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 .
Response to Arguments
112 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 12 Mary 2026, with respect to claims 4-7, 12 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections of claims 4-7 has been withdrawn.
101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 12 Mary 2026, with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejeciton of claims 1 and 4-7 has been withdrawn.
102 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Arnold in the same capacity as applied in the prior 102 rejection.
103 Rejection
Applicant argues the examiner’s position that Arnold et al. teaches all the claimed variables therefore the claimed equations would have been easily derived by one of ordinary skill in the art, however the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s provided analogy, Albert Einstein’s E=mc2 equation is not persuasive because the rejection isn’t premised on the historical fame or complexity of an equation, but on what the prior art teaches. Here, Arnold teaches the same underlying Shockley Diode equation, see eq. 1-19 of Arnold, and the relevant variables. Rearranging a known equation to solve for different variables is considered of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to applicant alleged technical benefit, applicant has not pointed to any evidence of unexpected results. The claimed equation is merely just an algebraic rearrangement of a known relationship; therefore any computational differences would have been an expected design choice from the finite number of variables of those equations.
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) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Arnold et al. (2020/0003824).
With respect to claim 1, Arnold et al. teaches in Fig. 6 a test circuit (600) configured to determine an emission coefficient (Abstract) of a device under test (DUT; 604), comprising: a parameter measurement circuit (602a) connected to a test connection (606) configured to connect with a pin (an input pin; [0051]) of the DUT (604), the parameter measurement circuit (602a) configured to perform voltage and current measurements [0052] associated with the pin of the DUT (604), and thereby obtain at least three voltage-current measurement pairs (as Table 1 describes at least three voltage-current measurements in line 3, V3,I3); an emission coefficient determination circuit (602c) connected to an output (as seen in Fig. 6) of the parameter measurement circuit (indirectly via 602b), the emission coefficient determination circuit (602c) configured to determine an emission coefficient [0039] from the voltage-current measurement pairs (seen in Table 1); a contact resistance determination circuit (602b) connected to the output of the parameter measurement circuit (602a) and couple to an output of the emission coefficient determination circuit (602c; as seen in Fig. 6), the contact resistance determination circuit (602b) configured to calculate a contact resistance from the emission coefficient and the voltage-current measurement pairs [0053]; and a memory circuit [0030] configured to store the calculated emission coefficient [0030] from subsequent access (for subsequent access) in testing of validating the DUT (604); wherein currents of the voltage-current measurement pairs (seen in Table 1) comprise a currents and the respective measured voltages; wherein the emission coefficient determination circuit calculated the emission coefficient by solving equations 1-19 (taught in Arnold; note: the disclosed equations all revolve around the well-known Shockley diode equation commonly used in semiconductor testing to extract physical parameters; [0042] [0046]).
Arnold et al. remains silent regarding the specific variables of voltage and current to comprise a low current Ilow, a mid current Imid, and a high current Ihigh and the respective measured voltages comprise a low voltage Vlow, a mid voltage Vmid and a high voltage Vhigh; wherein the emission coefficient determination circuit calculated the emission coefficient by solving an equation as follows
PNG
media_image1.png
80
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, 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], equations 1-19 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 derivable on the measured data from the semiconductor device and the use of the well-known Shockley diode equation, as taught in Arnold et al..
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 and equations 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 claim 4, Arnold et al. teaches a test circuit (600) configured to determine an emission coefficient (Abstract) of a device under test (DUT; 604), comprising: a parameter measurement circuit (602a) connected to a test connection (606) configured to connect with a pin (an input pin; [0051]) of the DUT (604), the parameter measurement circuit (602a) configured to perform voltage and current measurements [0052] associated with the pin of the DUT (604), and thereby obtain at least three voltage-current measurement pairs (as Table 1 describes at least three voltage-current measurements in line 3, V3,I3); an emission coefficient determination circuit (602c) connected to an output (as seen in Fig. 6) of the parameter measurement circuit (indirectly via 602b), the emission coefficient determination circuit (602c) configured to determine an emission coefficient [0039] from the voltage-current measurement pairs (seen in Table 1); a contact resistance determination circuit (602b) connected to the output of the parameter measurement circuit (602a) and couple to an output of the emission coefficient determination circuit (602c; as seen in Fig. 6), the contact resistance determination circuit (602b) configured to calculate a contact resistance from the emission coefficient and the voltage-current measurement pairs [0053]; and a memory circuit [0030] configured to store the calculated emission coefficient [0030] from subsequent access (for subsequent access) in testing of validating the DUT (604); wherein currents of the voltage-current measurement pairs (seen in Table 1) comprise a currents and the respective measured voltages; wherein the emission coefficient determination circuit calculated the emission coefficient by solving equations 1-19 (taught in Arnold; note: the disclosed equations all revolve around the well-known Shockley diode equation commonly used in semiconductor testing to extract physical parameters; [0042] [0046]).
Arnold et al. remains silent regarding the specific variables of voltage and current to comprise a low current Ilow, a mid current Imid, and a high current Ihigh and the respective measured voltages comprise a low voltage Vlow, a mid voltage Vmid and a high voltage Vhigh; the low current Ilow, the mid current Imid and the high current Ihigh are in a ratio 1:2:4 and wherein calculating the emission coefficient uses an equation as follows wherein the emission coefficient determination circuit calculated the emission coefficient by solving an equation as follows
PNG
media_image2.png
57
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where n is the emission coefficient, ABS( ) represents an absolute value function, VT is a voltage threshold of the device and ln is a natural logarithm function.
However, the need to determine an emissions coefficient during semiconductor testing is well-known, as disclosed by Arnold et al.. Further, as noted in the Applicant's remarks filed May 12, 2026, absolute value and natural logarithm functions are standard, high-school-level mathematical concepts. Therefore, because Arnold et al. teaches the calculation of the emissions coefficient using current and voltage measurements (see, eqs. 1-19, and Table 1), a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how to implement standard ABS and ln functions while deriving the needed current ratios. Because the recited equation for the emissions coefficient relies only on a finite number of variables derived from measured semiconductor data, the examiner concludes that the equation merely requires the application of the well-known Shockley diode equation alongside basic ABS and ln functions, as taught by Arnold et al..
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 and equations 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 claim 5, Arnold et al. teaches in Fig. 6 a test circuit (600) configured to determine an emission coefficient (Abstract) of a device under test (DUT; 604), comprising: a parameter measurement circuit (602a) connected to a test connection (606) configured to connect with a pin (an input pin; [0051]) of the DUT (604), the parameter measurement circuit (602a) configured to perform voltage and current measurements [0052] associated with the pin of the DUT (604), and thereby obtain at least three voltage-current measurement pairs (as Table 1 describes at least three voltage-current measurements in line 3, V3,I3); an emission coefficient determination circuit (602c) connected to an output (as seen in Fig. 6) of the parameter measurement circuit (indirectly via 602b), the emission coefficient determination circuit (602c) configured to determine an emission coefficient [0039] from the voltage-current measurement pairs (seen in Table 1); a contact resistance determination circuit (602b) connected to the output of the parameter measurement circuit (602a) and couple to an output of the emission coefficient determination circuit (602c; as seen in Fig. 6), the contact resistance determination circuit (602b) configured to calculate a contact resistance from the emission coefficient and the voltage-current measurement pairs [0053]; and a memory circuit [0030] configured to store the calculated emission coefficient [0030] from subsequent access (for subsequent access) in testing of validating the DUT (604); wherein currents of the voltage-current measurement pairs (seen in Table 1) comprise a currents and the respective measured voltages; wherein calculating the contact resistance comprises using at least one of the following equations 1-19 (as taught in Arnold; the disclosed equations, specifically eq. 18-19, revolve around the well-known Shockley diode equation commonly used in semiconductor testing to extract physical parameters; [0042] [0046]).
Arnold et al. remains silent regarding the specific variables of voltage and current to comprise a low current Ilow, a mid current Imid, and a high current Ihigh and the respective measured voltages comprise a low voltage Vlow, a mid voltage Vmid and a high voltage Vhigh; wherein the emission coefficient determination circuit calculated the emission coefficient by solving an equation as follows
PNG
media_image3.png
54
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where CRES1 and CRES2 represent the contact resistance.
However, the need to determine contact resistance when testing a semiconductor is well-known, as Arnold et al. discloses in [0002]. In the calculation of the contact resistance, Ronald et al. teaches the calculative use of both current and voltage measurements, see [0014], equations 1-19 and Table 1. Because Arnold et al. teaches all the recited variables, the examiner has concluded the recited equation for the contact resistance equation requires only a finite number of potential variables derivable on the measured data from the semiconductor device and the use of the well-known Shockley diode equation, as taught in Arnold et al..
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 and equations 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 claim 6, Arnold et al. teaches the test circuit of claim 1, wherein the test circuit is configured to test the DUT (604), wherein a resistance of a physical connection (via the pins) between the DUT (604) and the test circuit (Fig. 6) is a basis for the calculated contact resistance (as calculated using modified equations 18-19 of Arnold et al.).
With respect to claim 7, Arnold et al. teaches the test circuit of claim 1 wherein the parameter measurement circuit (602a) is configured to perform further voltage and current measurements associated with at least one other pin of the DUT (604) to obtain at least two further voltage-current measurement pairs (as Arnold et al. teaches [i]n some embodiments, the parameter measurement circuit 602a, the contact resistance estimation circuit 602b and the emission coefficient determination circuit 602c may comprise a plurality of parameter measurement circuits, a plurality of contact resistance estimation circuits and a plurality of emission coefficient determination circuits respectively associated therewith, in order to perform measurements on a plurality of input pins of the DUT 604; [0051]); and is configured to calculate (via the modified equations) a further contact resistance using the further voltage-current measurement pairs (as Arnold et al. teaches using these measured values for calculating a plurality of contact resistance values).
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights