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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Applicant is reminded that all amendments must be clearly indicated such as by underline or strike-through. Previously, applicant claimed, in Claim 5, “a plurality of second electrical contact” as seen in the amendment filed 1/28/2026. However, the “a” in the above phrase has disappeared and been replaced with “the,” but where such an amendment was not indicated in the instant amendments. The Examiner is presuming that applicant intended to make such a change, but notes that all amendments must be indicated consist with the MPEP.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
No specific arguments are made against the previous rejections, and the Examiner therefore notes that those amendments that have overcome the previously raised issues are withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below.
No prior art is applied for similar reasons noted in the Office Action of 10/31/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to Claim 2,
The phrase “the first magnetic member and the second magnetic member are electromagnetic, each of the plurality of carriers or the wafer test cassette includes a respective magnetic barrier assembly, and a magnetic barrier assembly includes a power supply and a switch connected to the second magnetic member, wherein the switch is configured to be turned on or turned off through a control circuit, the tester is electrically connected to the wafer test cassette at the same time, before, or after during the magnetic attraction is generated” on lines 1 to the end introduces new matter.
Applicant does not originally disclose that both the first and second magnetic members are electromagnetic. In the embodiment that includes the above magnetic barrier, power supply, and switch, applicant discloses that the second magnetic member is an electromagnet (Paragraph [0044]). However, applicant does not state that the first magnetic member is also an electromagnet. The Examiner acknowledges that paragraph [0040] states that each of the first and second magnetic members can be formed from different mechanisms such as an electromagnet, it does not state that both can be formed simultaneously as electromagnets, and the explicit embodiment relied upon by applicant does not disclose that the first magnetic member is an electromagnet, nor disclose or show it is connected to any form of power source necessary for it to operate as an electromagnet. Applicant does, however, disclose such a power source for the second magnetic member. If applicant originally intended both the first and second magnetic members to be electromagnets, then applicant would reasonably have shown both connected to a power source instead of just the second magnetic member. As such, this above claim feature is not reasonably supported by the original disclosure, and therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claims 3 and 12,
The phrase “the magnetic barrier assembly configured to reduce or eliminate the magnetic attraction, wherein the magnetic barrier is a removable shield, and further includes a slide assembly connected to the respective carrier and the removable shield, the slide assembly being configured to move the removable shield” on lines 1-6 of Claim 3 and the similar phrase in Claim 12 introduces new matter.
The original disclosure does not disclose a slide assembly connected to both the carrier and removable shield and that is configured to move the removable shield. The only disclosure of a slide assembly is one that is connected to the carrier, and that is configured to “drive the carrier to move toward an interior or exterior of the test space” (See original Claim 6 for example). No slide assembly is disclosed that is connected to the shield, both the shield and carrier, or that is configured to move the shield itself as claimed. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “each slide assembly is configured to drive respective plurality of carriers” on lines 4-5 introduces new matter.
The Examiner acknowledges that applicant’s intent here is to recite that each slide assembly is configured to drive a respective one of the plurality of carriers. However, this is not claimed, and instead, applicant is expressly claiming that each slide assembly is configured to drive respective plurality of carriers, which is all carriers. Such a feature introduces new matter, as no slide assembly is originally disclosed to drive all carriers.
The phrase “the slide assembly is an assembly including two slide carriers respectively disposed on two sides of a bottom of the wafer test cassette, the two slide carriers are configured to support the wafer test cassette and elevate the wafer test cassette in the plurality of test spaces” in the last paragraph introduces new matter and lacks proper written description.
Applicant is now claiming that the slide assembly has slide carriers that are configured to elevate the wafer test cassette in the plurality of test space (presumably spaces), but where such a feature introduces new matter. This phrase reasonably means that the slide carriers are configured to elevate the cassette into all test spaces, but where the original disclosure does not disclose that the carriers perform this function. While the slide carriers may elevate the cassette into one space, they are not disclosed to elevate it into all spaces.
4) There is no disclosure as to the manner in which the slide carriers themselves are “configured” to elevate the cassette in an manner. The original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which any slide carriers are configured, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which the slide carriers are implemented to perform or otherwise be configured to perform the claim feature.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “a second magnetic member is disposed in at least one of the plurality of spaces” on lines 10-11 introduces new matter. A second magnetic member is originally disclosed to be disposed in at most one of the plurality of spaces. No magnetic member is disclosed to itself be located in more than one space, but where the above claim recitation reasonable now includes such an interpretation by reciting that the second magnetic member is disposed in “at least one of” the plurality of spaces. This phrase therefore introduces new matter.
The phrase “the second magnetic member is disposed on the bottom plate or the side wall, and the wafer test cassette is fixed in at least one of the plurality of test spaces through magnetic attraction generated between the first magnetic member and the second magnetic member” on lines 10-14 introduces new matter.
Applicant is now claiming that the wafer test cassette is fixed in at least one of the plurality of test spaces, but where the original disclosure does not disclose the wafer test cassette being fixed in more than one test space. By claiming that the cassette is fixed in “at least one” of the plurality of test spaces, applicant is now reasonably claiming that the cassette is or can be fixed in more than one test space, which introduces new matter.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “wherein the at least one first electrical contact is connected to the plurality of second electrical contacts through the magnetic attraction” on lines 1-3 introduces new matter.
Applicant is now claiming, as best understood, that the plurality of second electrical contacts, and thus all of them, are connected to the “at least one first electrical contact.” Such a recitation is not reasonably supported because applicant does not reasonably disclose all second contacts electrically connected to the same first electrical contact, but where the above phrase reasonably includes such an interpretation. While applicant may be mean that each second contact is respectively electrically connected to a different respective one of the first electrical contacts, this is not reasonably claimed.
As to Claims 11-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-6 and 8-16 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein each of the plurality of test spaces is used to accommodate a respective wafer test cassette” on lines 12-13 is indefinite.
Applicant initially recites “a wafer test cassette” on line 2, and then distinctly recites “a respective wafer test cassette” in the above phrase. As best understood, the initially recited wafer test cassette is one of the respective wafer test cassettes but where these features are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these distinctly recited wafer test cassettes are unclear.
The phrase “wherein each of the plurality of second electrical contacts is configured to be electrically connected to a different respective one of the at least one first electrical contact, thereby establishing an electrical connection between the tester and the wafer cassette” on lines 14-17 is indefinite.
1) It is unclear how many first electrical contacts are required in the claim. Applicant initially recites “at least one first electrical contact,” thereby clearly establishing that one contact is required, but that more could be present. The above phrase, however, requires plural first electrical contacts, as there is no way for the plurality of second electrical contacts to be connected to “a different respective one of the at least one first electrical contact” without plural first electrical contacts. However, applicant does not positively recite or clearly require plural first electrical contacts. It is therefore unclear how many first electrical contacts are required in the claim, in that it is unclear if “at least one” first electrical contact, and thus one electrical contact, is required, or if plural first electrical contacts are required in the claim.
2) The phrase “the wafer test cassette” is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on line 18 is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the carrier” on line 18 is indefinite. More than one carrier was previously recited, as a “plurality of carriers” were previously recited. It is therefore unclear what carrier this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 3,
The phrase “the magnetic barrier assembly configured to reduce or eliminate the magnetic attraction, wherein the magnetic barrier is a removable shield, and further includes a slide assembly connected to the respective carrier and the removable shield, the slide assembly being configured to move the removable shield” on lines 1-4 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the magnetic barrier assembly” on lines 1-2 is indefinite as no such assembly was previously recited. Because more than one magnetic barrier is disclosed, it is unclear, in light of the disclosure, which barrier this phrase is referencing. As such, this phrase is indefinite.
2) The phrase “the respective carrier” is indefinite, as no respective carrier was reasonably previously recited. Plural carriers were previously recited, and it is unclear which carrier this phrase is referencing.
3) It is further unclear what the relationship is between the carriers and the magnetic barrier assembly. Applicant discloses a magnetic barrier (SB-B) as part of a carrier (SB) as seen in Figure 4. However, applicant is distinctly reciting the barrier from the carrier but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The relationship between the carrier and barrier, as claimed, is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Applicant previously recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the at least one first electrical contact” on line 2 is indefinite. The Examiner acknowledges that applicant does recite “at least one first electrical contact” in Claim 1, but the issue here is that, as explained above, it is unclear if one or more first electrical contacts are required for the reasons previously explained. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear how many first electrical contacts are required in the claim.
As to Claim 5,
The phrase “the at least one first electrical contacts is connected to a different respective one of the plurality of second electrical contacts through the magnetic attraction” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
1) While “at least one first electrical contact” was previously recited in Claim 1, “at least one first electrical contacts” were not previously recited. As such, it is unclear what plural first electrical “contacts” this phrase is referencing.
2) The above phrase is further indefinite because, for similar reasons as those already explained in Claim 1, it is unclear how many first electrical contacts are required in the claim. Applicant does not expressly or reasonably claim that more than one first electrical contact is in the claim. While the phrase “at least one” can include more than one, it does not have to. However, the only way first electrical contacts can be connected to different respective ones of the plurality of second electrical contacts is if more than one or plural first electrical contacts are required in the claim. This phrase is therefore indefinite because it is unclear how many first electrical contacts are therefore required.
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on lines 8, 9, and 9-10 is indefinite. Applicant previously recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the slide assembly is an assembly including two slide carriers respectively disposed on two sides of a bottom of the wafer test cassette, the two slide carriers are configured to support the wafer test cassette and elevate the wafer test cassette in the plurality of test spaces” in the last paragraph is indefinite. More than one slide assembly is now recited, as applicant expressly claims “a plurality of slide assemblies” as seen on line 2. As such, it is unclear what slide assembly this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Applicant previously recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Applicant previously recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “wherein each of the plurality of test spaces is used to accommodate a respective wafer test cassette” on lines 8-9 is indefinite.
Applicant initially recites “a wafer test cassette” on line 2, and then distinctly recites “a respective wafer test cassette” in the above phrase. As best understood, the initially recited wafer test cassette is one of the respective wafer test cassettes but where these features are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these distinctly recited wafer test cassettes are unclear.
The phrase “wherein each of the plurality of second electrical contacts of the at least one test cabinet is configured to be electrically connected to a different respective one of the at least one first electrical contact, thereby establishing an electrical connection between the wafer cassette and the tester” in the last paragraph is indefinite.
1) It is unclear how many first electrical contacts are required in the claim. Applicant initially recites “at least one first electrical contact,” thereby clearly establishing that one contact is required, but that more could be present. The above phrase, however, requires plural first electrical contacts, as there is no way for the plurality of second electrical contacts to be connected to “a different respective one of the at least one first electrical contact” without plural first electrical contacts. However, applicant does not positively recite or clearly require plural first electrical contacts. It is therefore unclear how many first electrical contacts are required in the claim, in that it is unclear if “at least one” first electrical contact, and thus one electrical contact, is required, or if plural first electrical contacts are required in the claim.
2) The phrase “the wafer test cassette” is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on line 12 is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the second magnetic member is disposed on the bottom plate or the side wall, and the wafer test cassette is fixed in at least one of the plurality of test spaces through magnetic attraction generated between the first magnetic member and the second magnetic member” on lines 10-14 is indefinite.
At issue here is that applicant is claiming that the second magnetic member is disposed on the bottom plate or the side wall, but more than one bottom plate and more than one side wall have been previously recited. As now claimed, each of the plurality of test spaces has a bottom plate and side wall, and thus it is unclear which side wall or bottom plate this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 11,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on line 2 is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “a magnetic barrier assembly configured to reduce or eliminate the magnetic attraction, wherein the magnetic barrier is a removable shield, and further includes a slide assembly connected to the respective carrier and the removable shield, the slide assembly being configured to move the removable shield” on lines 2-6 is indefinite.
1) The phrase “the respective carrier” is indefinite, as no respective carrier was reasonably previously recited. Plural carriers were previously recited, and it is unclear which carrier this phrase is referencing.
2) It is further unclear what the relationship is between the carriers and the magnetic barrier assembly. Applicant discloses a magnetic barrier (SB-B) as part of a carrier (SB) as seen in Figure 4. However, applicant is distinctly reciting the barrier from the carrier but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The relationship between the carrier and barrier, as claimed, is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the wafer test cassette has at least one first positioning structure, at least one of the top plate, the bottom plate, and the side wall has at least one second positioning structure corresponding to the at least one first positioning structure, and the at least one second positioning structure is configured to be engaged to the at least one first positioning structure” on lines 1 to the end is indefinite.
1) From the above claim language, it is unclear what the wafer test cassette is being claimed to have or include. It is unclear if the cassette is being claimed to have at least one first positioning structure, at least one of the top plate, the bottom plate, and the side wall, or if the cassette has less than these features, such as just the at least one first positioning structure. As currently worded, it is not reasonably clear which features are part of the cassette.
2) Applicant is now claiming that each of the plurality of test spaces have a top plate, a bottom plate, and a side wall. The above phrases are therefore unclear and indefinite, because it is unclear which top plate, bottom plate, and side wall these recitations are referencing. Furthermore, the relationship between the at least one first positioning structure and the at least second positioning structure is unclear, because it is unclear how many positioning structures are present in the claim due to the fact that more than one cassette and more than one side wall have been previously recited, and it is unclear what their relationship is to each other.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “the wafer test cassette” on lines 1-2 is indefinite. Applicant recites “a wafer test cassette” and “a respective wafer test cassette,” thus clearly previously reciting more than one wafer test cassette. The above phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear which wafer test cassette this phrase is referencing.
As to Claims 2-6, 8, 9, and 11-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights