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 1 – 16 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.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “a lifting mechanism disposed close to the wafer probe station” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the claim language what is the location of the support frame with the lifting mechanism?
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 6, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lou et al. (11,307,246).
As to claim 1, Lou et al. (hereinafter Lou) discloses a probing apparatus and method of operating the probing apparatus comprising: a wafer probe station (100)) including a wafer chuck (121) and a chuck movement device (Col. 8, lines 24 – 35; lines 66 - 67) disposed under the wafer chuck and configured to move the wafer chuck wherein a wafer (200) is configured to adhere to the wafer chuck (121); a lifting mechanism (122) disposed close to the wafer probe station (100); a support frame (111) provided with the lifting mechanism (122); at least one probe card positioning module (115) disposed on the support frame (111), each of the at least one probe card positioning module (115) including at least one needle alignment device (140), each of the at least one needle alignment device having at least one probe card (118) with at least one probe needle (118d); and a mechatronics control system (131) electrically connected to the at least one probe card positioning module (115), (Fig. 1 and 2), (Col. 4, line 24 – Col. 5, line 58).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Lou discloses a heating device (124) disposed in the wafer chuck (121) wherein the chuck movement device (Col. 8, lines 24 – 35; lines 66 - 67) is configured to move the wafer chuck (121) in a three-dimensional space (123).
As to claim 3, Lou discloses that the at least one needle alignment device (140) includes at least one electric fine-tuning device (140), the at least one probe card (118) and the at least one electric fine-tuning device (140) are joined directly or indirectly, each of the at least one electric fine-tuning device (140) is electrically connected to the mechatronics control system (131), and the mechatronics control system (131) controls the at least one needle alignment device (140) which in turn moves, rotates or tilts the at least one probe card (118), (Col. 6, lines 3 – 13).
As to claim 5, Lou discloses that the at least one probe card positioning module (115) includes at least one probing rail (116) and at least one probing slide (117) slidably disposed on the at least one probing rail (116) respectively, and the at least one needle alignment device (140) is disposed on the at least one probing slide (117).
As to claim 6, Lou discloses that each of the at least one probing slide (117) is electrically connected to the mechatronics control system (131), and the mechatronics control system (131) controls the at least one probing slide (117) which in turn moves along the at least one probing rail (116).
As to claim 9, Lou discloses that the lifting mechanism (122) has either a split design to dispose at one side of the wafer probe station or a unitary design so that the lifting mechanism (122) and the wafer probe station (100) are joined.
As to claim 15, Lou discloses that each of the at least one electric fine-tuning device is a piezo stage, a piezo actuator, a piezo motor, a step motor (132), a servo motor, a voice coil motor, or a Stewart platform.
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (11,307,246) and Andrews et al. (10,365,323).
As to claim 12, Lou fails to explicitly disclose that at least one image capture device disposed at one side of the at least one probing slide. Andrews et al. (hereinafter Andrews) discloses a probe systems and methods for automatically maintaining alignment between a probe and a device under test during a temperature change wherein at least one image capture device (170) disposed at one side of the at least one probing slide (150), (Fig. 1), (Col. 3, lines 26 – 32; Col. 6, lines 24 - 31). Therefore, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Lou in view of the teachings of Andrews to include image capture device to provide spatial information relating to the motion of the probe above the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 8, 10 – 11, 13 – 14 and 16 are 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.
As to claim 4, the prior art fails to show at least one needle alignment device includes at least one manual fine-tuning device, the at least one probe card and the at least one manual fine-tuning device are joined directly or indirectly, and the at least one probe card moves, rotates, or tilts by operating the at least one manual fine-tuning device. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 7, the prior art fails to show a drive unit disposed at one side of the at least one probing rail, wherein the drive unit is electrically connected to the mechatronics control system, and the at least one probing slide is activated by the drive unit to move along the at least one probing rail. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 8, the prior art fails to show a manual device disposed at one side of the at least one probing rail, wherein the manual device moves the at least one probing slide on the at least one probing rail. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claims 10 – 11, the prior art fails to show an auxiliary fastener disposed at a lower portion of one side of the at least one needle alignment device, wherein the at least one probe card is provided with the auxiliary fastener. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claims 13 – 14, the prior art fails to show at least one image capture device, at least one auxiliary rail disposed on the support frame and spaced from the at least one probing rail by a predetermined distance, and at least one imaging positioning slide disposed on each of the at least one auxiliary rail, wherein the at least one image capture device is disposed on the at least one imaging positioning slide. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
As to claim 16, the prior art fails to show at least one probe card positioning module further comprises at least one image capture device, and wherein the at least one image capture device is disposed close to the at least one needle alignment device. These features taken together with the other limitations of the claim renders the claims allowable over prior art.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
Fu (11,796,566) is cited for its disclosure of a wafer probe assembly.
Ota et al. (2020/0049762) is cited for its disclosure of probe apparatus, probe inspection method and storage medium.
Schneidewind (7,057,408) is cited for its disclosure of a method and prober for contacting a contact area with a contact tip.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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 5712705628. 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.
/REENA AURORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858