DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-14 and 21-26 are presented for examination. Claims 15-20 are canceled.
Request for Continued Examination
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s argument filed on 03/02/2026 with respect claims 1 and 26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. In addition to, the Examiner maintained the references of Liu et al. (US 2015/0180618 A1)"and Kim (US 2012/0233511 A1) since there is no further argument/s regarding to these references.
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.
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.
5. Claims 1 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2015/0180618 A1)" herein after as Liu" in view of Kim (US 2012/0233511 A1)
in further view of Mielke (US 2023/0099503 A1).
As per claims 1 and 26:
Liu substantially teaches or discloses a method of testing an electronic device, the method comprising: receiving, by a computer, a circuit layout corresponding to the electronic device (see abstract, paragraph [0014], herein generating a design test pattern with an electronic design automation related (EDA) tool, e.g., in a native format thereof. Commands and/or instructions may also thus be sent to the ATE, with which the ATE may be controlled from within the design environment. The generated design test pattern is sent directly to an automated test equipment related (ATE) apparatus over a communication pipeline); generating, by the computer, a design for test (DFT) layout from the circuit layout (see abstract, paragraph [0076], herein Moreover, test cases may be brought up and turned around faster and easier as design for testing (DFT) engineering may create and drive test patterns directly onto an ATE apparatus platform and the test patterns may be iteratively fine tuned automatically using batch processing, and Fig.2 step 21); generating, by the computer, a test pattern by using an electronic design automation (EDA) tool, based at least in part on the DFT layout (see paragraph [0036], herein a design test pattern, commands and/or instructions are generated with an electronic design automation related (EDA) tool in a native format thereof).
Liu does not explicitly teach the DFT layout including components associated with a scan chain for a structural test of the electronic device.
However, Kim in the same the field of endeavor teaches the DFT layout including components associated with a scan chain for a structural test of the electronic device (see paragraph [0048], herein for testing a semiconductor device including complicated logic circuits, various DFT schemes are adopted. A scan scheme is one widely known DFT scheme, and the scan scheme uses a scan chain that is implemented with storage elements and operates as a shift register).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the test system of Liu with the teachings of Kim by including the DFT layout including components associated with a scan chain for a structural test of the electronic device.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the DFT layout including components associated with a scan chain for a structural test of the electronic device would have improved efficiency of testing during a design phase of the semiconductor device (see paragraph [0005] of Kim).
Liu-Kim as combined teaches all the subject matter of claims 1 and 26 except generating, by the computer, a hybrid layout from the DFT layout by removing or converting the components associated with the scan chain for the structural test from the DFT layout, wherein the electronic device manufactured by using the hybrid layout is tested by using the test pattern.
However, Mielke in the same the field of endeavor teaches generating, by the computer, a hybrid layout from the DFT layout by removing or converting the components associated with the scan chain for the structural test from the DFT layout (see paragraph [0009], one or more additional new circuits (e.g., one or more test structures which are responsive to a magnetic field impulse) in design for test (DFT) parts for structural tests enables testing partial areas without full loading of the scan chain, e.g., due to induction, e.g., intervening, in SCAN test; and paragraph [0026], [Examiner note: Examiner directs the applicant’s attention that during examination the claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) construction in light of the specification (MPEP 2111). Therefore, the Examiner interprets the feature of generating a hybrid layout from the DFT layout by removing or converting the components associated with the scan chain for the structural test from the DFT layout as the generating the structural test without including components associated with the scan chain as has been described paragraph [0041] of the applicant’s specification]); wherein the electronic device manufactured by using the hybrid layout is tested by using the test pattern (see paragraph [0027], herein the apparatus is configured to generate the magnetic field impulse in synchronism with a test program. The synchronization in magnetic field impulse delivery and data acquisition during test allows to combine a conventional testing concept, e.g., using a provision of stimulus signals for the integrated circuit under test by an automated test equipment and/or using a provision of input signals for a scan chain of the integrated circuit under test by an automated test equipment, which an influencing of the integrated circuit via a magnetic field impulse [Examiner note: the Examiner interprets the feature of electronic device manufactured by using the hybrid layout is tested by using the test pattern based on BRI and paragraph [0043] of the applicant’s specification which describes that the electronic device may receive a source layout relating to an electronic device under test (i.e., to be manufactured)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the test system of Liu-Kim as combined with the teachings of Mielke by generating a hybrid layout from the DFT layout by removing or converting the components associated with the scan chain for the structural test from the DFT layout, wherein the electronic device manufactured by using the hybrid layout is tested by using the test pattern.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized generating a hybrid layout from the DFT layout by removing or converting the components associated with the scan chain for the structural test from the DFT layout, wherein the electronic device manufactured by using the hybrid layout is tested by using the test pattern would have improved tradeoff between reliability, test coverage and time and cost of test (see paragraph [0006] of Mielke).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 21-25 are allowed. See the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance in the final action dated on 12/04/2025.
7. Claims 2, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13 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. Dependent claims 3-4, 6, 8-10 and 14 depend from on claims 2, 5, 7, and 13 and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are allowed as well.
Examiner Notes
8. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
9. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN M ALSHACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2112