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 .
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 8 are presented for examination.
Claim 5 has been canceled by the applicant.
Drawings
Figures 1 - 3 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym OD should be defined within the claim when first introduced. Then the acronym can be used alone thereafter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the acronym PCB should be defined within the claim when first introduced. Then the acronym can be used alone thereafter. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 is dependent on canceled claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner is treating that claim 7 is dependent on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, at lines 2 and 3, applicant refers to a probe head and at line 7 applicant refers to a probe head. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the same probe head?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pad" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wafer" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the length" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the first probe” in line 20, "the second probe" in line 21 and "the third probe" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the structural dimension" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the numerical values" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pressure sensor" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the stroke compensation value" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the relationship" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pad" in lines 11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations "the length" and “the shortest probe” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the first probe” in line 19, "the second probe" in line 20 and "the third probe" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the actual stroke" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 - 3 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 6 - 8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and therefore is must further limit it in some manner. Because claim 8 does not recite any further structural limitation or other further limitation to claim 1, it fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 4 and 6 - 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Kang et al. (9,921,267) is cited for its disclosure of an apparatus and method for testing semiconductor wherein a sensor in the probe card to measure a relative distance between portions of the probe card; a base unit connected to the probe card to transmit the test signal to the probe card; and a pressure device connecting the base unit to the probe card, the pressure device correcting deformation of the probe card.
Maggioni (2018/0024167) is cited for its disclosure of a probe card for a testing apparatus of electronic devices including a testing head housing a plurality of contact probes having respective contact tips configured to abut onto contact pads of a device under test, and a space transformer.
Hobbs et al. (2007/0126440) is cited for its disclosure of an electronic device, such as a semiconductor die, can be tested by providing test signals to the device and monitoring the response of the device to the test signals. The test signals can be provided to the electronic device through electrically conductive probes that are temporarily pressed against terminals of the electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 5712705628. 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.
/REENA AURORA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights