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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “positioning module” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,126,380 to Borm (Borm) in view of US 4,820,975 to Diggle (Diggle).
Regarding claim 1, Borm discloses a probe card device, comprising:
at least one probe the probe including a probe head, wherein the probe head has a first height from and
an image capture module the image capture module including a head portion, the head portion having a second height from wherein the second height is less than the first height, and the image capture module is aligned to the probe head to capture a visible light image of the probe head (Borm, e.g., Fig. 1 as annotated below, image capture module in the form of second bundle 7 of fiber optic strands having one end connected to a viewing lens 8 and having head portion proximate tip of probe 1, with the head portion at a second height h2 from the first plane that is less than the first height h1; note that second bundle 7 is aligned to the tip of probe 1 to capture a visible light image of the tip for viewing through lens 8).
[AltContent: textbox (h1)][AltContent: textbox (h2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (first plane)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
311
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Borm, Fig. 1 annotated
Borm is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a testing circuit board including a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, with the at least one probe being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board and electrically connected to the testing circuit board, and with the image capture module being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board. In related art, Diggle discloses a testing circuit board including a first (lower) surface and a second (upper) surface opposite to the first surface, with the at least one probe being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board and electrically connected to the testing circuit board (Diggle, e.g., Fig. 1 (reproduced below) and col. 3, lines 23-25, upper test head 15, with probes 17 disposed on lower face of upper test head 15 and connected (by means of wires not shown) to an array of contacts 44 on upper face of the test head). Diggle discloses an image capture module in the form two optical fiber image guides 48, 49 having input ends disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board (Diggle, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 40-47). In Diggle’s arrangement of Fig. 1, the first (lower) surface of the upper test head 15 is a surface of a testing circuit board on which the probes 17 are disposed and to which the probes 17 are electrically connected, as well as a surface on which an image capture module (at least input ends of optical fiber image guides 48, 49) is disposed.
PNG
media_image2.png
433
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Diggle, Fig. 1
It 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 to modify Borm to include a testing circuit board including a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface such that the first surface corresponds to the first plane of Borm, with the at least one probe being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board and electrically connected to the testing circuit board, and with the image capture module being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Diggle, the first (lower) surface of the testing circuit board can be utilized as a suitable surface for supporting the probe(s) and the image capture module, as well as providing an electrical interface for the probe(s).
Regarding claim 7, Borm in view of Diggle discloses wherein the image capture module includes an optical fiber and a lens, one end of the optical fiber is aligned to the probe head, and the other end of the optical fiber is connected to the lens (see Borm in view of Diggle as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Borm in view of Diggle discloses a light source for irradiating a visible light to the probe head (see Borm in view of Diggle as applied to claim 1, Borm, e.g., Fig. 1, first bundle of fiber optic strands 5 which conduct light from a source 6 to a module 2 in order to illuminate the target).
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,091,692 to Ohno et al. (Ohno) in view of US 2003/0085723 to Martens et al. (Martens).
Regarding claim 1, Ohno discloses a probe card device, comprising:
a testing circuit board including a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Ohno, e.g., Figs 3, 4, 6 and 9 (see below), probe card 6 having a first (lower) surface and an upper (second) surface opposite the first surface);
at least one probe being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board and electrically connected to the testing circuit board, the probe including a probe head, wherein the probe head has a first height from the first surface (Ohno, e.g., Figs 3, 6 and 9, probes 7 physically and electrically disposed on/connected to first surface of probe card 6, with each probe 7 having a head for contacting pads 4 on the chip 3 which is to be tested, and with the head having a first height from the first surface of the probe card 6); and
an image capture module being disposed the first surface of the testing circuit board, the image capture module including a head portion, the head portion having a second height from the first surface, wherein the second height is less than the first height, and the image capture module is aligned to the probe head to capture a visible light image of the probe head (Ohno, e.g., Figs 3, 4, 6 and 9, mirror 24 contained in mirror block 23; also see col. 3, lines 54-56, circular opening 6a is formed at the center of the probe card 6, serving to guide a mirror 24 and emitting blocks 36 right above the wafer 2 on the stage 5; when the wafer 2 on the stage 5 is positioned relative to the probe card 6, a chip 3 on the wafer 2 which is to be tested can be viewed through the opening 6a; diameter of the opening 6a of the probe card 6 is about 17-30 mm; also see col. 4, lines 32-40, mirror block 23 is attached to the front end of the operating scope 22; mirror 24 is housed in the mirror block 23 in such a way that the mirror 24 is tilted relative to the axis of the scope 22 at an angle of (Φ); it is preferable in this case that the angle (Φ) is in a range of 25 ± 5 º; the mirror block 23 has a length of 30 mm and it is a square of 13-13 mm when sectioned; the mirror 24 may be selected in shape of plane, concave or convex; in Ohno’s arrangement, a head portion of Ohno’s image capture module (e.g., mirror 24) has a second height from the first surface of the probe card 6 (see, e.g., Fig. 9), with the mirror 24 aligned to the head of probe 7 to capture a visible light image of the probe head (see, e.g., Fig. 9)).
PNG
media_image3.png
776
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
376
726
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ohno is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that the image capture module is disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board. In this regard, the examiner notes that mirror block 23 containing mirror 24 is attached to the front end of the operating scope 22 and appears to extend through opening 6a of the probe card 6. The examiner nonetheless notes that attachment of optical elements such as mirrors and lens to a bottom surface of a probe card, along with probes, is known in the art (Martens, e.g., Fig. 26, mirror 210 attached to bottom surface of probe card 110, along with electrical contacts 130, also see Fig. 29, lens 246 attached to bottom surface of probe card 110, along with electrical contacts 130).
It 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 to modify Ohno such that that the image capture module is disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board at least in view of Martens’ teachings that the first (bottom) surface is suitable for attachment of an image capture module, such as a mirror, for example.
Additionally, or in the alternative, the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the recitation that the image capture module is disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board does not patentably define over Ohno when considered in light of the teachings of Martens.
Regarding claim 8, Ohno in view of Martens discloses wherein the image capture module includes a mirror, a through hole and a lens, the mirror has an image capture route aligned to the probe head, the through hole is disposed on the testing circuit board and adjacent to the mirror to reflect the visible light image of the probe head to the through hole, and the lens is aligned to the through hole to capture the visible light image of the probe head (see Ohno in view of Martens as applied to claim 1, noting Ohno’s mirror 24, opening 6a (Fig. 9) and lens 20 (Fig. 6), with the opening being disposed in the probe card 6 adjacent mirror 24 to reflect the visible light image of the head of probe 7 to the opening 6a, with the lens 20 aligned with the opening 6a to capture the visible light image of the head of probe 7).
Regarding claim 9, Ohno in view of Martens discloses wherein the image capture module further includes a micro lens disposed between the mirror and the lens (see Ohno in view of Martens as applied to claim 8, lens 21 disposed between mirror 24 and lens 20; the examiner notes that the term “micro”, as understood in light of the specification, does not denote a minimum size requirement; see, e.g., paragraph 20, “lens diameter of the micro lens 310 can be smaller than 10 mm, for example, between 10 mm to 1 mm”)
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2004/0130312 to Cooper et al. (Cooper) in view of US 2023/0384365 to Kim (Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper discloses a probe card device, comprising:
a testing circuit board including a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (Cooper, e.g., Figs. 4, 7A and paragraphs 29-35, testing circuit board in the form of probe card 506; also see, e.g., Fig. 7A, probe card 506 having a first (bottom) surface and a second (top) surface opposite the first surface);
at least one probe being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board and electrically connected to the testing circuit board, the probe including a probe head, wherein the probe head has a first height from the first surface (Cooper, e.g., Figs. 4, 7A and paragraphs 29-35, probes 508, each having a distal end (probe head) at a first height from the first (bottom) surface of testing circuit board in the form of probe card 506); and
an image capture module being disposed on the testing circuit board, the image capture module including a head portion, the head portion having a second height from the first surface, wherein the second height is less than the first height, and the image capture module is aligned to the probe head to capture a visible light image of the probe head (Cooper, e.g., Figs. 4, 7A and paragraphs 29-35, camera 522 shown disposed on testing circuit board in the form of probe card 506, with head (distal) portion of camera 522 extending below the first (bottom) surface of the probe card 506 at a second height from the first surface, with the second height being less than the first height; note that camera 522 is similar to camera 122 in Fig. 1 (paragraph 30), with camera 122 in Fig. 1 configured to aid in aligning the terminals and the probes and determining contact between the probes and the terminals. (paragraph 3); camera 522 in Fig. 4 is therefore aligned to the probe head to capture a visible light image of the probe head of each probe 508 to capture a visible light image of the probe head).
Cooper is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that the image capture module (camera 522) is disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board. In related art, Kim discloses that sensing device 120, e.g., a thermal sensing element, a thermal sensing camera or a light emission sensing element, may be mounted on the surface of the probe card 112 through a surface mount technology (Kim, e.g., Fig. 1 and paragraph 41). The examiner notes that it is implicit in Kim’s arrangement that the surface on which the sensing device 120 device is mounted is the bottom-facing surface of the probe card 112 in Fig. 2 because the sensing device 120 senses thermal or light transmissions from the wafer 10. Further, the examiner notes that it is implicit in Kim’s arrangement that the height of the surface-mounted sensing device 120 from the bottom surface of the probe card 112 must be less than that of the pins in order for the pins to contact the wafer 10. It 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 to modify Cooper such that the image capture module (camera 522) is disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Kim, surface mount technology may be employed for electrically coupling the camera to the probe card.
Regarding claim 4, Cooper in view of Kim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a space converter disposed between the probe and the testing circuit board, wherein the at least probe electrically connects to the testing circuit board through the space converter. Cooper incorporates by reference U.S. Pat. No. 5,974,662 to Eldridge et al. (Eldridge) in its entirety (see paragraph 31). Eldridge (and therefore Cooper) discloses an interconnect assembly which makes interconnections from a one pitch to another pitch is typically referred to as a "space transformer" (Eldridge, e.g., col. 16, lines 40-43; also see, e.g., Fig. 5, space transformer 506, which adjusts pitch between terminals 522 associated with probe elements 524 on a first side of the space transformer 506 and contact pads 520 on a second side of the space transformer 506). It 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 to modify Cooper to include a space converter disposed between the probe and the testing circuit board, wherein the at least probe electrically connects to the testing circuit board through the space converter. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Eldridge (and therefore Cooper), pitch adjustments between the probes and the testing board (probe card) may be provided as necessary to provide a suitable electrical connection between the probes and the testing board.
Regarding claim 5, Cooper in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 discloses a positioning module fixing the image capture module to the first surface of the testing circuit board to align the image capture module to the probe head (see Cooper in view of Kim as applied to claim 1, e.g., Kim, Fig. 1 and paragraph 41, sensing device 120 may be a thermal sensing element, a thermal sensing camera or a light emission sensing element mounted on the surface of the probe card 112 through a surface mount technology; the examiner notes that attachment by surface mount technology inherently requires a fixing member, e.g., solder or adhesive, for providing attachment of the mounted component, which falls within the scope of “a positioning module” as claimed; see, e.g., paragraph 20 of specification, “the positioning module 500 can be an adhesive or a fixing member to achieve the effect of fixing the image capturing structure 300”).
Regarding claim 6, Cooper in view of Kim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the image capture module includes a lens aligned to the probe head. The examiner takes Official notice of the fact the at use of a lens as a camera input stage to suitably refocus light in order to produce desired image quality/size was well known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the recitation the image capture module includes a lens aligned to the probe head does not patentably define over Cooper.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Kim, and further in view of US 2004/0124862 to Sugawara (Sugawara).
Regarding claim 2, Cooper in view of Kim is not relied upon as explicitly stating the testing circuit board includes a print circuit board. Sugawara discloses that the conventional probe card is comprised of printed circuit board, probe needles, resin to fix needles, upper guide plate, lower guide plate and fixing frame (Sugawara, e.g., paragraph 5). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the recitation that the testing circuit board includes a print circuit board does not patentably define over Cooper in view of Kim in light of Kim’s disclosure that the conventional probe card includes, inter alia, a printed circuit board.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper in view of Kim, and further in view of US 6,424,164 to Kister (Kister)
Regarding claim 3, Cooper in view of Kim discloses as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a guiding member, wherein the at least one probe is disposed in the guiding member. In related art Kister discloses a guiding member, with at least one probe is disposed in the guiding member (Kister, e.g., Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 46-50, guiding plate 8 for use in adjusting probe offset). It 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 to modify Cooper in view of Kim to include a guiding member, wherein the at least one probe is disposed in the guiding member. In this way, in the manner disclosed by Kister, probe offset may be adjusted).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JPH0662380U relates to a probe card for inspecting an integrated circuit and optical system for use therewith. Fig. 1 discloses a testing circuit board including a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface; at least one probe being disposed on the first surface of the testing circuit board and electrically connected to the testing circuit board, the probe including a probe head, wherein the probe head has a first height from the first surface (Fig. 1, probe card 2 having probes 2a physically/electrically coupled to first (bottom) surface of probe card 2, each probe 2a having a head located at a first height relative to the probe card 2). Fig. 1 also discloses an image capture module including at least lens 7 aligned to the probe head to capture a visible light image of the probe head, a mirror (see Fig. 2) and a through hole disposed on the testing circuit board (i.e., through hole in probe card 2 through which the image is transmitted).
US 5,150,041 to Eastin et al. relates to test fixture apparatus for electrically testing printed circuit boards and the like; see, e.g., Fig. 1, 6.
US 2009/0021276 to Boss et al. relates to a probe or measuring head with illumination of the contact region of the probe or measuring head and of the surrounding test environment; see, e.g. Fig. 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, CATHERINE T RASTOVSKI can be reached on (571) 270-0349. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863