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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,6-11 and 16 have been considered but are moot due to the new ground of rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, regarding claim 8, the wherein the system is further comprises a test module configured to receive a voltage signal associated with at least one winding of the current transformer as the probe rotates within the opening of the device under test, wherein the test module is configured to determine whether the current transformer is functioning within a set threshold as the probe rotates; Regarding claim 22, a test module configured to receive a voltage signal associated with at least one winding of the current transformer as the probe rotates within the opening of the device under test, wherein the test module is configured to determine whether the current transformer is functioning within a set threshold as the probe rotates must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
test module claims 8 and 22;.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner’s Note:
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that “for screening an electronic component” appears to be intended use and the electric component is not positively recited in the body of the claim and is therefore not required for the rejection of at least claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1,10,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Frankel et al. (US 20210096176).
Regarding claim 1, Frankel et al. teach A system for screening an electronic component, comprising:
a device under test; (DUT 120, Fig. 1)
a body having, a plurality of conductors; implicitly taught (Note a conductor must be present for supplying energy to probe 30, Fig. 1) also a conductor is implicit for to electrostatic chuck 50, par. 0019 and Fig. 1)
a rotation section; suggested by (probe tip 32 of optical probe 30 may be positioned within trench 130. ) [Note par. 0014] and
a probe associated with the rotation section, by (probe tip 32 of optical probe 30 may be positioned within trench 130. ) [Note par. 0014] the probe (30, Fig. 1) configured to house at least a portion of one or more of the plurality of conductors; implicitly taught (Note a conductor must be present for supplying energy to probe 30, Fig. 1) and
a nest (Note stage 50, par. 0019, Fig. 1) having at least one terminal, a conductor is implicit for to electrostatic chuck 50, par. 0019 and Fig. 1)
the nest configured to couple to the device under test (120, Fig. 1) and to permit at least a portion of the probe to pass through an opening of the device under test, (Note trench 130, wherein the rotation section is configured to rotate the probe within the opening of the device under test. (This process may be referred to herein as raster scanning and/or may be utilized to produce and/or generate a two-dimensional, or a multi-dimensional, representation of optical coupling between the probe tip and the optical device as a function of location on the trench side-wall and/or as a function of rotation of the probe tip relative to the trench side-wall.) [Note par. 0014, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11, Frankel et al. teach An apparatus for screening a device under test comprising:
a body having, a plurality of conductors; implicitly taught (Note a conductor must be present for supplying energy to probe 30, Fig. 1) also a conductor is implicit for to electrostatic chuck 50, par. 0019 and Fig. 1)
a rotation section; suggested by (probe tip 32 of optical probe 30 may be positioned within trench 130. ) [Note par. 0014] and
a probe associated with the rotation section, by (probe tip 32 of optical probe 30 may be positioned within trench 130. ) [Note par. 0014] the probe (30, Fig. 1) configured to house at least a portion of one or more of the plurality of conductors; implicitly taught (Note a conductor must be present for supplying energy to probe 30, Fig. 1) and
a nest (Note stage 50, par. 0019, Fig. 1) having at least one terminal, a conductor is implicit for to electrostatic chuck 50, par. 0019 and Fig. 1)
the nest configured to couple to the device under test (120, Fig. 1) and to permit at least a portion of the probe to pass through an opening of the device under test, (Note trench 130, wherein the rotation section is configured to rotate the probe and rotation section during a screening operation. (This process may be referred to herein as raster scanning and/or may be utilized to produce and/or generate a two-dimensional, or a multi-dimensional, representation of optical coupling between the probe tip and the optical device as a function of location on the trench side-wall and/or as a function of rotation of the probe tip relative to the trench side-wall.) [Note par. 0014, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 10, Frankel et al. a rotation mechanism coupleable to at least one of the rotation section or the probe, the rotation mechanism configured to cause the probe to rotate or translate relative to the device under test. Suggested by (This process may be referred to herein as raster scanning and/or may be utilized to produce and/or generate a two-dimensional, or a multi-dimensional, representation of optical coupling between the probe tip and the optical device as a function of location on the trench side-wall and/or as a function of rotation of the probe tip relative to the trench side-wall.) [Note par. 0014, Fig. 1)
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel et al. (US 20210096176) in view of Li et al. (CN 15356664 A, cited by applicant)
et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Frankel et al. does not teach wherein the system further includes a rail, the rail configured to couple to the nest and further configured to translate movement of the nest relative to the probe.
Li et al. teach wherein the system further includes a rai (T-slot 15, Fig. 1), the rail configured to couple to the nest and further configured to translate movement of the nest relative to the probe. (A T-slot 15 connected with a bracket 8, coupled with a clamping sleeve 19 of a plug 10, the T-slot allowing the plug to move relative to the connector socket (11, Fig. 1 and par. 0024)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frankel et al. to include the teaching of a rail, the rail configured to couple to the nest and further configured to translate movement of the nest relative to the probe to allow the test device to be replaced providing good interchangeability. (Note Li et al. par n0014)
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel et al. (US 20210096176) in view of Unsworth et al. (US 20040046568).
teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Frankel et al. does not teach wherein the device is a current transformer having at least one winding.
Unsoworth et al. teach wherein the device is a current transformer having at least one winding. (Note abstract and par. 0003)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frankel et al. to include the teaching of the device is a current transformer having at least one winding to detect an y partial discharge in the transformer. (Note Unsworth et al. abstract)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel et al. (US 20210096176) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20080079426).
Regarding claim 23, Frankel et al. teach A system for screening a device under test, the device under test having an opening therethrough, comprising:
a body having, a plurality of conductors; implicitly taught (Note a conductor must be present for supplying energy to probe 30, Fig. 1) also a conductor is implicit for to electrostatic chuck 50, par. 0019 and Fig. 1)
a probe enclosing, at least in part, the plurality of conductors; (Note at least one conductor must be present for supplying energy to probe 30, Fig. 1)
a rotation section operatively coupled to and configured to rotate the probe, the probe projecting out from the rotation section; suggested by (probe tip 32 of optical probe 30 may be positioned within trench 130. ) [Note par. 0014]
a nest (Note stage 50, par. 0019, Fig. 1) configured to seat the device under test (120, Fig. 1) in an orientation to permit at least a portion of the probe enclosing the plurality of conductors to pass through and rotate within the opening of the device under test.
et al. does not explicitly teach enclosing, at least in part, enclosing a plurality of conductors.
Suzuki et al. teach a probe enclosing (Note 19, Fig. 2), at least in part, enclosing a plurality of conductors. [0029] The probe 8 has an ECT sensor 12 is mounted in a main probe body 8a, as shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B. The ECT sensor 12 including ECT coils 12a and 12b is disposed at the end portion of the main probe body 8a. The ECT coils 12a and 12b are disposed side by side in the main probe body 8a,
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frankel et al. to include the teaching of enclosing at least in part, a plurality of conductors in order to provide excitation and output detection signals. (Note Suzujki et al. par. 0029)
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankel et al. (US 20210096176) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20080079426) further in view of Li et al. (CN 115356664 A, cited by applicant)
et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claims 24, Frankel et al. does not teach a rail on which the nest is movably positioned, wherein the nest is configured to translate along the rail to position the probe, at least in part, within the opening of the device under test.
Li et al. teach a rail (T-Slot 15) on which the nest is movably positioned, wherein the nest is configured to translate along the rail to position the probe, at least in part, within the opening of the device under test. (A T-slot 15 connected with a bracket 8, coupled with a clamping sleeve 19 of a plug 10, the T-slot allowing the plug to move relative to the connector socket (11, Fig. 1 and par. 0024)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frankel et al. to include the teaching of a rail, the rail configured to couple to the nest and further configured to translate movement of the nest relative to the probe to allow the test device to be replaced providing good interchangeability. (Note Li et al. par n0014)
Regarding claim 25, Frankel et al. does not teach wherein the probe has a major axis substantially parallel to the rail.
Li et al. teach wherein the probe has a major axis substantially parallel to the rail. (Note 5, Fig. 1) Examiner’s position is that any axis of the probe 5 is interpreted as a major axis.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Frankel et al. to include the teaching of the probe has a major axis substantially parallel to the rail to make adjustments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5,8,12-15 and 22 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 and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the rotation section includes an eccentric section, the eccentric section configured to receive at least one of the plurality of conductors, the eccentric section being further configured to be placed adjacent to the device under test during a screening operation.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the system is further comprises a test module configured to receive a voltage signal associated with at least one winding of the current transformer as the probe rotates within the opening of the device under test, wherein the test module is configured to determine whether the current transformer is functioning within a set threshold as the probe rotates.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the rotation section includes an eccentric section, the eccentric section configured to receive at least one of the plurality of conductors.
Regarding claim 22, a test module configured to receive a voltage signal associated with at least one winding of the current transformer as the probe rotates within the opening of the device under test, wherein the test module is configured to determine whether the current transformer is functioning within a set threshold as the probe rotates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858