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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding claim 10, the claim is not in proper dependent form; specifically, it does not "contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed." 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20200011924 to Weindel et al. in view of Japanese Patent Document No. JP2023023911A to Sudo et al.
Regarding claim 1, Weindel teaches an electronic component inspection device, for inspection an electronic component, the electronic component inspection device comprising:
a carrier, configured to carry the electronic component (¶ [0072]);
at least one inspection module, comprising a moving mechanism and an inspection probe mounted on the moving mechanism, wherein the moving mechanism is disposed corresponding to the carrier and configured to drive the inspection probe to inspect the electronic component (¶¶ [0083] & [0094]).
But Weindel does not teach explicitly a heating module, comprising a first heating source and a second heating source, wherein the first heating source is disposed on one side of the carrier and irradiates one surface of the electronic component, and the second heating source is disposed on another side of the carrier and irradiates another surface of the electronic component.
However, Sudo teaches a heating module, comprising a first heating source and a second heating source, wherein the first heating source is disposed on one side of the carrier and irradiates one surface of the electronic component, and the second heating source is disposed on another side of the carrier and irradiates another surface of the electronic component (“The heating unit 40 emits light whose emission wavelength is controlled from a plurality of halogen lamps 50 arranged outside the reaction chamber 20 above the device formation surface and below the back surface of the wafer W held by the wafer holding unit 30. The wafer W is heated from both sides by lamp heating.”).
It 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 to combine the halogen lamps of Sudo with the device of Weindel in order to provide heating on both sides of the wafer under test, thereby allowing for 360-degree thermal testing while not diminishing the results of the test by physically contacting the wafer.
Regarding claim 2, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 1, and Sudo further teaches wherein the first heating source and the second heating source are a halogen heating lamp, respectively (““The heating unit 40 emits light whose emission wavelength is controlled from a plurality of halogen lamps 50 . . . .”).
Regarding claim 4, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 1, and Sudo teaches wherein the first heating source and the second heating source are disposed opposite to each other (figure 1: the lamps 50 are on both sides of the wafer W).
Regarding claim 5, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 4, and Weindel further teaches comprising a translation mechanism, wherein the carrier is mounted on the translation mechanism and linearly moves relative to the first heating source and the second heating source along with the translation mechanism (¶¶ [0080] & [0083]).
Regarding claim 6, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 5, and Weindel further teaches wherein the translation mechanism is a linear slide or a motor-driven push rod (¶ [0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 1, and Weindel further teaches wherein the moving mechanism comprises a translation drive assembly, an elevation drive assembly mounted on the translation drive assembly, and a fixed seat mounted on the elevation drive assembly, the inspection probe is fixed to the fixed seat, and the translation drive assembly and the elevation drive assembly are a linear slide or a motor-driven push rod, respectively (¶¶ [0080] & [0083]).
Regarding claim 8, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 1, wherein a number of the inspection modules is four, two of the inspection modules are disposed on left and right of one side of the carrier, and other two of the inspection modules are disposed on left and right of another side of the carrier (figure 3 element 47; one per quadrant).
Regarding claim 9, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 1, and Sudo further teaches wherein the carrier has a hollow region defined therein, and two surfaces of the electronic component opposite to each other are exposed from the hollow region (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches an electronic component inspection method, comprising:
A) providing the electronic component inspection device according to claim 1 and an electronic component (see rejection of claim 1, supra), and Weindel further teaches wherein the electronic component inspection device further comprises a translation mechanism, the carrier is mounted on the translation mechanism and moves along with the translation mechanism, and the electronic component is divided into a first region and a second region (¶¶ [0080] & [0083]).
But Weindel does not teach explicitly B) moving the first region of the electronic component to a position corresponding to the heating module through the translation mechanism and the carrier;
C) heating the first region of the electronic component to a preset temperature by the first heating source and the second heating source of the heating module;
D) driving the inspection probe, by the moving mechanism, to perform an electrical inspection on the first region of the electronic component that has reached the preset temperature;
E) moving the first region of the electronic component, which has completed the electrical inspection, away from the heating module through the translation mechanism and the carrier, and moving the second region of the electronic component to the position corresponding to the heating module;
F) heating the second region of the electronic component to the preset temperature by the first heating source and the second heating source of the heating module; and
G) driving the inspection probe, by the moving mechanism, to perform the electrical inspection on the second region of the electronic component that has reached the preset temperature.
However, Sudo teaches B) moving the first region of the electronic component to a position corresponding to the heating module through the translation mechanism and the carrier (“The wafer holder 30 includes a susceptor 32 that holds the outer peripheral portion of the back surface of the wafer W in a ring shape, and a rotor 34 that holds the susceptor 32 and rotates the susceptor 32 about the center of the wafer W as an axis. The susceptor 32 and the rotor 34 are made of silicon carbide (SiC), for example.”);
C) heating the first region of the electronic component to a preset temperature by the first heating source and the second heating source of the heating module (“Since the slip that occurs in the silicon wafer also depends on the heat treatment sequence, it is possible to set a plane size threshold value for each heat treatment sequence (for example, maximum temperature).”);
D) driving the inspection probe, by the moving mechanism, to perform an electrical inspection on the first region of the electronic component that has reached the preset temperature (“The graph shown in FIG. 2 is obtained by measuring contact traces with an optical microscope and an end face inspection device after 200 silicon wafers with a diameter of 300 mm were subjected to heat treatment in an oxygen atmosphere using the heat treatment apparatus 10 having the above configuration.”);
E) moving the first region of the electronic component, which has completed the electrical inspection, away from the heating module through the translation mechanism and the carrier, and moving the second region of the electronic component to the position corresponding to the heating module (“The wafer holder 30 includes a susceptor 32 that holds the outer peripheral portion of the back surface of the wafer W in a ring shape, and a rotor 34 that holds the susceptor 32 and rotates the susceptor 32 about the center of the wafer W as an axis. The susceptor 32 and the rotor 34 are made of silicon carbide (SiC), for example.”);
F) heating the second region of the electronic component to the preset temperature by the first heating source and the second heating source of the heating module (“Since the slip that occurs in the silicon wafer also depends on the heat treatment sequence, it is possible to set a plane size threshold value for each heat treatment sequence (for example, maximum temperature).”); and
G) driving the inspection probe, by the moving mechanism, to perform the electrical inspection on the second region of the electronic component that has reached the preset temperature (“The graph shown in FIG. 2 is obtained by measuring contact traces with an optical microscope and an end face inspection device after 200 silicon wafers with a diameter of 300 mm were subjected to heat treatment in an oxygen atmosphere using the heat treatment apparatus 10 having the above configuration.”).
It 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 to combine the halogen lamps of Sudo with the device of Weindel in order to provide heating on both sides of the wafer under test, thereby allowing for 360-degree thermal testing while not diminishing the results of the test by physically contacting the wafer.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weindel in view of Sudo, and further in view of Inflidge, Halogen Line Heater: GHH (Gold Halogen Heater) (Dec. 6, 2023) (available at: https://www.inflidge.co.jp/eng/products/ghh/specification.html, last accessed June 2, 2026).
Regarding claim 3, Weindel in view of Sudo teaches the electronic component inspection device according to claim 2, but does not teach explicitly wherein the halogen heating lamp is a gold halogen heating lamp.
However, Inflidge teaches wherein the halogen heating lamp is a gold halogen heating lamp (“Gold Halogen Heater”).
It 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 to select a gold halogen lamp among all available halogen lamps because it is high speed, high temperature, low in luminescent color, and low cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent App. Pub. No. 20170133247 to Kiyama discloses a heat treatment apparatus and heat treatment method for heating substrate by irradiating substrate with flash of light.
Japanese Patent Document No. JP2000138268A to Kawazoe discloses an inspection method and inspection device of semiconductor circuit having a probe and a heater.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert P Alejnikov whose telephone number is (571)270-5164. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00a-6:00p 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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached at 571.272.2619. 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.
/ROBERT P ALEJNIKOV JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights