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 .
Response to Amendments
Claims 97-116 of U.S. Application 18/799,794 filed on June 23, 2026 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Entry of Amendments
Amendments to claim 97 has been entered.
Rejections under USC 102 and 103
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new rejection.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claim 97 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al (USPGPub 20230375613) in view of Chen et al (USPGPub 20210057303).
PNG
media_image1.png
591
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Haba
Regarding claim 97, Haba discloses a probe card (C) for probing a semiconductor substrate(abstract and par 41 dsicloses a probe card), the probe card comprising: a probing element (not fully shown but would mostly be 102) having a hybrid bonding surface (par 42 discloses hybrid bonding) that removably hybrid bonds to a semiconductor element (104), the hybrid bonding surface of the probing element comprising a nonconductive layer (114) and contact pads (113) at least partially embedded in the nonconductive layer (par 41 discloses being embedded and fig 1A shows the placement of layers); wherein the contact pads of the probing element are bonded to probe pads of the semiconductor element (115. Par 44 discloses 104 being attached to 115); and wherein the nonconductive layer of the probing element is bonded to a nonconductive layer of the semiconductor element (par 5 and abstract discloses bonding the nonconducting layer of the probe with a nonconductive layer of the semiconductor).Hada does not fully disclose wherein, in use, the probe card includes probing circuitry that probes one or more die regions on the semiconductor substrate to identify known good dies (KGDs).
However, Chen discloses wherein, in use, the probe card (par 10 discloses having probe cards) includes probing circuitry that probes one or more die regions on the semiconductor substrate to identify known good dies (KGDs) (par 44 discloses using testing operations to identify known good dies).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hada in view of Chen in order to ensure reliable performance and cost effective material.
Claim 98 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al (USPGPub 20230375613) in view of Chen et al (USPGPub 20210057303) in further view of Liao et al (USPGPub 20200091124).
Regarding claim 98, Haba in view of Chen does not fully disclose an optical device connected to the hybrid bonding surface.
However, Liao discloses an optical device connected to the hybrid bonding surface (claim 18 discloses having optical waveguide connected to a hybrid bonding surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haba in view of Chen in further view of Liao in order to determine if the bond surface is properly attached between the devices.
Claim 99 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haba et al (USPGPub 20230375613) in view of Chen et al (USPGPub 20210057303) in further view of Chen et al (USPGPub 20230260880).
Regarding claim 99, Haba in view of Chen does not fully disclose wherein a conductive material is deposited over the contact pads.
However, Chen(880) discloses wherein a conductive material is deposited over the contact pads (par 54 discloses conductive layer over contacts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Haba in view of Chen in further view of Chen (880) in order to be in contact with the pads for testing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 100-105 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.
Regarding claim 100, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a probe card for probing a semiconductor substrate, the probe card comprising: wherein the conductive material comprises a lower melting point than the contact pads in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 101, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a probe card for probing a semiconductor substrate, the probe card comprising: a test interface substrate; wherein the probing element further comprises a base layer having one or more vias extending through the base layer and routing layers having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, the first surface of the routing layers attached to the base layer; and wherein the one or more vias of the base layer electrically connect the test interface substrate and the probing element in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 102 and 103 are also objected to as they depend on objected claim 101.
Regarding claim 104, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a probe card for probing a semiconductor substrate, the probe card comprising: comprising elastic biasing members connected to the contact pads and configured to cause reversible contact between the contact pads of the probing element and the probe pads of the semiconductor element in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 105, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a probe card for probing a semiconductor substrate, the probe card comprising: comprising one or more channels in communication with the contact pads, wherein the one or more channels are configured for liquid metal injection for providing electrical communication between the probing element and the probe pads of the semiconductor element during probing of the semiconductor element in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 106-116 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 106, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a probe card for probing a semiconductor substrate, the probe card comprising: elastic biasing members connected to the contact pads and configured to cause reversible contact between the contact pads of the probing element and the probe pads of the semiconductor element in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 107-110 are also allowed as they depend on allowed claim 106.
Regarding claim 111, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a probe card for probing a semiconductor substrate, the probe card comprising: one or more channels in communication with the contact pads, wherein the one or more channels are configured for liquid metal injection for providing electrical communication between the probing element and the probe pads of the semiconductor element during probing of the semiconductor element in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 112 -116 are also allowed as they depend on allowed claim 111.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights