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 . 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 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.
Specification
Specification is objected. Specification uses same element number 39 for citing two different element interlocks and arrows.
Appropriate action is required.
Drawings
Drawings are objected.
Figs.7-8 show different element interlocks and element arrows with the same element number 39.
Appropriate action is required.
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 4 and 6 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 4 recites “the test channel comprising a wired or wireless channel and being within the range.”[emphasis added].
Claim 6 recites “within the range, there is an improvement in insertion loss of 50% or greater for test frequencies of up to 40 gigahertz (GHz) ”. [emphasis added].
It is not clear which range is claimed in claim 4, which parameter? does it mean measurement range? what measurements? does it mean operational range? acceptable limits? Calibration limits? Geometrical range or what? Secondly: the claims and specification do not have any description, definition, what these tests are, therefore, no clear description of limitations of insertion loss of 50% or greater for test frequencies of claim 6 and no definition or description what these improvements are and what these insertion losses are related to? Since, there is not clear description in the specification, Examiner had to rely on teachings of prior art results from the text search for examining these claim limitation, and also interpret these functions as results of the same structure taught by the prior art.
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.
Claim 1, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan , US20230393190A1 in view of Pei , US 20220128622 A1.
Claim 1
Ranganathan in e.g., figs.1, 2B, 3B, 4-5, 8A-B, 9-16 teaches:
A test system comprising:
a test site (FIGs.1,2B,3B test interface board (TIB) ) configured to mate to a carrier (e.g., 106, 204, 325: e.g., ¶0038,0043,0047), the carrier containing a device under test (DUT) (e.g.,¶0043) to be tested at the test site (TIB);
a transition rack (e.g., 166,167, 335 e.g., ¶0038,0048,0049) comprising slots (e.g., 103,205 ¶0043,0045), a slot (e.g., 103,205) being configured to mate (Fig.3B) to the carrier (e.g., 106,204,305), the transition rack (e.g., 335) and the carrier (e.g., 325) mated to the slots (better shown in FIG.3B) being in thermal communication with a thermal controller (e.g., controller tester, ATI 441: FIG.4/thermal control and temperature control systems disclosed in e.g., ¶0047,0048,0050: therefore slots being in thermal communication with thermal controller), the thermal controller for controlling a temperature of the DUT (e.g., ¶0048,0049);
a system (e.g., elevator system 114 and handlers 180 to move carriers between slots and racks and actuators disclosed in ¶0045) to move the carrier (e.g., 325) between the transition rack (e.g., 335) and the test site (see FIG.3B and related citations);
an enclosure (e.g., better shown in Fig.8A: please note broadly enclosure is interpreted as the enclosure of Handler, the enclosure of test sites and elevator and so) containing the test site (also shown in fig.1 inside 104), the transition rack (e.g., 166,167,335), and the system (114,180, 821 in fig.8A), the enclosure being configured to complement temperature control of the carrier and the DUT contained therein by the thermal controller (function met by the enclosure including the test sites , carriers DUTs as there is no specific limitation to limit this function); and
a test instrument (not labeled but the test instruments connected to sockets and active test circuitry on TIB,SIB e.g., in FIG.2B) configured to communicate with the DUT in the carrier (e.g., fig.3B) in the test site (TIB) to test the DUT (better shown in FIGs.2B,3B).
Ranganathan does not specifically teach a gantry system, an enclosure containing … the gantry system.
In the similar field of endeavor, Pei in e.g., figs.3-4 teaches a gantry system 20, an enclosure 12 containing the test site 171 and the gantry system 20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Pei‘s gantry system for Ranganathan‘s test system and modified Ranganathan‘s enclosure containing the modified Ranganathan‘s test site, the modified Ranganathan‘s transition rack, and the modified Ranganathan‘s gantry system. One of ordinary skill in the art knows gantries typically built as rigid (X-Y-Z) systems would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use in semiconductor handling and reducing positioning errors.
Claim 8
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan teaches wherein, when mated, the carrier hangs from the slot in the transition rack (figs.2B,3B).
Claim 9
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan1 in fig.2B,3B teaches wherein the test site comprises:
a shelf 209 to hold the carrier 204; and an actuator (e.g., ¶0045,¶0048) to extend the shelf 209 to receive the carrier 204 and to retract the shelf 209 to mate the carrier 204 to the test site TIB.
Claim 10
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, combination with Pei teaches wherein the gantry system is configured to move each carrier in three dimensions (gantry systems are well known to be X-Y-Z movement and this limitation met by elevator, handlers and actuators for movements in horizontal and vertical directions e.g., ¶0038,0039 ).
Claim 12
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan teaches wherein the enclosure fig.8A comprises an input to receive the carrier (e.g., ¶0066 carriers are loaded onto the tester racks from the back or rear position of the tester system); wherein the test system comprises a conveyor to move the carrier relative to the input (handlers and e.g., ¶0066 and embodiments figs.1-3 that a system of actuators to provide movement of carriers between track slots); and wherein the gantry system is controllable ( ATE system ¶0036 of elevator, handlers , actuators all automated i.e., controlled by a controller as previously cited in e.g., ¶0038,0039) to move the carrier 325 between the input and the transition rack (335).
Claim 14
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan teaches further comprising the thermal controller, the thermal controller comprising a convective cooling device or a heating device (e.g., ¶0049: a thermal system that heats or cools the device including a thermal control system (for convection or conducted cooling and heating) that has a universal interface across products).
Claim 15
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan teaches wherein the thermal controller is configured to mate to, and to detach from, the enclosure (thermal or passive plungers 345, besides the system is capable of doing the function).
Claim 18
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan teaches wherein controlling the temperature comprises decreasing the temperature relative to ambient temperature outside of the enclosure (meet by cooling systems cited in e.g., ¶0049).
Claim 19
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan teaches wherein controlling the temperature comprises increasing the temperature relative to ambient temperature outside of the enclosure(meet by heating systems cited in e.g., ¶0049).
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan , US20230393190A1 in view of Pei , US 20220128622 A1 and Slocum, US 6448575 B1.
Claim 2
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, wherein the enclosure and/or an assembly that includes the enclosure comprises a material or has a mass that complements temperature control of the DUT.
In the similar field of endeavor, Slocum in (col.1 lines 66-67 to col.2 first and 2nd para) teaches wherein the enclosure and/or an assembly that includes the enclosure comprises a material or has a mass that complements temperature control of the DUT (chips).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Slocum‘s temperature controlling system for Ranganathan‘s enclosure and/or an assembly wherein the modified Ranganathan‘s enclosure and/or assembly that includes the modified Ranganathan‘s enclosure comprises a material or has a mass that complements temperature control of the modified Ranganathan‘s DUT as taught by Slocum. One of ordinary skill in the art knows otherwise It is difficult to control the temperature of the chips and If the test fixture in which the chips are tested does not have a thermal mass which is relatively low compared to the thermal mass of the chips being tested, it becomes difficult to rapidly switch the temperature of the device between a relatively high temperature and a relatively low temperature since it is necessary to also change the temperature of the test fixture and would have been motivated to make this modification in order to manage and thermal control chips (col.1 last para to second para of col.2 of Slocum).
Claims 3-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan , US20230393190A1 in view of Pei , US 20220128622 A1.
Claim 3
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, wherein the test instrument 2is within a range of from the test site (fig.2B).
Ranganathan teaches instrument is within a range from the test site and teaches most aspects of the instant invention. However, Ranganathan does not explicitly teach range of 0.1 to 1.5 meters . Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that test instrument would facilitate the measurements on the device under test. The specific claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 meters , absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” range of 0.1 to 1.5 meters disclosed by Ranganathan that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired tests, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the range of 0.1 to 1.5 meters is used, as already suggested by Ranganathan. Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the range of 0.1 to 1.5 meters stated and since these ranges 0.1 to 1.5 meters are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use these values in the device of Ranganathan. Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed range of 0.1 to 1.5 meters or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 4
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 3, wherein the test instrument3 comprises a test channel between the test instrument and the test site, the test channel comprising a wired or wireless channel and being within the range (fig.2B: not labeled but the test instrument is connected to the test site and related circuits).
Claims 5-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan , US20230393190A1 in view of Pei , US 20220128622 A1and in view of Valiente, US 11363746 B2.
Claim 5
Ranganathan in view of Pei and in view of Valiente teaches the test system of claim 3, Ranganathan does not disclose any switch and any disclosure if there is switch or not, however, first it is common knowledge in the art to use switch or not switch as an alternative switching option, as each have the pro and cons, alternatively/additionally: In the similar field of endeavor Valiente in fig.1 teaches test instruments 13 wherein the test channel 15 between the test instrument 13 and the test site 16 is direct and includes no switches (e.g., col.4 first para/col.6 lines 17-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Valiente‘s direct test channel with no switch for Ranganathan‘s test system. One of ordinary skill in the art would know both options as design tools have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce noises and provide signal integrity.
Claim 6
Ranganathan in view of Pei and in view of Valiente teaches the test system of claim 4, Ranganathan teaches wherein, within the range, there is an improvement in insertion loss of 50% or greater for test frequencies of up to 40 gigahertz (GHz). (it is assumed that the function is met by the same structure).
Claim 7
Ranganathan in view of Pei and in view of Valiente teaches the test system of claim 4, Valiente teaches wherein the test channel 15 comprises interconnects between the test instrument 13 and the test site 16 (col.6 first para), although it is not specifically cite fewer than sixteen but unless claim recites what is the structure to make this “fewer than sixteen” significant and unexpected, the limitation “fewer than sixteen” is examined and rejected based on the obviousness.
Claim 17
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, Ranganathan teaches wherein the test instrument is configured to communicate with the DUT over a cable connection, the cable connection including a connector at the enclosure, the connector being insulated and sealed (these limitations, i.e., connecting DUTs using connectors with TIBs and being sealed and covered are obvious).
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan , US20230393190A1 in view of Pei , US 20220128622 A1and in view of Merrow4 , US 20090262454 A1.
Claim 13
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 12, but Ranganathan does not teach further comprising:
robotics to move the carrier to and from the conveyor. In the similar field of endeavor, Merrow teaches robotics 300 to move the test assemblies 400 to and from the slots 500.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Merrow‘s robotic for Ranganathan‘s ATE and the modified Ranganathan’s robotics to move and the modified Ranganathan’s carrier to and from and the modified Ranganathan’s conveyor . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase productivity for repetitive tasks.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan , US20230393190A1 in view of Pei , US 20220128622 A1 and in view of Vayner, US 20090102457 A1.
Claim 16
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the test site comprises roller bearings and an interlock, the roller bearings and the interlock for enabling the carrier to mate to the test site, In the similar field of endeavor, Vayner in e.g., figs.2,3A teaches wherein the test site 110 comprises roller bearings and an interlock 350, the roller bearings and the interlock 350 for enabling the DIB assembly 310 to mate (¶0048) to the test site 110, therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Vayner‘s roller bearings and an interlock for Ranganathan‘s test system wherein the modified Ranganathan‘s test site comprises roller bearings and an interlock, the modified Ranganathan‘s roller bearings and the interlock for enabling the modified Ranganathan‘s carrier to mate to the modified Ranganathan‘s test site. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to help to reduce the risk of the assembly being released from the device and may help to reduce the risk of the assembly falling and being damaged (¶0048 of Vayner).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranganathan , US20230393190A1 in view of Pei , US 20220128622 A1and in view of Yevmenenko, US 6975130 B2.
Claim 20
Ranganathan in view of Pei teaches the test system of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising: a control system configured to assign each carrier an identifier and to track movement of the carrier throughout the test system based on the identifier, In the similar field of endeavor, Yevmenenko in e.g., fig.1 teaches a control system 24,28 configured to assign each carrier 36 an identifier 68 and to track movement of the carrier (controlling movement e.g., col.4 line 16/col.10 lines 4-9) throughout the test system 20 based on the identifier 68 and It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yevmenenko‘s control system and identifiers for Ranganathan‘s test system and control system configured to assign each modified Ranganathan‘s carrier an identifier and to track movement of the Ranganathan‘s carrier throughout the Ranganathan‘s test system based on the Ranganathan‘s identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art knows these techniques are well-suited for use in an automatic test system (e.g., automated test equipment) having a universal slot architecture where modules are configured to fit into any universal slot of a card cage would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reliably prevent damage to the module if the module is not authorized to substantially insert into the module holder (col.4 lines 24-30).
Allowable subject matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11:
The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious test system comprising: (iv) to control the gantry system to move the carrier from the transition rack to the test site for testing following the change in temperature, in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Orchanian, US20170059635A1
Orchanian teaches claimed limitations (not limited but including) a test site comprises a shelf 18 to hold the carrier 16; and an actuator to extend the shelf 18 to receive the carrier 16 and to retract the shelf 18 to mate the carrier 16 to the test site, also teaches thermal controller and wherein the enclosure and/or an assembly that includes the enclosure comprises a material or has a mass that complements temperature control of the DUT.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 See conclusion of this action, even if we not interpret broadly, alternatively this claim limitation is obvious over Orchnain , US20170059635A1.
2 Please note that as an alternative this limitation is obvious over prior art of record including but not limited to of Valiente, US 11363746 B2, and there is not any unexpected or patentable weight to the limitation.
3 Please note that as an alternative this limitation is obvious over prior art of record including but not limited to of Valiente, US 11363746 B2, and there is not any unexpected or patentable weight to the limitation.
4 Prior art of record