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 1-27 of U.S. Application 18/900,305 filed on September 27, 2024 are presented for examination.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22 ,23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Lawton et al (USPGPub 20240247954).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Lawton
Regarding claim 22, Lawton discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors (abstract and par 32 discloses controller which includes processor), cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: detecting in a semiconductor device tester (120 including 200) a device under test (110) provided therein; providing an input signal to the DUT and measuring the input signal (par 44 discloses MCU includes circuitry to detect, monitor and differentiate current); tracking the measured input signal over time with sequential measurement windows that do not overlap with each other (pars 30-37 and 67 discloses time instances), wherein each measurement window (time instance) spans a constant measurement period (time duration) and a constant signal value range (current difference) while shifting according to changes in the measured input signal (current to 110) such that each measurement window overlaps at least a portion of the measured input signal corresponding to a preceding measurement window (pars 29, 30, 37, 40, 49, and 67 discloses outputting values based off the movement of the plunger within a time range); setting a settle count (transition time) representing a number of consecutive and unshifted measurement windows (time instances) having unshifted constant signal value ranges (current difference. par 64-67 discloses peak-valley current difference based on normal operation); and determining that a settle point (peaks and valley of current waveform) has been reached upon detecting that the settle count has been met or exceeded by the measured input signal (current to 110) tracked by the sequential measurement windows (par 50 and 64-67 discloses minimum vs maximum current values based on the plunger movement).
Regarding claim 23, Lawton discloses wherein setting the settle count comprises measuring a first derivative of input signal measurements within a measurement window and setting the settle count based on a relationship that is inversely proportional to the first derivative of input signal measurements within the measurement window (pars 30, 49 and 67 discloses first derivative based on the movement and a second derivative based on another position of a device).
Regarding claim 27, Lawton discloses wherein tracking comprises graphically representing the measured input signal, and wherein the constant measurement period spans a first graphical axis and the constant signal value range spans a second graphical axis (par 30 discloses digital output to a controller. Therefore, would be including graphical axis).
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.
Claims 1-8, 15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popov et al (USPGPub 20230305063) in view of Lawton et al (USPGPub 20240247954).
PNG
media_image2.png
556
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prior Art: Popov
Regarding claim 1, Popov discloses a method of detecting settling of an analog electrical signal in semiconductor device testing (shown in figs 1-2A), the method comprising: providing in a semiconductor device tester (220) a device under test (297); providing an input signal (using 210) to the DUT (par 36 discloses distribution of power) and measuring the input signal (abstract discloses a plurality of measurement sensors for measuring characteristics of a DUT). Popov does not fully disclose tracking the measured input signal over time with sequential measurement windows that do not overlap with each other, wherein each measurement window spans a constant measurement period and a constant signal value range while shifting according to changes in the measured input signal such that each measurement window overlaps at least a portion of the measured input signal corresponding to a preceding measurement window; setting a settle count representing a number of consecutive and unshifted measurement windows having unshifted constant signal value ranges; and determining that a settle point has been reached upon detecting that the settle count has been met or exceeded by the measured input signal tracked by the sequential measurement windows.
However, Lawton discloses tracking the measured input signal over time with sequential measurement windows that do not overlap with each other (pars 30-37 and 67 discloses time instances), wherein each measurement window (time instance) spans a constant measurement period (time duration) and a constant signal value range (current difference) while shifting according to changes in the measured input signal (current to 110) such that each measurement window overlaps at least a portion of the measured input signal corresponding to a preceding measurement window (pars 29, 30, 37, 40, 49, and 67 discloses outputting values based off the movement of the plunger within a time range); setting a settle count (transition time) representing a number of consecutive and unshifted measurement windows (time instances) having unshifted constant signal value ranges (current difference. par 64-67 discloses peak-valley current difference based on normal operation); and determining that a settle point (peaks and valley of current waveform) has been reached upon detecting that the settle count has been met or exceeded by the measured input signal (current to 110) tracked by the sequential measurement windows (par 50 and 64-67 discloses minimum vs maximum current values based on the plunger movement).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Popov does not fully disclose wherein the constant measurement period is a constant period of time during which a constant number of measurements are made.
However, Lawton discloses wherein the constant measurement period is a constant period of time during which a constant number of measurements are made (pars 35 and 67 discloses the plunger is able to move based on predetermined values based on time windows). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 3, Popov does not fully disclose wherein the constant signal value range is a constant voltage range or a constant current range.
However, Lawton discloses wherein the constant signal value range is a constant voltage range or a constant current range (pars 60-64 discloses difference in current range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 4, Popov does not fully disclose wherein shifting of a given measurement window according to changes in the measured input signal comprises shifting when the measured input signal during the given measurement window has moved outside the constant signal value range of the given measurement window immediately preceding the given measurement window.
However, Lawton discloses shifting of a given measurement window according to changes in the measured input signal comprises shifting when the measured input signal during the given measurement window has moved outside the constant signal value range of the given measurement window immediately preceding the given measurement window (pars 60-67 discloses current differences. Therefore, the value can be change when outside a predetermined range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 5, Popov does not fully disclose wherein tracking the measured input signal over time with sequential measurement windows comprises centering a first measured input value over the measured input signal.
However, Lawton discloses wherein tracking the measured input signal over time with sequential measurement windows comprises centering a first measured input value over the measured input signal (pars 50-64 discloses derivative signal at a first time and a second instance over a second time. Therefore, show sequential and centered around another value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 6, Popov does not fully disclose wherein shifting of a given measurement window according to changes in the measured input signal comprises shifting when an averaged measurement input signal during the given measurement window has moved outside the constant signal value range of the given measurement window.
However, Lawton discloses shifting of a given measurement window according to changes in the measured input signal comprises shifting when an averaged measurement input signal during the given measurement window has moved outside the constant signal value range of the given measurement window (pars 30-44 discloses using ADC to detect monitor and differentiate the current. Therefore, shifted when an average measurement input signal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 7, Popov does not fully disclose wherein shifting of the given measurement window according to changes in the input signal comprises shifting proportionally to changes in voltage or current values of the input signal.
However, Lawton discloses wherein shifting of the given measurement window according to changes in the input signal comprises shifting proportionally to changes in voltage or current values of the input signal (pars 60 and 67 discloses a minimum transition time is detected and measured based on predetermined transition time duration. Therefore, shifting proportionally in voltages or current). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 8, Popov does not fully disclose wherein setting the settle count comprises determining a first derivative of the measured input signal and setting the settle count based on a relationship that is inversely proportional to the first derivative of the input signal measurements.
However, Lawton discloses wherein setting the settle count comprises determining a first derivative of the measured input signal and setting the settle count based on a relationship that is inversely proportional to the first derivative of the input signal measurements (pars 30, 49 and 67 discloses first derivative based on the movement and a second derivative based on another position of a device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 15, Popov does not fully disclose wherein tracking comprises graphically representing the measured input signal, and wherein the constant measurement period spans a first graphical axis and the constant signal value range spans a second graphical axis.
However, Lawton discloses wherein tracking comprises graphically representing the measured input signal, and wherein the constant measurement period spans a first graphical axis and the constant signal value range spans a second graphical axis (par 30 discloses digital output to a controller. Therefore, would be including graphical axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement
Regarding claim 18, Popov discloses a semiconductor testing apparatus (shown in figs 1-2A) configured for detecting settling of an analog electrical signal during semiconductor device testing (297), the apparatus comprising: a semiconductor device tester (220) configured to receive therein a device under test (297); an input signal source (using 210) configured to provide an input signal to the DUT (par 36 discloses distribution of power) and a signal measurement sensor configured to measure the input signal, the signal measurement sensor (not fully shown) configured to monitor for settling of an electrical signal by directly measuring the input signal (abstract discloses a plurality of measurement sensors for measuring characteristics of a DUT); a detection circuitry (inside of 220) configured to receive a measured input signal from the signal measurement sensor (par 30 discloses sensors to measure which may include IMD connected to channels of the DUT. Therefore, would measure the input); and a non-transitory computer storage (using 234 and par 21 discloses power allocation manager includes memory) medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising (par 21 discloses memory stored in processor to activate instructions). Popov does not fully disclose tracking the measured input signal over time with sequential measurement windows that do not overlap with each other, wherein each measurement window spans a constant measurement period and a constant signal value range while shifting according to changes in the measured input signal such that each measurement window overlaps at least a portion of the measured input signal corresponding to a preceding measurement window; setting a settle count representing a number of consecutive and unshifted measurement windows having unshifted constant signal value ranges; and determining that a settle point has been reached upon detecting that the settle count has been met or exceeded by the measured input signal tracked by the sequential measurement windows.
However, Lawton discloses tracking the measured input signal over time with sequential measurement windows that do not overlap with each other (pars 30-37 and 67 discloses time instances), wherein each measurement window (time instance) spans a constant measurement period (time duration) and a constant signal value range (current difference) while shifting according to changes in the measured input signal (current to 110) such that each measurement window overlaps at least a portion of the measured input signal corresponding to a preceding measurement window (pars 29, 30, 37, 40, 49, and 67 discloses outputting values based off the movement of the plunger within a time range); setting a settle count (transition time) representing a number of consecutive and unshifted measurement windows (time instances) having unshifted constant signal value ranges (current difference. par 64-67 discloses peak-valley current difference based on normal operation); and determining that a settle point (peaks and valley of current waveform) has been reached upon detecting that the settle count has been met or exceeded by the measured input signal (current to 110) tracked by the sequential measurement windows (par 50 and 64-67 discloses minimum vs maximum current values based on the plunger movement).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton in order to determine values of a DUT based on measurement.
Regarding claim 19, Popov discloses wherein the signal measurement sensor is an ammeter, or a resistor directly serially connected to the device under test (shown in fig 2A as having current and voltage sensors connected to the DUT).
Regarding claim 20, Popov does not fully disclose wherein the detection circuitry is an analog-to-digital converter.
However, Lawton discloses wherein the detection circuitry is an analog-to-digital converter (par 30 discloses having ADC). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Popov in view of Lawton known to convert information into digital into further process data.
Regarding claim 21, Popov discloses wherein the detection circuitry is electrically connected to a computer system electrically connected to an input signal source configured to supply an input signal to a device under test (par 30 discloses having current and voltage sensors. Therefore, electrically connected to input signal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9- 14, 16, 17, and 24-26 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 9, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a method of detecting settling of an analog electrical signal in semiconductor device testing, the method comprising: further comprising setting the settle count a plurality of times based on changing first derivatives of the input signal measurements across the sequential measurement windows in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 10, and 12-14, 16, and 17 are also objected to as they depend on claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a method of detecting settling of an analog electrical signal in semiconductor device testing, the method comprising: wherein the first derivative of input signal measurements comprises a difference between adjacent input signal measurements per unit of X axis in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 24, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: wherein the operations further comprise setting the settle count a plurality of times based on changing first derivatives of the input signal measurements across the sequential measurement windows in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: wherein determining that the settle point has been reached further comprises determining that the settle point is within an expected value range of the measured input signal in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest a non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: wherein the first derivative of input signal measurements comprises a recorded difference between consecutive input signal measurements per unit of X axis within a measurement window in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pedone et al (USPGPub 20230140765): discloses electronic circuit with DUT.
Petrov et al (USPGPub 20180128873): discloses multi- DUT with ATE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/DOMINIC E HAWKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights