DETAILED ACTION
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
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 1/8/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-5, 7-20 are pending.
- Claims 12, 18 and 20 have been amended.
- Claim 6 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered. The amendments to claims 18 and 20 overcome the prior art applied in the Final Office Action mailed October 17, 2025. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 18-20 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments presented concerning claim 12 as amended, the applicant submits that the claim affirmatively recites “the contact chuck” as the third element in the claimed “magnetic device under test layout unit (DLU)”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 12 as amended incorporate language analogous to that in allowed claim 1, but fails to positively recite several elements deemed to make the test head assembly as recited in claim 1 allowable. Notably, the claim uses language that describes elements related to, but not comprised by the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit. In an effort to make the examiner’s position clear, the table below addresses each portion of the claim (left) and a explanation (right) about why certain elements (in bold) do not appear to differentiate from the prior art of record.
Claim 12: A magnetic device under test layout unit (DLU) comprising:
a DLU heatsink;
Positively recited: a DLU heatsink
a contact chuck interface between the DLU heatsink and a contact chuck,
Positively recited: a contact chuck interface.
The recitation “between the DLU heatsink and contact chuck” doesn’t necessitate the presence of a “contact chuck”, only the ability of the contact chuck interface to be placed between the DLU heat sink and any contact chuck. That is, the magnetic device under test layout unit is not recited as comprising the recited contact chuck.
wherein the contact chuck interface is configured to retain the contact chuck via magnetic force,
As mentioned above, the “contact chuck” is not recited as being a part of the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit. Similarly, the recitation “the contact chuck interface is configured to retain the contact chuck via magnetic force” only describes the ability of the recited contact chuck interface to retain a contact chuck by magnetic force. It’s noted that, since the recitation doesn’t explicitly say the contact chuck interface comprises magnetic means (as does claim 13 for example), as long as the prior art teaches a contact chuck interface that is capable of coupling to any contact chuck via magnetic elements, including magnetic elements present in said contact chuck, the prior art anticipates/teaches the recitation
and wherein the contact chuck interface is configured to be magnetically retained by a handler device that moves devices under test (DUTs) with a test environment;
The recitation describes the capability of the contact chuck interface to be magnetically retained by a handler device that moves devices under test (DUTs) with a test environment. The recitation doesn’t positively recite the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit comprises a handler, a tester, or that the magnetic device under test layout unit is held within a test environment. It only requires the ability of the contact chuck interface to be magnetically retained. As long as the prior art teaches a contact chuck interface that is capable of being “magnetically” retained by a handler, such as a handler that includes magnetic couplers, the prior art anticipates/teaches the recitation.
the contact chuck configured to magnetically retain a device under test
(DUT) interface unit configured to physically mate with a DUT and configured to apply a force to the DUT in the test environment during testing of the DUT;
As mentioned above, the recited “contact chuck” is not positively recited as being comprised within the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit. Thus, a recitation of the functionality of the contact chuck, including its ability to “physically mate with a DUT” or “apply a force to the DUT in the test environment” is not germane to the issue of patentability of the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit.
and a pneumatic coupler configured to retain the DUT during movement of the contact chuck.
The recited “pneumatic coupler” is positively recited as being comprised by the magnetic device under test layout. However, as mentioned above, the claim doesn’t require the presence of a DUT or the contact chuck. Thus, as long as the prior art anticipates/teaches a pneumatic coupler, and the pneumatic coupler has the ability to retain a DUT, the prior art anticipates/teaches the recitation.
For the reasons above, the examiner believes the claim as amended is not patentably distinct from the prior art relied upon. The revised rejection of claim 12 is presented below.
Lastly, the examiner notes that based on the received Remarks, it appears the examiner’s interpretation of the scope of claim 12 appears to differ from that of the applicant. Specifically, whether claim 12 positively recite the elements highlighted in the table above. Because the issues go beyond a minor informality, the examiner opted to provide the Office’s position in writing rather than contacting the applicant over the phone as suggested/offered during the telephonic interview on December 8, 2025.
This Office Action is made Non-Final.
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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 6,919,734 by Saito et al. (Saito hereafter) in view of the Korean Patent Application Publication KR-10-2192764 by Oh et al. (Oh hereafter), and further in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 20030237061 by Miller et al. (Miller hereafter). A copy of the foreign documents and partial machine translation are provided with this Office Action.
In terms of claim(s) 12-13 and 15, Saito teaches in Figure 16, a magnetic device under test layout unit (DLU) comprising:
a DLU heatsink (1038); and
a contact chuck interface (1016),
wherein said DLU is configured to retain a contact chuck (1040);
and a support unit (1050) configured to retain a device under test (IC) during movement of the contact chuck.
Saito substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the use of magnetic force to keep a contact chuck and the DLU.
Oh teaches in Figure 1, the use of a plurality of magnets (160, 150, 146) placed in a contact chuck (140) that allow a temporary coupling of the contact chuck (140) and an interface (131). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of magnets as taught by Oh, in the device/system/method of Saito, in order to obtain the ability to quickly couple and uncouple of the parts, saving time during a test procedure. Additionally, although Saito teaches a support unit (1050) that retains the device under test, Saito is silent about the use of a pneumatic coupler.
Miller, directed to testing of semiconductor devices, teaches in Figures 9 and 10, the use of a pneumatic coupler (vacuum channel 60) configured to provide a vacuum that secures the DUT on the surface of a support unit (50), or provides positive pressure to eject the DUT from the surface of the chuck.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of vacuum channels as taught by Miller, in the device/system/method of Saito in view of Oh, in order to include an additional means for securing the device under test on the surface of the support unit, ensuring the device under test doesn't shift positions during testing.
**The examiner notes that, as explained in the Response to Arguments section above, recitations describing the manner of operation, or intended use of the claimed apparatus, doesn’t differentiate from the prior art of record as long as the prior art teach all elements comprised within the magnetic device under test layout unit, and said magnetic device under test layout unit is capable of being used with or connected to devices external to the magnetic device under test layout unit as intended. Please see the table below for details:
Claim 12: A magnetic device under test layout unit (DLU) comprising:
a DLU heatsink;
Positively recited: a DLU heatsink
a contact chuck interface between the DLU heatsink and a contact chuck,
Positively recited: a contact chuck interface.
The recitation “between the DLU heatsink and contact chuck” doesn’t necessitate the presence of a “contact chuck”, only the ability of the contact chuck to be placed between the DLU heat sink and any contact chuck. That is, the magnetic device under test layout unit is not recited as comprising the recited contact chuck.
wherein the contact chuck interface is configured to retain the contact chuck via magnetic force,
As mentioned above, the “contact chuck” is not recited as being a part of the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit. Similarly, the recitation “the contact chuck interface is configured to retain the contact chuck via magnetic force” only describes the ability of the recited contact chuck interface to retain a contact chuck by magnetic force. It’s noted that, since the recitation doesn’t explicitly say the contact chuck interface comprises magnetic means, as long as the prior art teaches a contact chuck interface that is capable of coupling to any contact chuck via magnetic elements, including magnetic elements present in said contact chuck, the prior art anticipates/teaches the recitation
and wherein the contact chuck interface is
configured to be magnetically retained by a handler device that moves devices
under test (DUTs) with a test environment;
The recitation describes the capability of the contact chuck interface to be magnetically retained by a handler device that moves devices under test (DUTs) with a test environment. The recitation doesn’t positively recite the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit comprises a handler, a tester, or that the magnetic device under test layout unit is held within a test environment. It only requires the ability of the contact chuck interface to be magnetically retained. As long as the prior art teaches a contact chuck interface that is capable of being “magnetically” retained by a handler, such as a handler that includes magnetic couplers, the prior art anticipates/teaches the recitation.
the contact chuck configured to magnetically retain a device under test
(DUT) interface unit configured to physically mate with a DUT and configured to apply a force to the DUT in the test environment during testing of the DUT;
As mentioned above, the recited “contact chuck” is not positively recited as being comprised within the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit. Thus, a recitation of the functionality of the contact chuck, including its ability to “physically mate with a DUT” or “apply a force to the DUT in the test environment” is not germane to the issue of patentability of the claimed magnetic device under test layout unit.
and a pneumatic coupler configured to retain the DUT during movement of the contact chuck.
The recited “pneumatic coupler” is positively recited as being comprised by the magnetic device under test layout. However, as mentioned above, the claim doesn’t require the presence of a DUT or the contact chuck. Thus, as long as the prior art anticipates/teaches a pneumatic coupler, and the pneumatic coupler has the ability to retain a DUT, the prior art anticipates/teaches the recitation.
Regarding claim 16, the claims describe elements of the testing apparatus such as protrusions and fastening holes that are intended for alignment. Although the prior art is silent about the particular position or intended use of protrusions and fastening holes, their inclusion on test sockets is well known in the art. For example, Saito shows in figure 16, protrusions (1032) and holes (1020), which are used to ensure alignment. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include protrusions and holes to ensure proper alignment of the device under test with respect to other part of the system.
As to claim 17, Saito teaches said contact chuck interface is configured to couple thermal energy from said DUT to said DLU heatsink (by virtue of placing the DUT in close proximity to the heatsink).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Oh, Miller, and further in view of the US Patent US 5,150,042 by Look et al. (Look hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 14, Saito in view of Oh and Miller substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above, except for explicitly mentioning the use of samarium cobalt in the magnets.
Look teaches magnets comprised of samarium cobalt in test chucks (see col. 2, lines 61-63).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of magnets comprised of samarium cobalt as taught by Look, in the device/system/method of Saito in view of Oh and Miller, in order to ensure a strong magnetic attraction that samarium cobalt exert between the parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 18-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In terms of claim 1, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination a contact chuck test head assembly comprising a pneumatic coupler configured to retain the DUT during movement of the contact chuck test head assembly, in combination with all other elements recited.
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 are also allowed as they further limit allowed claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a method of testing an integrated circuit device under test, comprising the step of picking, with the handler device, a DUT using the contact chuck while the contact chuck is magnetically coupled to the DLU and placing the DUT into a test fixture, including applying force to the DUT via the contact chuck, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 19, the claim is allowed as it further limits allowed claim 18.
In terms of claim 20, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination a pick and place system, comprising a first and second pneumatic coupler configured to retain the DUT during movement of the contact chuck, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 January 30, 2026