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:
Claim(s)
Generic Placeholder or “means for”
Functional Language
Corresponding Structure
1-8
a “pressing unit”
Presses (i.e. configured to press) the insert of the test tray prepared on the preparation surface toward the test board
Discussed in [0081]-[0083] and depicted as figure 9, 220, illustrating the structure
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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. USPG Pub. No.: US 2005/0012498.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a test apparatus for a semiconductor device with terminals located on a lateral surface thereof (see Lee figures 1 and 9, in which the X and Y directions represent lateral directions relative to the device’s lying down state; see the par [07] of the present specification, which states that the lateral direction is relative to the lying-down state of the device, as shown in figure 6 of the figures of the present application), the test apparatus comprising:
a test board that has a preparation surface (see figures 9-12, 310) on which a test tray (see figure 12, 337 which are test trays to which semiconductors 360 are mounted) with the semiconductor device mounted to an insert is prepared (see [0073]-[0074] and figures 9-10, see the inserts 330 that a has a receiver 335 with a pocket 337, i.e. the test trays, where semiconductors 360 are mounted), and performs a test on the semiconductor device mounted to the insert (see [0050]-[0051] discussing the test operation); and
a pressing unit that is positioned to face the preparation surface and presses the insert of the test tray prepared on the preparation surface toward the test board (see [0076] and figures 9-10 and 12, pushing assembly 350),
the test board comprising:
an insert guide block (figure 9 and 12, 315) that supports the insert of the test tray prepared on the preparation surface (see figures 9-12); and
a socket that is located on the insert guide block, has a connection surface where an axis of intersecting a pressing direction of the pressing unit passes (see [0017], [0071], and figure 9, socket 313), and exchanges signals for a test with the semiconductor device as electrically connected to the terminals of the lateral surface of the semiconductor device being in close contact with the connection surface (see [0017], [0071], and figures 9-12).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 1, wherein the insert guide block comprises an insert alignment hole or pin extended in parallel with a direction of pushing the insert to interact with the insert while the insert is being pushed in a direction intersecting the pressing direction and located adjacent to the socket (see figure 9 which shows that 315 comprises alignment holes and pins that meet the claimed limitation).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 2, wherein the socket comprises a push alignment hole or pin extending in parallel with a direction of pushing the insert to further align the semiconductor device with the connection surface after the insert is aligned by the insert alignment hole or pin (seen in figure 9 as the socket comprises an alignment hole that receives a pushing force).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 3, wherein the push alignment hole or pin has a smaller diameter than the insert alignment hole or pin (see figure 9 in which the push alignment pin has a diameter that fits within the diameter of the insert alignment hole at 330).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 3, wherein the insert alignment pin protrudes more than the push alignment pin (see figure 9 in which the insert alignment hole protrudes more than the push alignment pin in the x-dimension; note that the applicant does not specify the direction of the protrusion).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 1, wherein the insert guide block comprises a preparation alignment hole or pin extending in parallel with a direction in which the test tray approaches the preparation surface so that the insert guide block can interact with the insert while the test tray is being prepared on the preparation surface (see figures 9-12 in which the insert guide block comprises preparation alignment hole as a part of preparation surface 310 at element 317).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 1, wherein the pressing unit comprises a guide hole or pin extending in parallel with the pressing direction to interact with the insert (see figure 9 in which the pressing unit 350 is comprised of component 353 having a pin that interacts with the insert in a parallel manner to the pressing force).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 1, wherein, based on a direction perpendicular to the connection surface, the thickness of the insert guide block is shorter than the height of the lateral surface of the semiconductor device (clearly seen in figure 9 as 315 is not as thick as 360).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852