Figure 2B, 64P); a first contact (Figure 3, 62C2) disposed on the first metal pad (Figure 2B, 62P); and a second contact (Figure 3, 64C2) disposed on the second metal pad (Figure 2B, 64P) . See Figures 2A – 3 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 34-46.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (2023/0290694).
Yang et al is relied upon as discussed above.
However Yang et al does not explicitly disclose wherein the first contact is electrically connected to a first voltage and the second contact is electrically connected to a second voltage that is different from the first voltage (Claim 2), the composition of the pads (Claims 3-4) and the dimensions of the test key (Claims 5-6) .
With respect to Claim 2, and the limitation “wherein the first contact is electrically connected to a first voltage and the second contact is electrically connected to a second voltage that is different from the first voltage”, Yang et al disclose the use of a probe card to apply a voltage (paragraph 38). The Examiner takes Official Notice that the application of different voltages to test different circuits is well known in the art and would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, for its known benefit in testing different circuits.
With respect to Claims 3-4, Yang et al discloses the use of aluminum pads. See paragraph 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use aluminum to form the first and second metal pads, as the use of a known material for its known benefit is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claims 5-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed dimensions, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed dimension “wherein the first metal pad and the second metal pad have a dimension of equal to or greater than 1 x 1 micron”, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed dimension “wherein the gap has a width of equal to or less than 0.2 micron”. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (2023/0290694) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Chao et al (US 2016/0064295).
Claim 7 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and the Yang et al reference.
However, Yang et al does not disclose an array of metal pads and contacts as required by the present Claims.
Chao et al disclose test keys arrays comprising metal pads and contacts, and their benefit in testing multiple circuits. See Figures 2-4 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 8-9 , 19-23 and 28.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the test key of Yang et al, in an array form, for its known benefit in the art of testing multiple circuits as disclosed by Chao et al. Moreover, duplication of parts, forming an array of test keys, is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 2. With respect to the limitation “wherein the first contact is electrically connected to a first voltage and the second contact is electrically connected to a second voltage that is different from the first voltage”, Yang et al disclose the use of a probe card to apply a voltage (paragraph 38). The Examiner takes Official Notice that the application of different voltages is well known in the art, and would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, for its known benefit in testing different circuits.
With respect to Claim 9, the first and second contacts are arranged in a staggered manner. See Figures 3-4 and corresponding text, especially paragraph 24of Chao et al. Moreover, rearrangements of parts is prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 10, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the first contacts are electrically connected to a first interconnect line and the second contacts are electrically connected to a second interconnect line, wherein the first interconnect line and the second interconnect line are in different metal levels”. See paragraphs 25-28 and Claim 11 of Chao et al.
With respect to Claim 11, Yang et al discloses the use of aluminum pads. See paragraph 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use aluminum to form the first and second metal pads, as the use of a known material for its known benefit is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claims 12-13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed dimensions, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed dimension “wherein each of the array of metal pads has a dimension of equal to or greater than 1 x 1 micron”, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed dimension “wherein the gap has a width of equal to or less than 0.2 micron”. See In re Rose, 220 F2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
January 27, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812