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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under U.S.C 102(a)(2) and U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Apte et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2023/0251620 A1). The claims have been amended to include limitations not previously discussed in the prior non-final rejection. An updated search was conducted and new prior art was found to encompass the claims as amended “to generate an assessment result jointly based on the test data, the analyzed yield data of the wafer, and the identification data, wherein the assessment operation comprises determining whether each of the test data, the analyzed yield data of the wafer, and the identification data meet respective quality thresholds” and the limitations are fully rejected on the grounds of the prior arts found. Thus, the arguments are moot on the basis of new grounds of rejection discussed below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 11, 13-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0239736 A1) in view of Apte et. al. (United States Patent Application US 2023/0251620 A1).
The applied reference has a common applicant and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, and 11, Tsai et. al. discloses a test system and test method, comprising: an assessment subsystem (Tsai et. al. Abstract) configured to: receive a test data from a wafer test apparatus, wherein the test data comprises a test image of a wafer; receive an analyzed yield data of the wafer (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S510-S530); and receive an identification data based on the test image (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S530, image specification from probe apparatus); an optical check subsystem (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S540, Probe mark assessment subsystem); and a process control processor configured: in response to the wafer test apparatus to perform a test operation to generate the test data (Tsai et. al. error-monitoring subsystem 106, processor 600 in Figure 1); in response to the optical check subsystem to identify an image specification of probe marks in the test image and to generate the identification data (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S530, automated assessment of a probe mark); and in response to the assessment subsystem to perform an assessment operation to generate an assessment jointly based on the test data (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S540-S550). However, Tsai et. al. fails to disclose generate jointly based on the test data, simultaneously with the analyzed yield data of the wafer, and the identification data, wherein the assessment operation comprises determining whether each of the test data, the analyzed yield data of the wafer, and the identification data meet respective quality thresholds.
Apte et. al. teaches perform an assessment operation to generate an assessment jointly based on the analyzed yield data of the wafer, and the identification data, wherein the assessment operation comprises determining whether each of the test data, the analyzed yield data of the wafer, and the identification data meet respective quality thresholds (Apte et. al. [0117]-[0118]).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is important to the claimed invention because including and presenting the wafer data along with the assessment results improves the quality and optimization of the semiconductor wafer manufacturing process. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing data of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tsai et. al. and Apte et. al. so that all of the pertinent wafer data can be displayed to a human user.
Regarding claim 2, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. disclose the test system of claim 1, and Tsai et. al. further discloses wherein the process control processor is further configured to transmit the test data, the analyzed yield data, and the identification data to the assessment subsystem in an automation mode (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S540, the automated assessment of the probe mark).
Regarding claim 3 and 15, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. disclose the test system of claim 1 and method of claim 11, and Tsai et. al. further discloses wherein the process control processor is further configured to perform a verification operation on the wafer to generate the analyzed yield data (Tsai et. al. [0048]-[0049], determination of threshold value by probe mark inspection).
Regarding claim 4, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. disclose the test system of claim 1, and Tsai et. al. further discloses further comprising: a database server connected to the process control processor and configured to save the test data, the analyzed yield data, and the identification data (Tsai et. al. Figure 1, data server 102).
Regarding claim 5, Tsai et. al. discloses the test system of claim 4, wherein the
database server is further connected to the assessment subsystem and configured to save the
assessment result (Tsai et. al. Figure 1, data server 102).
PNG
media_image2.png
454
964
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, 13, and 14, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. disclose the test system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11, and Tsai et. al. further discloses wherein if each of the test data, the analyzed yield data, and the identification data meet the respective quality thresholds, the assessment result indicates a pass result, and wherein if anyone of the test data, the analyzed yield data, and the identification data fails to meet the respective quality thresholds, the assessment result indicates a failure result (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S540-S550).
Regarding claim 20, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. disclose the test method of claim 11, and Tsai et. al. further discloses further comprising: transmitting the test data, the analyzed yield data, and the identification data to the assessment subsystem (Tsai et. al. Figure 5, S540).
Claim(s) 6-7, 10, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Tsai et. al. (US Patent Publication Application 2021/0239736 A1) and Ante et. al. (United States Patent Application US 2023/0251620 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above in further view of Tabor (US Patent 2003/0014205 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 18, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. disclose the test system of claim 1 and test method of claim 11. However, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. fail to disclose further comprising: a recipe server connected to the process control processor and configured to save and obtain recipe data corresponding to the wafer test apparatus.
Tabor teaches a recipe server connected to the process control processor and
configured to save a recipe data corresponding to the wafer test apparatus ([0038], criteria is
stored in a recipe file for easy access; [0031] which is stored in a remote server 116 at a main
production server for a manufacturing facility). It is important to the claimed invention to have a
recipe server to allow for easy-to-use interface when handling additional recipes containing
wafer criteria for production. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. with the teachings of Tabor to have a recipe server that allows for robust data storage.
Regarding claim 7, 10, 16, and 17 Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. discloses the test system of claim 1 and test method of claim 11. However, Tsai et. al. and Ante et. al. fail to disclose wherein the image specification and test data comprises a distribution of probes of a probe card of the wafer test apparatus, a distance between the probes of the probe card and a surface of the wafer, a specification of the probes of the probe card, or a combination thereof.
Tabor specifically teaches wherein the image specification and test data comprises a
distribution of probes of a probe card of the wafer test apparatus, a distance between the
probes of the probe card and a surface of the wafer, a specification of the probes of the probe
card, or a combination thereof ([0030], where the memory 112 stores a component identifier based on the coordinate position on the wafer map for the test wafer). It is critical for the
claimed invention to have the precise location and information associated with each wafer
component to better identify the desired wafer standard. Thus, it would have been obvious to
one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the
teachings of Tsai et. al., Ante et. al. with the teachings of Tabor to include precise component identifier for each wafer component tested.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et. al., Ante et. al. (United States Patent Application US 2023/0251620 A1, and Tabor as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Humphrey et. al. (US
Patent 11035898 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Tsai et. al., Ante et. al. and Tabor disclose the test method of claim 18. However, Tsai et. al., Ante et. al., and Tabor fail to disclose wherein performing the test operation comprises: heating a probe card of the wafer test apparatus based on the recipe data; and performing a clean operation on probes of the probe card based on the recipe data.
Humphrey et. al. teaches wherein performing the test operation comprises: heating a
probe card of the wafer test apparatus based on the recipe data; and performing a clean
operation on probes of the probe card based on the recipe data (Figure 5, col 3, lines 55-67
method of heating the probe card, and col 9, lines 61-65 through col 10, lines 1-2, cleaning of
the probe card.). It is important to create thermal stability for the probe card and also a method
for cleaning to avoid contamination of the products for the claimed invention. Wafer testing at
low and/or elevated temperatures are essential to facilitate proper test program execution and
defect identification. Thus, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Humphrey et. al.
with the combined teachings of Tsai et. al., Ante et. al., and Tabor so that there is a heating element and cleaning operation for the probe card. This would allow for increased accuracy in the wafer testing process to also identify faults within the performance of semiconductor devices.
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the title and this overcomes the objections made in the previous non-final rejection. However, the new amendments to the claims necessitated new grounds of rejections based on new prior art found to address the new limitations and features presented in the claim language. Thus, the prior art of record effectively rejects the new claims as amended.
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 JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 May 2, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights