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
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17432575, filed on 02/21/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/03/2024 is considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 and 9 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 connection" in Line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the different zones of the wafer" in Lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Cooper et al. (US 20040113640), hereinafter ‘Cooper’.
Regarding Claim 1, Cooper discloses a method to test an array of micro devices comprising: providing an array of probes (Fig. 11, probes 59; Fig. 1, probes 16) in a probe card (Figs. 10 and 11, probe card assembly 56 and probes 69/70; Fig. 1, probe card assembly 10); aligning the array of probes with corresponding micro devices on a substrate (Fig. 11, probes 59 aligned/engage with pins 73/74 of DUT/wafer 78/71; Para [0042]; Fig. 1, DUT 11 with pads 19, probes 16 align with mating array of pads 19; Para [0023]; Para [0046] the sensor(s) is assumed to comprise over travel stop assemblies 69, 70 wired to detect contact as illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 11); moving the probe card to the micro devices (Para [0042] wafer 71 and probe card assembly 56 are brought together, probe tips 59 will engage with corresponding pins on the DUT 11 (device under test) 78; Para [0020] support structure 12 supports probe card assembly 10 and can be operable to move probe card assembly 10 toward DUT 11 or to hold probe card assembly 10 stationary while DUT 11 is moved toward probe card assembly 10); biasing one or more probes to allow measuring of at least one attribute of the at least one micro device (Para [0039-0042] one or more over travel stop assemblies are wired to provide a signal that the corresponding DUT 11 has been engaged. Such signal may simply indicate engagement or may signal the extent of engagement (e.g., by signaling a degree of force exerted by the wafer on the probes; Such output signal is contemplated to be received as input by computer components connected with the probe card assembly and displayed in any appropriate form and/or used to further control the overall probe testing operation; Para [0046] the sensor(s) is assumed to comprise over travel stop assemblies 69, 70 wired to detect contact as illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 11); monitoring a change in at least one attribute of the micro device; and detecting the connection to the micro device through the change in at least one attribute of the micro device (Para [0043] a signal that an over travel stop assembly has engaged a bond pad or pin may cause the system to cease movement of the probe card assembly toward the DUT 11, or vis versa, or movement for only another pre-programmed distance. Where the output signal indicates the extent of engagement, such information can be used by the human user or the machine to adjust the limits of movement of the DUT relative to the probe card assembly, as well as the rate of such movement; Para [0039] such output signal would be sent to the tester or prober, which would then stop movement of the probe card assembly toward the semiconductor wafer when the desired over travel limit is reached.).
Regarding Claim 2, Cooper further discloses wherein the one or more probes are biased at different areas of the probe card (Para [0041-0046] arrangement for detecting completion of a desired amount of over travel of bond pads or pins 73, 74 of wafer 71 with respect to probes 59; In each die on the wafer 71 to be tested, the bond pads or pins 73, 74 comprise functioning pins 73 and dummy pins 74. (Pins 73, 74 in FIGS. 10 and 11 are shown as having slightly different heights due to inherent manufacturing imprecision.) Functioning pins 73 are functional in providing the desired power, ground and signal capabilities for their corresponding die 76 (or 77), while dummy pins 72 are shorted to ground; the system software will be configured to control the testing operation in response to any desired contact combination. That is, in one embodiment, contact by any two adjacent over travel stop assemblies (i.e. 69 and 70) with dummy pins will cause movement of probe card assembly 56 to stop; the sensor(s) is assumed to comprise over travel stop assemblies 69, 70 wired to detect contact as illustrated in FIGS. 10 and 11).
Regarding Claim 3, Cooper further discloses wherein the change in at least one attribute of the micro device in different areas of the probe card identifies connected and not connected areas (Para [0039] wired to provide a signal that the corresponding DUT 11 has been engaged. Such signal may simply indicate engagement or may signal the extent of engagement (e.g., by signaling a degree of force exerted by the wafer on the probes or the over travel stop). For example, such signal may provide a binary output x: no contact (x=0), contact (x=1). Alternatively, a more detailed response may be provided by the output value x: no contact (x=0), contact (0<x<1) where any x greater than 0 indicates contact and the value of x greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1 indicates the extent of travel of the DUT from initial contact up to and including the limit of travel).
Regarding Claim 4, Cooper further discloses wherein in response to no connection between the probe tip and the micro device at some areas, the probe tilts towards the not connected areas (Para [0046] utilizes one or more sensors for detecting when the wafer 71 has been moved into contact with the probes 71 and then further moved by a desired amount of over travel past first contact).
Regarding Claim 6, Cooper further discloses employing one or more force electrodes to the one or more probes to detect the connection (Para [0049] the force the wafer pads or pins 73, 74 exert against probes 59 is determined at step 204, and it is determined at step 206 whether the force exceeds a predetermined maximum force. Of course, before first contact between the pads or pins 73, 74 and probes 59, the force is zero.) If yes, movement of the wafer 71 toward the probe card assembly 56 is stopped at step 210 (e.g., controller 530 issues control signals 540 that cause movement to stop). If, however, the determined force is less than the maximum force (step 206), at step 206, the speed of the movement of the wafer 71 toward the probe card assembly 56 is adjusted in accordance with the force determined at step 204).
Regarding Claim 7, Cooper discloses a method of flattening a wafer of micro devices for testing, comprising: at least one brace (Figs. 1 and 2, 22/23 post and stop plate forming assembly 17) provided for at least one probe unit (Fig. 1, 10) connected to the wafer (Figs. 1 and 2, DUT 11 connected to brace 23/22); a corresponding area in the wafer aligned to the at least one brace that has no micro device to test (area shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); pushing the corresponding area with the brace (Para [0024] travel stop assemblies 17 engage DUT 11 at a predetermined distance (a proximity limit) to physically limit how close DUT 11 and probe card assembly 10 can get, and consequently to ensure the proper pressure engagement between probe tips 21 and bond pads 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Cooper further discloses wherein the at least one brace creates different zones and each zone has a probe card that covers the zone to test the micro devices (Fig. 1, zone of assembly 17 which comprises 22/23 covering DUT 11).
Regarding Claim 9, Cooper further discloses wherein a single probe card is moving between the different zones of the wafer created by the at least one brace (Fig. 1, probe card 10 moving zone of assembly 17 which comprises 22/23 covering DUT 11; Para [0024]).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper et al. (US 20040113640), hereinafter ‘Cooper’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pagani (US 9778117), hereinafter ‘Pagani’.
Regarding Claim 5, Cooper discloses the probe tips must be made conductive and must be electrically connected to wire elements (Para [0027]) and the wafer or device under test (DUT) and the probe card assembly are brought together so that the outboard tips of a plurality of probe elements are brought into electrical engagement with corresponding die pads on the wafer (Para [0002]), however fails to explicitly disclose wherein monitoring the change in at least one attribute of the micro device comprises monitoring the change in capacitance or resistance.
Pagani discloses an electronic device detects a pressure related to a force applied within a solid structure with an integrated circuit IC to be tested which comprises detecting to perform a capacitive sensor test thus monitoring the change in at least one attribute of a micro device by way of monitoring the change in capacitance or resistance (Col. 10, Lines 1-11) for the benefit of detecting a pressure and/or mechanical stress, within a solid structure (Col. 1, Lines 62-Col. Line 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide monitoring the change in at least one attribute of the micro device comprises monitoring the change in capacitance or resistance for the benefit of detecting a pressure and/or mechanical stress, within a solid structure as taught by Pagani in Col. 10, Lines 1-11; Col. 1, Lines 62-Col. Line 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights