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 § 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 5-7, 13 and 14 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.
Claim 5 recites “an absolute value function” and “a natural logarithm function” however, the specification does not appear to define the claimed functions. Therefore, the examiner is unsure what the metes and bounds of these claimed functions. Clarification is required.
Claim 6 recites “testing a device”. Is this a different device than the one claimed in claim 1. To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as --testing the device--. However, clarification is required.
Claim 7 recites “at least one other pin of a device under test”. Is this a different device than the one claimed in claim 1. To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as -- at least one other pin of the device under test --. However, clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites “a device under test” in line 1. In line 2, “a device under test” is again recited. Is this a different device than the one claimed in line 1. To further prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the claim as -- the device under test-- in line 2. However, clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites an absolute value function and a natural logarithm function. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure defining the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites determining an emission coefficient from the voltage-current measurement pairs; calculating a contact resistance from the emission coefficient and the voltage-current measurement pairs which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as applicant’s filed specification details mathematical equations employed to determine an emission coefficient from the data collected and calculate a contact resistance from the calculated emission coefficient, see para. [0035] and [0040].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “performing voltage and current measurements associated with a pin of a device under test (DUT) using a parameter measurement circuit” and “obtaining at least three voltage-current measurement pairs” read as additional elements related to mere data gathering; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves or betters the data gathering steps or parameter measurement circuit. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The recited “storing the calculated contact resistance and/or emission coefficient in a memory circuit for subsequent access in testing or validating the DUT” fails to integrated the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitation reads as a mere instruction to apply the exception, as the addition element steps are no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Although the claim recites a memory circuit, the memory is merely acting as a tool to perform the storing without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the function of the memory circuit. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claimed “pin or a device under test” fails to integrated the abstract idea into a practical application because the limitation merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as the DUT is neither improved or bettered by the result or performance of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, neither alone or in combination, contribute to an inventive concept. The DUT merely links the mathematical concepts to a field of use, while the parameter measurement circuit merely gathers the needed data to perform the mathematical operations. The additional elements fail to amount to significantly more because the measurement circuit, DUT, and memory circuit are not improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is rejected similarly as claim 1, as the computer program product on a data carrier and a test system merely define a computer environment tasked to perform the identified abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts; as these additional elements merely act as tools for performing the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 2 further defines the data collected without providing signifincaly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 3-5 and 9-12 recites equations used to calculate the emission coefficient/contact resistance, thereby further defining the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 further defines the step of “testing a device, wherein a resistance of a physical connection between the device and a test circuit is a basis for the calculated contact resistance”. The additional element of a device, a resistance of a physical connection between the device and a test circuit merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, as none of these additional elements are improved or bettered by the result or performance of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 7 further defines the abstract idea by reciting “calculating a further contact resistance using the further voltage-current measurement pairs” which falls into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim further defines the additional elements of “performing further voltage and current measurements associated with at least one other pin of a device under test (DUT) using a parameter measurement circuit” and “obtaining at least two further voltage-current measurement pairs”. The voltage and current measurements, parameter measurement circuit and obtaining at least two further voltage-current measurement pairs define the insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering without providing integrating the abstract idea into practical application or providing significantly more; as these elements are neither improved or bettered by the result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The “pin of a device under test” merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or providing significantly more; as neither the pin or DUT is improved by result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2. 6-9, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold et al. (2020/0003824).
With respect to claim 1, Arnold et al. teaches a method comprising: (a) performing voltage and current measurements (N measurements; Abstract) associated with a pin of a device under test (104; Abstract) using a parameter measurement circuit (602; like the one seen in Fig. 6), obtaining at least three voltage-current measurement pairs (as Table 1 describes at least three voltage-current measurements in line 3, V3,I3); (b) determining an emission coefficient (ŋ; [0022]) from the voltage-current measurement pairs (two voltage current pairs; [0033]); (c) calculating a contact resistance from the emission coefficient and the voltage-current measurement pairs ([0033]; “[a]t 310, a plurality of contact resistance values (Cres) associated with input pin of the DUT 104 is calculated at the test circuit 102, respectively based on the plurality of current and voltage measurements (measured at 304) and the test eta”); and (d) storing the calculated contact resistance and/or emission coefficient (ŋ; [0058] discloses storing the plurality of emission coefficients) in a memory circuit [0058] for subsequent access in testing or validating the DUT (as “for subsequent access in testing or validating the DUT” reads as an intended use limitation; therefore, insofar as what is structurally defined, the stored information in the memory circuit taught in Arnold et al. is capable of being used for subsequent access in testing or validating the DUI).
Claim 8 is rejected similarly to claim 1, as Arnold et al. teaches a computer program product recorded on a data carrier [0076], adapted to be input in a test system (600) to cause the test system to perform the steps rejected similarly in claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 9, Arnold et al. teaches the method/computer program product wherein currents of the voltage-current measurement pairs (are capable of) comprising a low current Ilow, a mid current Imid and a high current Ihigh, and the respective measured voltages (are capable of) comprising a low voltage Vlow, a mid voltage Vmid and a high Voltage Vhigh (note: insofar as what is structurally defined as an active method step, the both the measured currents and voltages are capable of containing a low, mid, and high, as there is currently no active step recited that actively filters the measured data in manner; therefore, under the broadest and most reasonable interpretation, the measured values are capable of being lower, mid, and high).
With respect to claim 6, Arnold et al. teaches the method further comprising testing a device (as best understood by the examiner in light of the above 112 rejection, the DUT 104 reads on a device), wherein a resistance of a physical connection between the device (104) and a test circuit (Fig. 5) is a basis for the calculated contact resistance (as Fig. 5 depicts a test setup of a device to measure contact resistance; [0040]).
With respect to claim 7, Arnold et al. teaches the method further comprising performing further voltage and current measurements associated with at least one other pin (503) of a device under test (502) using a parameter measurement circuit (as best understood by the examiner, the same parameter measurement circuit 602a can be used, as the test are not claimed as occurring simultaneously), obtaining at least two further voltage-current measurement pairs [0033]; and calculating a further contact resistance using the further voltage-current measurement pairs (as para. [0040-0042] and disclosed equation 1 teaches the measured voltage and currents being used to calculate a contact resistance).
With respect to claim 13, Arnold et al. teaches in Fig. 6 a test circuit (600) configured to determine an emission coefficient (ŋ; [0022]) of a device under test (604), comprising: (a) a parameter measurement circuit (602a) connected to a test connection (606) for associating with a pin (i.e. an input pin; [0051]) of the device under test (604); (b) an emission coefficient determination circuit (602c) connected to an output of the parameter measurement circuit (as seen in Fig. 6); and (c) a contact resistance determination circuit (602b) connected to the output of the parameter measurement circuit and an output of the emission coefficient determination circuit (as seen in Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 13, Arnold et al. teaches in Fig. 6 a test circuit (600) further comprising a storage circuit for storing the determined contact resistance and/or emission coefficient (as para. [0053] disclose a memory circuit for storing an emission coefficient).
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.
Claim(s) 3 -5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. (2020/0003824).
With respect to claims 3 and 10, Arnold et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 2 and 9, but remains silent regarding calculating the emission coefficient solves an equation as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The need to determine an emissions coefficient when testing a semiconductor is well known, as Arnold et al. discloses in [0002]. In the calculation of the emissions coefficient, Ronald et al. teaches the calculative use of both current and voltage measurements, see [0014] and Table 1. Because Arnold et al. teaches all the recited variables, the examiner has concluded the recited equation for the emission coefficient equation requires only a finite number of potential variables, based on the measured data from the semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in Ronald et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the recited equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Arnold et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 2 and 9, but remains silent regarding wherein the low current, the mid current, and the high current are in a ration 1:2:4 and wherein calculating the emission coefficient uses an equation as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
74
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where η is the emission coefficient, ABS( ) represents an absolute value function, VT is a voltage threshold of the device and ln a natural logarithm function.
The need to determine an emissions coefficient when testing a semiconductor is well known, as Arnold et al. discloses in [0002]. In the calculation of the emissions coefficient, Ronald et al. teaches the calculative use of both current and voltage measurements, see [0014] and Table 1. Because Arnold et al. teaches all the recited variables, the examiner has concluded the recited equation for the emission coefficient equation requires only a finite number of potential variables, based on the measured data from the semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in Ronald et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the recited equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
With respect to claims 5 and 11, Arnold et al. teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claims 2 and 9, but remains silent regarding wherein calculating the contact resistance comprises using at least one of the following equations:
PNG
media_image3.png
68
592
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where CRES1 and CRES2 represent the contact resistance.
The need to determine an emissions coefficient when testing a semiconductor is well known, as Arnold et al. discloses in [0002]. In the calculation of the emissions coefficient and contact resistance, Arnold et al. teaches the calculative use of both current and voltage measurements, see [0014] and Table 1. Because Arnold et al. teaches all the recited variables, the examiner has concluded the recited equation for the emission coefficient equation requires only a finite number of potential variables, based on the measured data from the semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to derive the claimed equation based on the measured variables taught in Ronald et al., as there were only a finite number of predictable solutions, providing a reasonable expectation of success in deriving the recited equation from the prior art. MPEP 2141 III.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bismuth (2021/0041488) which teaches an apparatus for measuring input capacitance of pin of electronic device; and a computer software product for measuring input capacitance of pin of electronic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853