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, 17 and 19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the signal lines" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the plurality of signal lines in line 6 or other signal lines. If it is referring to the plurality of signal lines in line 6, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the plurality of signal lines”. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the signal lines" in lines 11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if it is referring to the plurality of signal lines in line 10 or other signal lines. If it is referring to the plurality of signal lines in line 10, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the plurality of signal lines”. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " the output of one of the high voltage probes or the current probes" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there’s no previous mention of an output of one of the high voltage probes or the current probes earlier in the claim. It is recommended to amend to recite “[[the]] an output of one of the high voltage probes or the current probes”. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " the signal power path" in line 8 and 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether it is referring to the power signal path between the inverter connector and the motor connector as recited in line 6 or another power signal path. If it referring to a power signal path between the inverter connector and the motor connector as recited in line 6, then it is recommended to amend to recite “the power signal path between the inverter connector and the motor connector”.
Claims 2-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 18 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 17.
Claims 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for being dependent on claim 19.
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) 1-4, 7-9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KU; WEI-CHENG et al. (US Application #US 20150015290 A1; hereinafter Ku) in view of WANG; Mill-Jer et al. (US Application #US US 20140253162 A1; hereinafter Wang) further in view of Rogers; Gary et al. (US 20080290882 A1; hereinafter Rogers).
Regarding claim 1, Ku teaches
A universal power probe fixture (UPPF) (abstract) configured to be installed into a power signal path (par.29 teaches power signal path) between a source device (Fig.2 #100 testers is the source device) and a load device (Fig.2 #200 DUT is load device), the UPPF comprising:
one or more UPPF base modules (par.28 teaches probe base 20 and 30), each UPPF base module including
an input terminal block (fig.2 #10 is the input terminal block),
an output terminal block (Fig.2 #30 is the output terminal block), and
a power transfer circuit (Ku par.23 PCB 10) including a plurality of signal lines (Ku par.23 plurality of signal circuits 12) electrically connected between the input terminal block and the output terminal block (Ku par.23 teaches a power transfer circuit (PCB 10) including a plurality of signal lines (plurality of signal circuits 12) electrically connected between the input terminal block and the output terminal block(fig.2 shows probe module in between tester 100 and DUT 200)),
a source device connector adapted to electrically connect the source device to the input terminal block (par.26 “makes a connection between the first contact P1 and the third contact P3 under control of a wire or a flexible PCB (not shown) connected to the tester 100.”); and
a load device connector adapted to electrically connect the load device to the output terminal block (par.25).
Ku fails to teach the signal lines structured to convey high power, wherein each of the signal lines includes a current probe connection point and at least one voltage probe connection point;
Wang does teach wherein each of the signal lines includes a current probe connection point and at least one voltage probe connection point (par.2 “the application of a voltage, a current is achieved between the first pad and a second pad of the DUT which is also connected to the ATE module through the probe card, and the current can be measured. Alternatively, a current can be applied, and a voltage drop can be measured.”);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ku to include the teachings of Wang; which would facilitate efficient identification of failures in a daisy chain of interconnects or failures at the probe card level as disclosed by Wang (par.18-19).
Ku in view of Wang fails to teach the signal lines structured to convey high power.
Rogers does teach the signal lines structured to convey high power (par.73 “the wafer probe system 202 may include various test points 228 accessible to external equipment, e.g., UIS tester 1 (FIG. 7) (e.g., to obtain voltage measurements at nodes of interest, etc.) and 230 (FIG. 8) (e.g., to provide high voltage power to the system 200b).”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ku in view of Wang to include the teachings of Rogers; which would provide a method and system for sensing when the contacts to the power semiconductor chip or integrated circuit chip under test are not adequate for the current levels and removing the power from the probes before the chip or the probe card is damaged as disclosed by Rogers (par.15).
Regarding claim 2, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, Ku further teaches wherein each UPPF base module includes three input terminal blocks, three output terminal blocks, and three power transfer circuits (Fig.2 #110 is considered an input block and there’s four of them The probe ends of probes 40 are connected to plurality of input/output terminals(also considered blocks); Par.23 “The PCB 10 has a plurality of signal circuits 12 laid within, wherein each signal circuit 12 has two ends”).
Regarding claim 3, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, Wang further teaches wherein the input terminal block and the output terminal block comprise screw-down terminal blocks (par.19 implicitly teaches screw down terminals “It is understood that any number of contacts may be present at the ATE 110, the auxiliary test module 130, and the probe card 120, and the couplings between respective pairs of contacts may be with a direct physical mating as shown in FIG. 1 (using any suitable contact interface)”).
Regarding claim 4, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, Ku further teaches wherein the power transfer circuit includes four signal lines (fig.2 shows more than 4 signal lines/conductors 50).
Regarding claim 7, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, Rogers further teaches wherein the signal lines are implemented as traces on a printed circuit board (PCB) (par.63 “These probes 2 are typically attached to traces on the printed circuit board 50 by solder connections 70.”) structured to carry currents greater than 700 A (par.67 implies currents greater than 700 A “any type of high current”).
Regarding claim 8, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, Rogers further teaches wherein the traces are structured to carry currents greater than 1 kA (par.67 implies currents greater than 1 kA “any type of high current”).
Regarding claim 9, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, Ku further teaches wherein the current probe connection point comprises a gap in the signal line (par.29-30 “break the connection between the first contact P1 and the third contact P3”; “break the connection between the first contact P1 and the second contact P2” teaches a gap in signal line).
Regarding claim 11, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 9, Ku further teaches wherein the current probe connection point further comprises a connector electrically connected to the signal line on each side of the gap (fig.2 and par.29-30 teach contacts P1-P3 being electrically connected to the signal line on each side of the gap).
Regarding claim 13, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, Rogers further teaches wherein the voltage connection point comprises a connector structured to interface with a high-voltage probe (par.65 “The large pads 3 are the source connections for a power MOSFET or the emitter connections for an IGBT device. The drain connection for a power MOSFET or the collector connection for an IGBT device would be the back of the power semiconductor chip 20.”).
Regarding claim 15, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, wherein the power transfer circuit includes a number of voltage connection points on the plurality of signal lines (Ku par.24 and fig.2 teach plurality of first connecting circuits 22 and plurality of second connecting circuits 24 as voltage connection points.) to allow differential voltage measurements between each of the plurality of signal lines (Wang par.2 “a voltage drop can be measured.”).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers further in view of Tan; Kan et al. (US application # US 20070276614 A1; hereinafter Tan).
Regarding claim 16, Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers the UPPF according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the UPPF base module further includes one or more line active indicators, each line active indicator configured to indicate to a user when a respective signal line is energized.
Tan does teach wherein the UPPF base module further includes one or more line active indicators (par. 76 “A status box provides an indication to a user”), each line active indicator configured to indicate to a user when a respective signal line is energized (par.69 teaches respective signal line being energized through calibration).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ku in view of Wang further in view of Rogers to include the teachings of Tan; which would provide a method to de-embed one or more probes and oscilloscope system so that loading and through effects of the probes and oscilloscope are substantially removed from the measurement as disclosed by Tan(par.4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 12, 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 5,
“… wherein a first signal line of the four signal lines provides a power signal path for a first phase of a three-phase power signal between the source device and the load device, a second signal line of the four signal lines provides a power signal path for a second phase of a three-phase power signal between the source device and the load device, and a third signal line of the four signal lines provides a power signal path for a third phase of a three-phase power signal between the source device and the load device.”
Claim 6 is also objected to due to its dependence on claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 10,
“… wherein the current probe connection point further comprises a jumper wire electrically connected to the signal line across the gap, the jumper wire structured to enable a current probe to encircle the jumper wire.”
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 12,
“… wherein the connector is structured to accept one of a removable jumper wire electrically connected to the signal line across the gap, or a series current probe electrically connected to the signal line across the gap.”
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 14,
“… wherein the connector comprises a banana jack.”
Claims 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 17,
“… the test and measurement instrument configured to simultaneously acquire voltage signals from the each of the high voltage probes and current signals from each of the current probes.”
Claim 18 would also be allowable due to its dependence on claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitation of claim 19,
“An electric vehicle probe adapter assembly for establishing an electrical connection between an inverter and an electric motor, comprising: … a high-voltage probe connection point, the high-voltage probe connection point structured to allow a high-voltage probe to sense a voltage between two conductors in the power signal path.”
Claim 20 would also be allowable due to its dependence on claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 5521482 A; Lang; George F. et al. is a Method and apparatus for determining mechanical performance of polyphase electrical motor systems.
US 20070296422 A1; Miller; Charles A. is a Method of Expanding Tester Drive and Measurement Capability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3991. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am -5:00am.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/CARL F.R. TCHATCHOUANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights