DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received [date response was filed], is as follows:
- Claims 1-20 are pending.
- Claims 1, 2, 16, 17, 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the modified interpretation of the prior art (Thurmaier). Please refer to the new grounds of rejection of claim 1 below. The new ground of rejection is necessitated by the amendments to claim 1. Accordingly, this Office Action is made Final.
The amendments to claim 17 overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) presented in the Non-Final Office action mailed 12/19/2025. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn.
Drawings
The arguments presented with respect to the Objection to the Drawings presented in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/16/2025 is persuasive. Accordingly, the Objections to the Drawings are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites:
“ Module according to claim 1, wherein the guide elements comprise a lifting mechanism, in particular a lever mechanism or scissor mechanism, for linearly guiding the holder relative to the base element in a second direction of movement, wherein the second direction of movement is substantially perpendicular to the first direction of movement and preferably substantially perpendicular to the interface plane.”
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which recites a module comprising guide elements, and a lifting mechanism. That is, claim 1 recites the guide elements being independent or separate from the lifting mechanism. Claim 4 however, appears to describe an additional lifting mechanism that is comprised within the module, separate from the lifting mechanism introduced in claim 1. It appears that claim 4 was intended to describe the same lifting mechanism as introduced in claim 1, as opposed to an additional mechanism within the guide elements. For the purpose of examination, the examiner considers claim 4 as reciting:
“ Module according to claim 1, wherein the comprise a lever mechanism or scissor mechanism, for linearly guiding the holder relative to the base element in a second direction of movement, wherein the second direction of movement is substantially perpendicular to the first direction of movement and preferably substantially perpendicular to the interface plane.”
Correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11-12, 14, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 9,519,023 by Thurmaier et al., (Thurmaier hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Thurmaier teaches in Figures 1-6, a module for exchanging an interface unit in a test system (1) having a handling unit (3) and a test unit (4) for testing semiconductor elements, the module comprising:
a base element (5) attached or attachable to the test system (1),
a holder (19) for receiving an interface unit (20),
guide elements (telescopic rails 15, shown in Figure 6) by means of which the holder is movable with respect to the base element (the rails allow sideways displacement of the holder 19), and which are designed to guide the holder relative to the base element between an insertion position (position wherein the holder is positioned above the base as shown in Figure 3), in which the holder is located in the test system between the test unit and the handling unit, and a removal position (position wherein the holder is positioned outside the tester as shown in Figure 2), in which the holder is located outside an area between the test unit and the handling unit for exchanging the interface unit (see also, Fig. 6), and
a lifting mechanism (lever mechanism 10) by means of which the holder (19) is movable between the insertion position (position shown in Figure 3) and an end position in which the holder is arranged at the base element (position shown in Figure 4), wherein a coupling device (bushings 24, shown in Fig. 4) is provided for coupling the interface unit to the base element in the end position, so that the lifting mechanism can be relaxed after coupling the coupling device (in the manner shown in Figure 4 and explained in col. 7, lines 55-63),
wherein the coupling device (24) is either arranged between the holder (19) and the base element (3) for coupling the holder to the base element in such a way that the coupling device can form a rigid connection at least perpendicular to an interface plane, or the coupling device is arranged on the interface unit and on the base element so that the interface unit can be fixed to the base element (see Figure 4).
As to claim 3, Thurmaier shows in Figures 1-4, the guide elements (15) comprise a drawer mechanism with a pair of telescopic rails (as illustrated in Figure 2, the guide elements extend in a telescopic manner, allowing the holder to move in and out of the testing system, see col 15, lines 61-62), for linearly guiding the holder (19) relative to the base element similar to a drawer in a first direction of movement, wherein the first direction of movement preferably extends in or parallel to the interface plane.
As to claim 4, Thurmaier shows in Figures 1-4, the lifting mechanism (10), comprise a lever mechanism or scissor mechanism (scissor mechanism as illustrated in Figure 7), for linearly guiding the holder relative to the base element in a second direction of movement (vertical direction by action of the scissor mechanism), wherein the second direction of movement is substantially perpendicular to the first direction of movement and preferably substantially perpendicular to the interface plane.
As to claim 11, Thurmaier shows in Figures 1-4, the base element (5) is attached the test unit (1).
As to claim 12, Thurmaier shows in Figures 1-4, the base element (5) comprises an outer frame (portion 9 perpendicular to the horizontal plane, shown in Figure 2) and an inner frame (portion immediately adjacent to units 10 and 15, parallel to the horizonal plane), wherein the outer frame is attached or attachable to the test unit or the handling unit (as shown in Figure 2), and wherein the inner frame is attached to the outer frame.
As to claim 14, Thurmaier shows in Figures 1-4, the holder has a holding frame (frame created by the structure surrounding the aperture within 19 that receives unit 20, see col. 7, line 1), wherein the interface unit (20) can be accommodated in a receiving opening formed by the holding frame (as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Thurmaier shows in Figures 1-4, a test system (1) comprising a handling unit (3) and a test unit (4) for testing semiconductor elements (43, see for example, col. 2, lines 54-57), wherein the test system comprises a module (2) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Thurmaier teaches a method for exchanging interface units on a test system with a test unit, a handling unit for handling semiconductor elements and a module for exchanging interface units, wherein the module (2) comprises a base element (5) attached to the test system (1), a holder (19) for receiving an interface unit (20), and guide elements (telescopic rails 15) which connect the holder to the base element and are formed to guide the holder relative to the base element between an inserted position (holder retracts into the testing system, see Figure 3), in which the holder is located in the test system between the test unit and the handling unit, and a removal position (holder slides away from the testing system, see Figure 2), in which the holder is located outside an area between the test unit and the handling unit for exchanging the interface unit, and is designed in particular according to claim 1, with the steps of:
- releasing the holder (19) located in an end position with the interface unit (20) from the base element by releasing a coupling state of a coupling device (see annotated Figure 2 above, by sliding the coupling device away from the base element, it’s released from it’s initial “installed” position), wherein the coupling device is arranged between the holder (19) and the base element (5) for coupling the holder to the base element in such a way that the coupling device can form a rigid connection at least perpendicular to an interface plane;
- moving the holder (19) with the interface unit (20) from the end position to the inserted position (as illustrated in Figure 4);
- moving the holder (19) with the interface unit (20) to the removal position (holder pulled out of the testing system as shown in Figure 3);
- removing the interface unit (20) from the holder (19) – (see col. 2, lines 21-23);
- picking up another interface unit in the holder (interface units are “exchanged” – see col. 2, lines 21-23);
- moving the holder (19) with the other interface unit to the inserted position (the holder and the exchanged interface unit 20 are reinserted into the testing system, in the manner illustrated in Figure 3);
- moving the holder with the other interface unit to the end position on the base element (while insider the testing system, lowering the holder and interface unit downwards by action of lever mechanism 10, see for example col. 2, lines 34-40); and
- locking the holder with the other interface unit to the base element by means of the coupling device (the coupling device 24 together with the guide units 15, plays a role on securing or “locking” the holder in place and thus, it locks the holder 19 and interface unit to the base).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
12. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurmaier.
Regarding claim 15, Thurmaier shows in Figures 1-4, the holding frame (frame created by the structure surrounding the aperture within 19 that receives unit 20, see col. 7, line 1) has at least two supports (recesses 21) opposite one another into the receiving opening for receiving an interface unit.
Although Thurmaier shows in Figure 2 that the supports, the supports do not appear to project into the receiving interface unit but rather are recessed into the holding frame.
However, in the same Figure, Thurmaier shows the interface unit (20) has two protrusions that correspond with the supports. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to relocate/rearrange the protrusion from the interface unit to the holding frame (while moving the recessed units to the interface unit). Shifting the position of the supports would not have modified the functionality of the system and the claimed apparatus. The particular placement of the supports and recesses would be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
13. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurmaier in view of the US Patent US 5,528,158 by Sinsheimer et al., (Sinsheimer hereafter).
In terms of claim 5, Thurmaier teaches a drive mechanism (system of drive belts including 29 and 70) provided for movement of the holder (19) relative to the base element (5). However, Thurmaier is silent about the drive mechanism being motorized.
The use of motors to aid in the mechanical movement of parts within a handling system is however, well known in the art. For example, Sinsheimer teaches in Figures 1-2 a prober for positioning probe cards and testing semiconductor devices. Furthermore, Sinsheimer teaches in claim 5, the use of a motorized belt drive, that is used to execute mechanical movement of the probe card within the prober.
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 motorized belt drives within probes, as taught by Sinsheimer, and include a motor to drive the belt drive system in the system of Thurmaier, in order to aid with the retrieval and repositioning of the holder with respect to the testing system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thurmaier in view of the US Patent US 7,768,279 by Ono et al., (7,768,279 hereafter).
Regarding claim 20, Thurmaier teaches in Figures 1-4 a method for testing semiconductor elements by means of a test system (1) having a test unit (4), a handling unit (3) for handling semiconductor elements (for example, wafer 43 shown in Figure 2) and a module (2) for exchanging interface units, the module comprising a base element (5) which is fastened to the test system, a holder (19) for receiving an interface unit (20), and guide elements (telescopic rails 15) which connect the holder (19) to the base element (5) and are formed to guide the holder relative to the base element between an inserted position (holder retracted into the testing system, see Figure 3), in which the holder is located in the test system between the test unit and the handling unit, and a removal position (holder slides away from the testing system, see Figure 2), in which the holder is located outside an area between the test unit and the handling unit for exchanging the interface unit, and is designed in particular according to claim 1, with the following steps:
- picking up an interface unit (20) in the holder (19) located in the removal position (in the position illustrated in Figure 2, which shows the removal position before the interface unit 20 is positioned within the holder in the manner illustrated in Figure 4);
- moving the holder (19) with the interface unit (20) into the insertion position (in the position shown in Figure 4);
- moving the holder (19) with the interface unit from the inserted position to an end position on the base element (while inside the testing system, lowering the holder and interface unit downwards by action of lever mechanism 10 and telescopic guide rails 15, see for example col. 2, lines 34-40);
- coupling the interface unit to the base element by means of a coupling device (while inside the testing system, lowering the holder and interface unit downwards by action of units 10 and 15, see for example col. 2, lines 34-40), wherein the coupling device (see annotated Figure 2 above) is arranged between the holder and the base element for coupling the holder to the base element in such a way that the coupling device can form a rigid connection at least perpendicular to an interface plane;
- moving the handling unit and the test unit together (Figure 1 shows the handling unit 3 and the test unit 4 are part of the same assembled testing unit 1, thus the handling unit 3 and the test unit 4 were moved together at some point in time, in order to assemble testing unit 1);
- placing at least one semiconductor element on the interface unit by means of the handling unit (see col. 6, lines 3-6);
- testing the at least one semiconductor element (wafer 43 in Figure 2) by means of the test unit (4); and
- removing the at least one semiconductor element from the interface unit (Thurmaier mentions in col. 6, lines 3-5, that the handling unit 3 is used to supply wafers to the interface unit, implying the testing system is design to test more than one wafer one after the other);
wherein the steps of placing, testing and removing are preferably repeated for a plurality of at least one semiconductor element (Thurmaier mentions in col. 6, lines 3-5, that the handling unit 3 is used to supply wafers to the interface unit, implying the testing system is design to test more than one wafer one after the other).
Thurmaier substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning that the handling unit (3) removes the at least one semiconductor element (wafer 43) from the interface unit. However, Thurmaier mentions the handling unit supplies multiple wafers to the interface unit (col. 6, lines 3-5). Inherently, before supplying the next wafer, the system must include means to remove the previous wafer.
Ono teaches in Figure 1, a handling unit (prober 1) that is used to both provide wafers to a test position (on chuck 11) and to remove and exchange the wafers once the testing is completed.
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 handling units as means to remove wafers as taught by Ono, in the device/system/method of Thurmaier, in order to gain the advantage of automating the placement and removal of each wafer in the testing method of Thurmaier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6-10, 13, and 16-18 are allowed.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination module for exchanging an interface unit in a test system, wherein the coupling device is designed as at least one docking unit each having a docking element and a docking counter-element for coupling the holder to the base element in such a way that the coupling device provides a rigid connection at least perpendicular to the interface plane, wherein the docking element or the docking counter-element is attached to the holder and the docking counter-element or the docking element is attached to the base element and the docking unit is designed for mechanically connecting and disconnecting the docking element to the docking counter-element, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 6-10 and 13, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination module for exchanging an interface unit in a test system, wherein a bridge element is provided which is attached or can be attached to the holding frame so as to span the holding opening of the holding frame and which is designed to hold or support an interface unit or an interface unit carrier or a stiffening element, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claim 17, the claims are allowed as they further limit claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination module for exchanging an interface unit in a test system, wherein the coupling device comprises an adapter frame with at least one recess and at least one movable coupling element for coupling the interface unit to the base element such that the coupling provides a releasable positive connection parallel to the interface plane, wherein the adapter frame is attached to the interface unit and the at least one movable coupling element is attached to the base element, and wherein the movable coupling element engages in the recess to provide a releasable mechanical connection between the interface unit and the base element, in combination with all other elements recited.
Conclusion
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 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 July 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights