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 claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 27 and 29 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.
Regarding claim 27, the metes and bounds of the electrically conductive chamber is free of field-shaping elements is unclear. It is unclear as to what is meant by field shaping elements and what are considered field shaping elements.
Regarding claim 28 the metes and bounds of wherein the cavity is free of field-shaping elements is unclear. It is unclear as to what is meant by field shaping elements and what are considered field shaping elements.
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.
Claims 1,3,6,8,10,11,14,15, 19, 14,25,27,28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668).
Regarding claim 1, Simmons et al. teach An apparatus for testing and/or operating electronic devices (Note Fig. 1) inside a cryogenic apparatus, comprising:
a base having a base surface (50, Fig. 1) configured to have at least one electronic device (42, Fig. 1) arranged thereon;
an electrically conductive chamber surrounding the base surface, ([0052] Measurement chamber 30 may include and/or be formed from any suitable material and/or materials. As examples, measurement chamber 30 may include and/or be an electrically conductive measurement) the electrically conductive chamber including at least one opening in a chamber wall thereof; (Note the passage of probe arm 122, into chamber Fig. 1)
and a needle card (manipulator 130, Fig. 1) arranged outside of the electrically conductive chamber, the needle card including at least one contact needle extending through the at least one opening of the electrically conductive chamber, (Note probe arm 122, into chamber Fig. 1) the at least one contact needle being configured for electrical contact with the at least one electronic device, (Note 110 in contact with 42, Fig. 1)
Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device via the at least one contact needle during testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device, and
wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber.
Sim disclose changing the eigenmode of the electromagnetic wave (Note pars. 0014 and 0063)
Sim is silent on wherein the electrically conductive chamber has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the electrically conductive chamber has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device taught by Simmons et al. as modified since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reducing a standard deviation in electromagnetic field and improving electromagnetic wave uniformity, performance of the electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber may be improved. (Note Sim et al. par. 0063)
Chen et al. teach ,and wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber. (Note par. 0023)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of ,and wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber define the boundary conditions for the eigenmodes. (Note Chen et al. par. 0023)
Regarding claim 15, Simmons et al. teach An electrically conductive chamber (30, Fig. 1) used in testing and/or operating electronic devices inside a cryogenic apparatus, comprising:
a cavity (interior of chamber 30, Fig. 1) configured to accommodate at least one electronic device (40, Fig. 1) therein; and
a chamber wall (34, Fig. 1) defining the cavity and having at least one opening configured to receive at least one contact needle of a needle card arranged outside of the electrically conductive chamber, (Note probe arm 122, into chamber Fig. 1, and note the arm passing through 34 which suggest an opening)
Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the cavity has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device via the at least one contact needle during testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device, and
wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber.
Sim disclose changing the eigenmode of the electromagnetic wave (Note pars. 0014 and 0063)
Sim is silent on wherein the electrically conductive chamber has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the electrically conductive chamber has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device taught by Simmons et al. as modified since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reducing a standard deviation in electromagnetic field and improving electromagnetic wave uniformity,
Chen et al. teach ,and wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber. (Note par. 0023)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of ,and wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber define the boundary conditions for the eignemodes. (Note Chen et al. par. 0023)
Regarding claim 29, Simmons et al. teach An electrically conductive chamber (30, Fig. 1) used in testing and/or operating electronic devices inside a cryogenic apparatus, comprising:
a cavity (interior of chamber 30, Fig. 1) configured to accommodate at least one electronic device (40, Fig. 1) therein; and
a chamber wall (34, Fig. 1) defining the cavity and having at least one opening configured to receive at least one contact needle of a needle card arranged outside of the electrically conductive chamber, (Note probe arm 122, into chamber Fig. 1, and note the arm passing through 34 which suggest an opening)
Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the cavity has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is a lowest possible excitation frequency defined by a geometry of the cavity and is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device via the at least one contact needle during testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device.
Sim disclose changing the eignenmode of the electromagnetic wave (Note pars. 0014 and 0063)
Sim is silent on wherein the electrically conductive chamber has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the electrically conductive chamber has an electromagnetic eigenmode that is larger than a testing and/or operating frequency supplied to the at least one electronic device taught by Simmons et al. as modified since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to reducing a standard deviation in electromagnetic field and improving electromagnetic wave uniformity,
Simmons et al. does not teach the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is a lowest possible excitation frequency defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber; and/or the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is 50 GHz or more, 80 GHz or more, or 100 GHz or more, in particular wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is in a range between 10 GHz and 100 GHz.
Sim teach electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is a lowest possible excitation frequency defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber; ([0014] The eigenmode of the electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber may be changed by adjusting a width, a length, and a height of the concavo-convex mode stirrer, and a number of the concavo-convex mode stirrers provided as the concavo-convex mode stirrer. [0068] As illustrated, in most mode numbers, the electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber illustrated in FIG. 2 has greater eigenfrequency shifts, compared to the electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber 100 illustrated in FIG. 1. Here, a mode number refers to an order of an eigenmode in which an eigenfrequency is generated. In addition, results in mode numbers 1 through 10 may show performance of an electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber at a lowest useable frequency (LUF). ) and/or the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is 50 GHz or more, 80 GHz or more, or 100 GHz or more, in particular wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is in a range between 10 GHz and 100 GHz.
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is a lowest possible excitation frequency defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber to secure electromagnetic wave uniformity. (Note Sim et al. par. 0007)
Chen et al. teach wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber. (Note par. 0023)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode is defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber to define the boundary conditions for the eigenmodes. (Note Chen et al. par. 0023)
Regarding claim 6, Simmons et al. teach wherein a void space is provided between the at least one contact needle extending through the at least one opening and an edge of the at least one opening. Suggested by ([0026] During this operative translation of probe arm 120, manipulator 130, at least a portion of manipulator 130, and/or a least a portion of manipulator 130 that is operatively attached to probe arm 120 and/or to DUT-distal end 122 thereof may move and/or translate with probe arm 120. Stated another way, at least a portion of manipulator 130 may move and/or translate relative to measurement chamber 30 and/or relative to aperture 34 when the manipulator moves the probe arm throughout the probe arm range-of-motion.) Examiner’s position is a void must be present for translation of the arm.
Regarding claim 10, Simmons et al. teach wherein the chamber wall includes a lateral chamber wall and a top chamber wall arranged on a first side of the lateral chamber wall, wherein the lateral chamber wall and the top chamber wall define an interior of the electrically conductive chamber. Note Fig. 1, 34 and top layer between 34)
Regarding claim 11, Simmons et al. wherein the electrically conductive chamber has an opening at a second side of the lateral chamber wall (34, Fig. 1) opposite the first side of the lateral chamber wall (Note Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Simmons et al. wherein the at least one electronic device is selected from the group consisting of an integrated circuit, a quantum chip, a wafer, a semiconductor device, a component of an integrated circuit, and a component of quantum chip. ([0062] Substrate 40 may include and/or be any suitable structure that may support, include, and/or have formed thereon DUT 42. Examples of substrate 40 include a wafer, a semiconductor wafer, a silicon wafer, and/or a gallium arsenide wafer. )
Regarding claim 3, Simmons et al. does not teach the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is a lowest possible excitation frequency defined by the geometry of the electrically conductive chamber; and/or the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is 50 GHz or more, 80 GHz or more, or 100 GHz or more.
Sim teach electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is a lowest possible excitation frequency defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber; ([0014] The eigenmode of the electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber may be changed by adjusting a width, a length, and a height of the concavo-convex mode stirrer, and a number of the concavo-convex mode stirrers provided as the concavo-convex mode stirrer. [0068] As illustrated, in most mode numbers, the electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber illustrated in FIG. 2 has greater eigenfrequency shifts, compared to the electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber 100 illustrated in FIG. 1. Here, a mode number refers to an order of an eigenmode in which an eigenfrequency is generated. In addition, results in mode numbers 1 through 10 may show performance of an electromagnetic wave reverberation chamber at a lowest useable frequency (LUF). ) and/or the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is 50 GHz or more, 80 GHz or more, or 100 GHz or more, in particular wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is in a range between 10 GHz and 100 GHz.
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is a lowest possible excitation frequency defined by a geometry of the electrically conductive chamber to secure electromagnetic wave uniformity. (Note Sim et al. par. 0007)
Regarding claim 8, Simmons et al. teach wherein the at least one opening of the electrically conductive chamber is a plurality of openings (Note 122 passing through walls 34 which suggest plurality of openings, Fig. 1) and the at least one contact needle is a plurality of contact needles, wherein each contact needle of the plurality of contact needles (120, via 120, Fig. 1) extends through a respective opening of the plurality of openings.
Regarding claim 19, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is in a range between 10GHz and 100GHz.
Chen et al. teach wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is in a range between 10GHz and 100GHz. (Note par. 0027)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of , wherein the electromagnetic eigenmode of the electrically conductive chamber is in a range between 10GHz and 100GHz to satisfy the required specifications of the chamber.
Regarding claim 24, Simmons et al. teach wherein the lateral chamber wall and the top chamber wall define a cup-shape.(Note lateral wall of chamber 30 and note top wall that is in direct contact with lateral wall, Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 25, Simmons teach wherein the second side of the lateral chamber wall is attached to the base to close off the interior of the electrically conductive chamber and/or the at least one opening is provided in the lateral chamber wall and/or the top chamber wall. (Not4 Simmons Fig. 1, the lateral sided as a left and right side and each closes off the interior of the chamber.
Regarding claim 27, Simmons et al. teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber is free of field-shaping elements. (Note chamber 30, Fig. 5) also not the absence of field shaping.
Regarding claim 28, Simmons et al. teach wherein the cavity is free of field-shaping elements. (Note chamber 30, Fig. 5) also not the absence of field shaping.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668) further in view of Bartko et al. (US 20180321292)
Simmons et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Simmons et al. does not teach the apparatus is connectable to the cryogenic apparatus for testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device; and/or the apparatus is configured to be connected to an object holder that is connectable to and/or insertable into the cryogenic apparatus.
Bartko et al. teach the apparatus is connectable to the cryogenic apparatus for testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device. (Note abstract, A portable anechoic chamber for testing a device under test)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of apparatus is connectable to the cryogenic apparatus for testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device to make the test chamber portable and easy to reposition.
Regarding claim 18, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the apparatus is releasably connectable to the cryogenic apparatus; and/or the apparatus is configured to be connected to an object holder that is connectable to and/or insertable into the cryogenic apparatus, in particular wherein the apparatus is releasably connectable to the object holder.
Bartko et al. teach the apparatus is releasably connectable to the cryogenic apparatus for testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device. (Note abstract, A portable anechoic chamber for testing a device under test)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of apparatus is releasably connectable to the cryogenic apparatus for testing and/or operating of the at least one electronic device to make the test chamber portable and easy to reposition.
Claims 4 , 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668) further in view of Chen (US 10568241).
Regarding claim 4, Simmons et al. teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber is further configured as an electrical shield to shield the at least one electronic device from external electrical interference, ([0052] Measurement chamber 30 may include and/or be formed from any suitable material and/or materials. As examples, measurement chamber 30 may include and/or be an electrically conductive measurement chamber, a metallic measurement chamber, and/or an electrically shielded measurement chamber.)
Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber is configured as a radiofrequency shield.
Chen teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber is configured as a radiofrequency shield. (Note abstract)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of the electrically conductive chamber is configured as a radiofrequency shield for regulating a transmission distance of a radio frequency (RF) signal of an electronic device is used as a container of the electronic device. (Note Chen abstract)
Regarding claim 12, Simmons et al. teach wherein the needle card (130, Fig. 1) includes a base structure arranged outside the electrically conductive chamber, wherein the at least one contact needle is attached to the base structure and extends from the base structure through the at least one opening in the chamber wall of the electrically conductive chamber (top of 130 that has an opening for signal conduit 80) (Note conduit 80 travelling through 130 and sidewall 34, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 20, Simmons et al teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber is further configured as an electrical shield to shield the at least one electronic device from external electrical interference, ([0052] Measurement chamber 30 may include and/or be formed from any suitable material and/or materials. As examples, measurement chamber 30 may include and/or be an electrically conductive measurement chamber, a metallic measurement chamber, and/or an electrically shielded measurement chamber.)
Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber is configured as a radiofrequency shield.
Chen teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber is configured as a radiofrequency shield. (Note abstract)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of the electrically conductive chamber is configured as a radiofrequency shield for regulating a transmission distance of a radio frequency (RF) signal of an electronic device is used as a container of the electronic device. (Note Chen abstract)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668). further in view of Hirota et al. (US 6348809).
Simmons et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the at least one contact needle is covered with an insulating material with a tip of the at least one contact needle being exposed.
Hirota et al. teach wherein the at least one contact needle is covered with an insulating material (81 Fig. 4, column 4, lines 38-40) with a tip of the at least one contact needle being exposed. (Note 82, Fig. 4)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of wherein the at least one contact needle is covered with an insulating material with a tip of the at least one contact needle being exposed to protect the conductor of the cable from damage.
Claim 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668) further in view of Tapio (CN 203387825 U).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, Simmons et al. teach wherein the electrically conductive chamber includes, or is made of, at least one electrically conductive material, (Note par. 0052)
Simmons et al. does not teach in particular wherein the at least one electrically conductive material is selected from the group consisting of aluminum, copper, titanium, and niobium.
Tapio et al. teach wherein the at least one electrically conductive material is selected from the group consisting of aluminum, copper, titanium, and niobium. (par. 0019)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of wherein the at least one electrically conductive material is selected from the group consisting of aluminum, copper, titanium, and niobium to provide a radio frequency testing chamber. (Note Tapio abstract)
Claims 9, 13, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668) further in view of Wu et al. (US 20080054919).
Simmons et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the at least one opening includes, or is, at least one slot in the chamber wall, wherein the at least one slot is open at a portion of the chamber wall facing the base surface.
Wu et al. teach wherein the at least one opening includes, or is, at least one slot (31, Fig. 5) in the chamber wall, wherein the at least one slot is open at a portion of the chamber wall facing the base surface (Note 31, Fig. 5)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of wherein the at least one opening includes, or is, at least one slot in the chamber wall, wherein the at least one slot is open at a portion of the chamber wall facing the base surface to allow multiple probers to test the device under test at multiple locations thereby providing a more thorough testing.
Regarding claim 13, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the base includes a recess, a bottom of the recess providing the base surface, wherein the recess is configured to accommodate the needle card and/or the electrically conductive.
Wu et al. teach wherein the base includes a recess, a bottom of the recess providing the base surface, wherein the recess is configured to accommodate the needle card and/or the electrically conductive. (The accommodation open chamber 43 is a recessed space defined between the supports 42.)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of the base includes a recess, a bottom of the recess providing the base surface, wherein the recess is configured to accommodate the needle card and/or the electrically conductive to provide means to increase securing the device under test to the base.
Regarding claim 22, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the at least one slot is a plurality of slots arranged along a circumference of the chamber wall.
Wu et al. teach wherein the at least one slot is a plurality of slots arranged along a circumference of the chamber wall. (Note Fig. 5 , 32 on the r circumference of 30)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of wherein the at least one slot is a plurality of slots arranged along a circumference of the chamber wall to allow multiple probers to test the device under test at multiple locations thereby providing a more thorough testing.
Regarding claim 23, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the plurality of slots form a comb-like structure.
Wu et al. teach wherein the plurality of slots form a comb-like structure. (Examiner interpreted 32 as the body of the comb and the spacing between the holes 31 are interpreted as the teeth of the comb. Note Fig. 5)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of wherein the plurality of slots form a comb-like structure to provide support for multiple probers to test the device under test at multiple locations thereby providing a more thorough testing.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668) further in view of Snow et al. (US 20230014966).
Simmons et al. as modified teach the apparatus of claim 1,
Regarding claim 17, Simmons et al. does not teach the following claim limitations.
A method for testing and/or operating electronic devices inside a cryogenic apparatus, comprising testing and/or operating at least one electronic device mounted to the apparatus
Snow et al. teach A method for testing and/or operating electronic devices inside a cryogenic apparatus, comprising testing and/or operating at least one electronic device mounted to the apparatus. (Note abstract)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of A method for testing and/or operating electronic devices inside a cryogenic apparatus, comprising testing and/or operating at least one electronic device mounted to the apparatus to enable direct cooling of bare wafers by the use of novel receiving elements located within a cryogenic isolated environment, which hold the wafer in place during testing without thermal shock induced breakage of the wafer. (Note Snow et al. par. 0014)
Regarding claim 16, Simmons et al. as modified teach the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the apparatus is connectable to the object stage. (Note Fig. 1)
Simmons et al. does not teach A cryogenic system, comprising: a cryogenic apparatus including a vacuum chamber, an object stage in the vacuum chamber, and a cooling arrangement configured to cool the object stage
Snow et al. teach A cryogenic system, comprising: a cryogenic apparatus including a vacuum chamber, (par. 0156) an object stage (102, par. 252, Fig. 1) in the vacuum chamber, and a cooling arrangement (123, par. 123) configured to cool the object stage.
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of A cryogenic system, comprising: a cryogenic apparatus including a vacuum chamber, an object stage in the vacuum chamber, and a cooling arrangement configured to cool the object stage enable direct cooling of bare wafers by the use of novel receiving elements located within a cryogenic isolated environment, which hold the wafer in place during testing without thermal shock induced breakage of the wafer. (Note Snow et al. par. 0014)
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simmons et al. (US 20170205446) in view of Sim (US 20180231593) in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415668) further in view of Chen (US 10568241) further in view of Wu et al. (US 20080054919).
Simmons et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 26, Simmons et al. does not teach wherein the base structure includes a base ring and the at least one contact needle extends from an inner sidewall of the base ring.
Wu et al. teach wherein the base structure includes a base ring and the at least one contact needle extends from an inner sidewall of the base ring. (Note bottom of 32 which is considered base ring and note 60 extends from an inner sidewall of the base ring.)
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 Simmons et al. to include the teaching of wherein the base structure includes a base ring and the at least one contact needle extends from an inner sidewall of the base ring so that the needles can be supported.
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 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