DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-17 are pending for examination in this application. Claim 1 is an independent claim. This Office Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/22/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of Non Patent Literature document Cite No. CA Office Action from corresponding Korean Patent Application No 10-2023-00092453, dated 21 November 2024 (lined through) that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The remaining references in the IDS that are not lined through have been considered.
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 multiple 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 limitations 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 limitations are recited in claims 1, 12, 17 with functional language italicized and generic placeholder and linking phrase in bold for claims 1, 12, 17:
1. A test handler for graphics chip comprising:
a loading unit performing a loading process of loading a graphics chip which is to be tested;
an unloading unit performing an unloading process of unloading a tested graphics chip;
a test unit testing the graphics chip which is to be tested;
a buffer unit transferring a graphics chip between the loading unit and the test unit and transferring a graphics chip between the unloading unit and the test unit,
wherein the test unit comprises a commercial graphics card which is the same as a practically used graphics card and a contact unit connecting the commercial graphics card to the graphics chip which is to be tested.
12. The test handler of claim 2, wherein the test unit comprises a test latch for supporting the graphics chip accommodated into the test groove and a latch button for rotating the test latch,
the buffer unit comprises a test picker for transferring a graphics chip,
the test picker comprising an opening/closing unit for pressing the latch button, and
when the opening/closing unit presses the latch button as the test picker is lowered, the test latch rotates to an opening position opening the test groove, and when the opening/closing unit is spaced apart from the latch button as the test picker is raised, the test latch rotates to a closing position closing the test groove.
17. The test handler of claim 1, wherein the unloading unit comprises:
an unloading stacker where a user tray for storing the tested graphics chip is disposed;
an unloading buffer disposed between the buffer unit and the unloading stacker; and
an unloading picker transferring the tested graphics chip to the user tray of the unloading stacker via the unloading buffer from the buffer unit,
the tested graphics chip is stored in a predetermined reference direction in the user tray disposed in the unloading stacker,
the unloading buffer comprises an unloading buffer groove accommodating a graphics chip in the reference direction, and
the unloading picker selectively rotates a graphics chip picked up in the buffer unit so that a direction of the graphics chip matches the reference direction, and then, accommodates the graphics chip into the unloading buffer groove.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the originally filed specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The portions of the specification that describe the corresponding structure that performs the claimed functions for the claims above are Fig. 1, paragraphs 0025-0026, Figs 8-9, paragraphs 0065, 0036, 0088-0089.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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 § 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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The limitation “a commercial graphics card which is the same as a practically used graphics card” in Claim 1, lines 9-10 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. Neither the terms “commercial graphics card” and “practically used graphics card” are defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 2-17 depend from claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
The limitation “a material having stiffness which is higher than stiffness of the test body” in Claim 16 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. The term “higher than stiffness of the test body” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim 1, line 9 “the same” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 6, line 11 “the graphics chip” is unclear and indefinite if refers to “graphics chip” in line 1, “a graphics chip” in line 2, line 7, or line 8? Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under the same grounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-16 depend from claim 2 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and inherits the deficiencies of claim 15. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4, line 4 “the same layout” lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5-10 depend from claim 4 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 4. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 5, line 5 and line 7 “the same direction” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 8 is rejected under the same grounds. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 depends from claim 5 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 5. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., (Korean Patent Publn No. KR-20230019757-A, cited in IDS, full English translation attached), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches:
A test handler for graphics chip (Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 0001 “electronic component test handler for testing electronic components” and 0002 “memory semiconductor devices, non-memory semiconductor devices, CPUs”) comprising:
a loading unit performing a loading process of loading a graphics chip which is to be tested (Kim, Fig. 1, block 2 loading section, paragraphs 0025, 0028 “the loading unit (2) performs the loading process …can perform the loading process by loading the electronic component to be tested”);
an unloading unit performing an unloading process of unloading a tested graphics chip (Kim, Fig. 1, block 3, paragraphs 0035, 0028 “the unloading unit (3) performs the unloading process …can perform the unloading process by unloading the tested electronic component from the test tray”);
a test unit testing the graphics chip which is to be tested (Kim, Figs. 1-2, block 4 paragraph 0042 “test section (4) performs the test process. The above test unit (4) can perform the above test process by connecting the electronic components stored in the test tray (100) to the above test equipment (200).”);
a buffer unit transferring a graphics chip between the loading unit and the test unit (Kim, Fig. 1, loading section 2 includes loading buffer 23, paragraph 0032 “electronic component to be tested from the customer tray located in the loading stacker (21) to the loading buffer (23), and … that transfers the electronic component to be tested from the loading buffer (23) to the test tray (100). Paragraph 0042 “above test unit (4) can perform the above test process by connecting the electronic components stored in the test tray (100) to the above test equipment (200).”) and transferring a graphics chip between the unloading unit and the test unit (Kim, Fig. 1, unloading section 3 includes unloading buffer 33, paragraph 0039 “…transfers the tested electronic component from the test tray (100) to the unloading buffer (33), and … that transfers the tested electronic component from the unloading buffer (33) to a customer tray located in the unloading stacker (31).” Paragraph 0009, unloading section 3 receives chip from test tray (100) after it has been tested.),
wherein the test unit comprises a commercial graphics card which is the same as a practically used graphics card (Examiner under BRI interprets “commercial graphics card” and “practically used graphics card” as a generic electronic card, board or chip or interface card. Kim, Abstract, Figs. 1-3, paragraphs 0001 “electronic component test handler for testing electronic components” and 0002 “memory semiconductor devices, non-memory semiconductor devices, CPUs”) and a contact unit connecting the commercial graphics card to the graphics chip which is to be tested (Under BRI, the Examiner interprets this limitation as contact unit connecting graphics chip to be tested to an interface card. Kim, paragraph 0042 “test section (4) may include a contact unit (not shown) that connects electronic components stored in the test tray (100) to the high-fix board.” Hi-fix card is an interface card that may be a graphics card or emulator or similar.).
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.
Claims 2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, and further in view of Tae Wan Kim, (Korean Patent Publn No. KR-20040056680-A, cited in IDS, full English translation attached), hereinafter Wan.
With regards to Claim 2, Kim teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Kim does not explicitly teach:
wherein the test unit comprises a test groove into which a graphics chip is accommodated and a test body where the test groove is formed, the commercial graphics card comprises a chip mount unit connected to the graphics chip accommodated into the test groove in accordance with the method of Claim 1.
However, Wan teaches:
wherein the test unit comprises a test groove into which a graphics chip is accommodated (Wan, Figs. 3-4, test groove 620, 650, paragraphs 0043, “ Figures 3 and 4 …showing the appearance of a test board …a housing (610) surrounds the board to protect it, and a test socket (620) …are exposed to the outside on the front.” 0045 “the substrate uses a board that is actually mounted on a PC (e.g., a graphics card, main memory, etc.), and parts such as semiconductor devices mounted on the board are removed and test sockets (620, 650) are mounted on the front and back of that location”, 0064 “so that the semiconductor device mounted on the socket (410) comes into contact with the socket (620) of the test board (600), and testing is performed.”) and a test body where the test groove is formed (Wan, Figs. 3-4, test groove 620, 650, paragraphs 0043, “ Figures 3 and 4 …showing the appearance of a test board …a housing (610) surrounds the board to protect it [i.e. test body], and a test socket (620) …are exposed to the outside on the front.”),
the commercial graphics card comprises a chip mount unit connected to the graphics chip accommodated into the test groove (Wan, paragraphs 0043-0045 “the substrate uses a board that is actually mounted on a PC (e.g., a graphics card, main memory, etc.), and parts such as semiconductor devices mounted on the board are removed and test sockets (620, 650) are mounted on the front and back of that location.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Kim with test unit including a test groove formed in test body into which graphics chip is accommodated and the commercial graphics card comprises chip mount unit accommodated into test groove as taught by Wan because such a system reduces testing costs, implements low-cost testers and performs testing at the PC level (Wan, see paragraph 0014).
With regards to Claim 4, Kim teaches the method of Claim 2 as referenced above. Kim does not explicitly teach:
wherein the commercial graphics card comprises a plurality of chip mount units, the test unit comprises a plurality of test grooves, and the chip mount units and the test grooves are disposed based on the same layout in accordance with the method of Claim 2.
However, Wan teaches:
wherein the commercial graphics card comprises a plurality of chip mount units (Wan, paragraphs 0043-0045 “the substrate uses a board that is actually mounted on a PC (e.g., a graphics card, main memory, etc.), and parts such as semiconductor devices mounted on the board are removed and test sockets (620, 650) are mounted on the front and back of that location.” Figures 3 and 4 show multiple test socket (620, 650) that are a plurality of chip mount units.),
the test unit comprises a plurality of test grooves (Wan, Figs. 3 and 4 show multiple test grooves 620 and 650 that create a test socket for chip mount unit), and
the chip mount units and the test grooves are disposed based on the same layout (Wan, Figs 3 and 5 orientation of the chip mount units and grooves in same layout and orientation as graphics chip and follow standard layout of commercial graphics chips).
The motivation to combine for claim 4 is the same as the motivation to combine for claim 2.
With regards to Claim 5, Kim teaches the method of Claim 4 as referenced above. Kim does not explicitly teach:
wherein a first chip mount unit of the chip mount units and a second chip mount unit of the chip mount units are disposed in different directions, a first test groove corresponding to the first chip mount unit among the test grooves is disposed in the same direction as the first chip mount unit, and a second test groove corresponding to the second chip mount unit among the test grooves is disposed in the same direction as the second chip mount unit in accordance with the method of Claim 4.
However, Wan teaches:
wherein a first chip mount unit of the chip mount units and a second chip mount unit of the chip mount units are disposed in different directions (Wan, Fig. 3 first chip mount unit (620, 650) top left are perpendicular to second chip mount unit (620, 650) on bottom right and disposed in different directions),
a first test groove corresponding to the first chip mount unit among the test grooves is disposed in the same direction as the first chip mount unit (Wan, Fig. 3, the first chip mount unit (620, 650) on top left includes test grooves that are in the same direction as the first chip mount unit), and
a second test groove corresponding to the second chip mount unit among the test grooves is disposed in the same direction as the second chip mount unit (Wan, Fig. 3, the second chip mount unit (620, 650) on bottom right includes test grooves that are in the same direction as the second chip mount unit).
The motivation to combine for claim 5 is the same as the motivation to combine for claim 2.
No prior art rejection is given for claims 3 and 6-17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Sun et al (Malaysian Patent Publn. No. MY-199907-A) teaches a loading and unloading device of solid state disk test system (a00) is used for picking and placing solid state disks at a test position (a10). The device includes a sorting and feeding device (100) and a transfer device (200) including a transfer mechanism (210) and an insert and extract robot (220). A loading and unloading position (100a) is located at the side of the sorting and feeding device (100) away from the transfer device (200). The sorting and feeding device (100) transfers the solid state disk to be tested from the loading and unloading position (100a) to a side close to the transfer device (200), and transfers the tested solid state disk back. The transfer mechanism (210) drives the insert and extract robot (220) to move relative to the test position to insert the solid state disk to be tested into the test position, which pulls out the tested solid state disk to transfer to the transfer device (200)
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicants are invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicants may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicants may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicants are reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicants to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicants via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INDRANIL CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0446. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Fri 9:30-7:00 EST.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached on 571-272-0631. 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.
/INDRANIL CHOWDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114