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 .
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.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 11/14/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 recites the limitation “…and the method comprises forming an enclosed volume that is bounded by the top enclosure, the mounting base, the PCB, and the test socket.” There does not appear to be a prior disclosure of a “PCB” before this moment. If this is the case, please change the limitation to “a PCB”. Additionally, please disclose what “PCB” stands for, regardless of how obvious it may be.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “gas circulation unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “gas circulation unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim(s) 6 and 12 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the row of the 112(f) grid entitled “Prong B” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to the gas circulation unit; does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-13 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 “…and a test socket mounted on the printed circuit board and containing an array of pogo pins therein.” in lines 9-10 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “printed circuit board underlying the chuck” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “printed circuit board”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the printed circuit board underlying the chuck”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “…wherein an enclosed volume is bounded by the top enclosure, the mounting base, the PCB, and the test socket.” in lines 4-5 of Claim 5. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “PCB underlying the chuck” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “PCB”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the PCB underlying the chuck”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening”;. The term “first connection switching unit” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “gas circulation unit” renders claim 6 indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “…a test socket mounted on the printed circuit board and containing an array of pogo pins therein.” in lines 9-10 of Claim 9. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “printed circuit board underlying the chuck” disclosed earlier in Claim 9 or if it refers to a different “printed circuit board”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the printed circuit board underlying the chuck”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “…and the thermoelectric module, wherein an enclosed volume is bounded by the top enclosure, the mounting base, the PCB, and the test socket.” in lines 6-7 of Claim 10. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “PCB underlying the chuck” disclosed earlier in Claim 9 or if it refers to a different “PCB”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the PCB underlying the chuck”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…a seal ring contacting an annular bottom surface segment of the mounting base and contacting an annular top surface segment of the PCB and laterally surrounding the array of pogo pins.” in lines 1-4 of Claim 11. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “PCB underlying the chuck” disclosed earlier in Claim 9 or if it refers to a different “PCB”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the PCB underlying the chuck”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…a gas circulation unit configured to supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening”;. The term “first connection switching unit” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of supply a gas into the enclosed volume through the first opening in the top enclosure, and to exhaust the gas through the second opening. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “gas circulation unit” renders claim 12 indefinite.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 9.
Please make the proper corrections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 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.
Claims 5, 6 and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1,
“…a slow-response temperature control system comprising a thermal mass head that is mounted on the chuck and overlies the central cavity; a fast-response temperature control system comprising a thermoelectric module that is attached to the thermal mass head, is positioned within the central cavity, and is configured to be disposed on a device under test (DUT)…and a test socket mounted on the printed circuit board and containing an array of pogo pins therein.”
Claims 2-8 and 13 are also allowed as they further limit objected claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 9,
“…a thermal mass head mounted on a top surface of the chuck; a thermoelectric module attached to a bottom surface of the thermal mass head and configured to be disposed on a top surface of the DUT; a printed circuit board (PCB) underlying the chuck; and a test socket mounted on the printed circuit board and containing an array of pogo pins therein.”
Claims 10-12 are also allowed as they further limit objected claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 14,
“…a slow-response temperature control system comprising a thermal mass head that is mounted on the chuck and overlies the central cavity, and a fast-response temperature control system comprising a thermoelectric module that is attached to the thermal mass head; mounting a device under test (DUT) to the chuck such that a top surface of the DUT is in direct contact with, or is in indirect contact through a thermal interface material layer with, a bottom surface of the thermoelectric module; disposing electrical contact elements of the DUT on an array of pogo pins; and performing an electrical test on the DUT by applying test signals to the array of pogo pins.”
Claims 15-20 are also allowed as they further limit objected claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhuang et al. US 2022/0397600 - A test kit for testing a device under test (DUT) includes a socket structure for containing the DUT, and a plunger assembly detachably coupled with the socket structure. The plunger assembly includes a multi-layered structure having at least an interposer substrate sandwiched by a top socket and a nest.
Lu et al. US 2009/0079461 - A test board for wafer level semiconductor testing is disclosed. The test board comprises a plurality of wires and microelectronic devices; and a plurality of test sockets on an upper surface of the test board. Each test socket comprises: a base member configured for attachment to the test board with a first set of screws, wherein the base member has a central opening exposing a portion of the underlying test board; an anisotropic conductive film disposed within the central opening of the base member; a chip to be tested, disposed on the anisotropic conductive film within the central opening of the base member; and a cover member overlying the chip, attached to the base member with a second set of screws.
Park US 2013/0257470 - A semiconductor testing apparatus is provided wherein components that must be arranged most closely are arranged most closely to terminals of a test object. The present apparatus is semiconductor testing apparatus comprising a printed circuit board, and a test socket mounted on an upper surface of the printed circuit board and forming a signal connection path between a test object and the printing circuit board, wherein a chip shaped capacitor is mounted on the upper surface of the printed circuit board, an interference avoidance space avoiding contact with the capacitor is formed in the test socket, the interference avoidance space being formed at a location facing the location where the capacitor is mounted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, 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, 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights