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 response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1-3, 9-11, 17-18 (without traverse) for further examination. As a result, claims 4-8, 12-6, and 19-23 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
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(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 8904160) in view of Yin et al. (WO 2020000410).
Chan et al. discloses an automated test system, which is configured to provide a test platform to
perform a plurality of tests on a device under test (FIG. 4, element 410: DUT), comprising:
an initial setting module configured to execute an initial setting basic function, wherein the initial setting basic function obtains a test setup file corresponding to the device under test
from one of the stations, and reads a device basic information from the test setup file and sets a
platform setting data according to the device basic information (FIG. 1, step 108: The setup procedure module);
a pre-test module configured to execute a pre-test basic function, wherein the pre-test
basic function resets the test setup file from a previous testing (FIG. 1, step 110: Set up the operating system according to the setup procedure module);
a test module configured to execute a test initializing basic function, wherein the test
initializing basic function confirms whether the device under test is applied to a test item of the one of the stations according to the device basic information and initializes a test data corresponding to the device under test according to the test item, and the one of the stations tests the device under test based on the test data to generate a test result (FIG. 1, steps 112-116: The test module of the operating system downloaded from the server and executed for performing the test procedure according to the test parameters); and
a post-test module configured to execute a post-test basic function, wherein the post-test basic function uploads the test result to a central server, and confirms whether to receive an
upload status from the central server (FIG. 1, step 118: Transmit the test result to the test database).
Chan et al. discloses the claimed invention as discussed above except the test platform comprising a plurality of stations, and an item determining module configured to execute an item determining basic function, wherein the item determining basic function determines whether the test item comprises a robot arm test; wherein in response to determine that the test item comprises the robot arm test, the item determining basic function initializes an operating parameter of the robot arm test (Regarding to claim 2).
Zin et al. discloses a multi-station testing platform for performing a test on a device under test (DUT), wherein the testing platform comprises a plurality of test stations (FIG. 1, elements 210, 220, 230, 240) and a robot arm to place the device under test into a test station and to communicate with a test server (FIG. 2, element 100 and page 3, lines 28-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chan’s testing platform to include a plurality of test stations as disclosed by Yin et al. to implement the testing of all parameters in a same testing system in order to integrate all test data from the test results to prevent the data misalignment (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that a function library signally connected to the item determining module, the initial setting module, the pre-test module, the test module and the post-test module, and storing a plurality of basic functions; wherein the basic functions comprise the item determining basic function, the initial setting basic function, the pre-test basic function, the test initializing basic function and the post-test basic function is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Claims 9-11 and 17-18 are allowed over prior art.
Regarding to claims 9 and 17: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the one of the stations overwrites the initial setting basic function, the pre-test basic function, the test initializing basic function and the post-test basic function according to the test item to generate the initial setting station function, the pre-test station function, the test initializing station function and the post-test station function is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights