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 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 2-8 recites the limitation "the PET" in line 4 of claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim recites:
The limitation “when the contact resistance reaches the maximum allowable limit established in step 2, having the tester alarm using the existing alarming methods.” renders the claim indefinite. The reference to "step 2" lacks clear antecedent basis because the steps are not explicitly numbered in the claim. While a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) might infer it refers to the second listed step (establishing the max allowable contact resistance), the absence of numbering requires undue interpretation, making the scope unclear. Additionally, "the maximum allowable limit" slightly shifts terminology from "max allowable contact resistance" in the inferred step 2, introducing ambiguity as to whether they are identical or derived.
Furthermore, the phrasing "having the tester alarm using the existing alarming methods" is grammatically awkward and unclear. The verb "having" does not distinctly describe an action (e.g., causing, triggering, or performing), rendering the metes and bounds uncertain. "The tester" lacks antecedent basis; while earlier steps mention "prober equipment" and "testing... process," it is unclear if "tester" refers to the same or a distinct component. "The existing alarming methods" also lacks antecedent basis and is vague, as "existing" implies methods already known or present, but without definition, a POSITA cannot determine what qualifies, affecting infringement analysis. Minor informalities include the typo "max allowable" (likely "maximum allowable") and "probe in contact" (likely "probe is in contact"), which exacerbate clarity issues. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as triggering an alarm on the testing system when a resistance threshold is exceeded.
Regarding Claims 7-8:
The claim recites:
The limitation "a probe card able to automatically contract predetermined regions of a wafer and alternatively predetermined regions of the cleaning element" renders the claim indefinite. "Contract" (meaning to shrink) does not fit the context of probing; it appears to be a typographical error for "contact" (as in electrical contact). This error alters the meaning, making it unclear whether the probe card physically contracts regions or contacts them for measurement. A POSITA cannot reasonably determine the scope without speculation.
Additionally, the limitation "wherein the integrated testing system determines whether the first contact resistance of the cleaning element is within the first predetermined range..." is contradictory and indefinite. Earlier, "a first contact resistance" is defined as "measured by the probe card on the wafer," while "a second contact resistance" is on the cleaning element. Referring to the "first contact resistance of the cleaning element" mismatches this definition, creating ambiguity (likely a drafting error intending "first contact resistance of the wafer"). This inconsistency prevents a POSITA from ascertaining the claim boundaries. "Alternatively predetermined regions" is awkward and unclear (possibly meaning "alternately"), and "cleaning block" inconsistently refers to the "cleaning element" of claim 2, though antecedent basis exists. For examination purposes, "contract" is interpreted as "contact," and the contradictory resistance is interpreted as on the wafer.
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 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 1 (and claims 7 and 8, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom), the claims recite functions including:
- establishing a correlation between increasing contact resistance and yield loss;
- setting a maximum allowable contact resistance that avoids excessive yield loss;
- measuring baseline and subsequent contact resistance during cleaning cycles; and
- triggering an alarm or halting operation when resistance reaches/exceeds predetermined limits/ranges.
These are functional limitations directed to a method and system for detecting wear via resistance changes in a conductive cleaning element. However, the specification does not provide adequate written description support for the full scope of these functions. In particular:
- The specification lacks sufficient disclosure of any specific structure, algorithm, steps, parameters, or examples sufficient to perform the claimed functions (e.g., how the correlation is quantitatively established, what data or testing methodology is used to determine the "maximum allowable contact resistance" or the "predetermined ranges," or how the system reliably distinguishes wear-induced resistance changes from other variables like probe contamination, temperature, or contact force).
- While the specification describes general concepts of resistance measurement and conductive impregnation (e.g., ¶ [0025]–[0030], Figs. 3–5), it does not describe possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, particularly the establishment and application of the correlation and thresholds in a way that enables the claimed alarm/halt functions without undue experimentation.
The mere recitation of functional language without corresponding disclosure of structure or steps sufficient to perform those functions fails to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2163.03(V); Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Although these claims were indicated as allowable in a prior communication (or examiner's note/internal assessment), no explicit reasons for allowance were provided in the record. Applicant is reminded that indications of allowability do not constitute a finding of compliance with all statutory requirements, including § 112(a), and the examiner maintains this rejection pending adequate response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Humphrey et al. (US 2022/0093394 A1).
As to claim 2, Humphrey discloses on Fig. 2A a cleaning element (cleaning device 20 as shown in Fig. 2A, 2B) for polishing probe tips, the cleaning element comprising: a cleaning block (substrate 23 as shown in Fig. 2A, polymer material as shown in Fig. 3A compliant under-layers 203); a conductive film applied to a lateral side of the cleaning block (cleaning pad layer 202 as shown in Fig. 3A, conductive materials in layers as shown in Fig. 8A polymer layer 801); an adhesive applied to the back side of the PET to adhere the cleaning element to the cleaning block and able to mount the cleaning block to a mounting structure (adhesive layer 204 as shown in Fig. 3A, securing to substrate with release liner 205).
As to claim 3, Humphrey discloses the cleaning element of claim 2, wherein the conductive film contains between five and sixty percent of an embedded metallic particle (abrasive particles loading 0% to 500% weight percent as shown in Fig. 4A micro-pyramids 401 with plateau 406, encompassing 5-60% range).
As to claim 4, Humphrey discloses the cleaning element of claim 3, wherein the embedded metallic particle comprises one or more selected from the group comprising aluminum, gold, silver, tungsten carbide particles, titanium carbide, silicon carbide, silicon, platinum, bronze, zinc, iron, brass, nickel, graphite, lead, and aluminum oxide (abrasive particles including aluminum oxide and silicon carbide as shown in Fig. 4A micro-pyramids 401, base reference plane 408).
As to claim 5, Humphrey discloses the cleaning element of claim 2, wherein the cleaning block comprises polymer (elastomeric polymers in substrate 23 as shown in Fig. 2A, compliant under-layers 203 as shown in Fig. 3A).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphrey et al. (US 2022/0093394 A1 hereinafter Humphrey) in view of MEADA (CN 1252745 A hereinafter MEADA).
As to claim 6, Humphrey discloses the cleaning element of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cleaning block comprises polyethylene terephthalate. However, CN '745 teaches a probe card cleaning element wherein the cleaning block comprises polyethylene terephthalate (base material 1 as PET substrate in Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Humphrey's cleaning block with the PET material of MEADA to provide a durable, flexible polymer substrate commonly used in abrasive cleaning pads for cost-effectiveness and structural integrity in semiconductor probe cleaning applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As to claims 1, 7-8, during search no found the prior art discloses all the limitations a recited in claims 1, 7-8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am-6:30pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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.
/TUNG X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 12/23/2025