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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-2, 9-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 3-8 and 14-15 are objected to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/28/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Non-Patent Literature documents with Cite No. 1 (“Office Action issued in counterpart Taiwanese Patent Application…”) does not have no English translation. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 8 and 14-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the term “collimated light” in last line is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “collimated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what accuracy level that the light is made to quantify as “collimated light”; therefore, the meets and bounds of the term “collimated” is not clear.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because claim 15 depends on all claim limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites the term “collimated light” in last line is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “collimated” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear at what accuracy level that the light is made to quantify as “collimated light”; therefore, the meets and bounds of the term “collimated” is not clear.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 9-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiota et al. (US 2021/0194601), and further in view of Masuda (US 2011/0279109).
Regarding independent claim 1, Shiota teaches a semiconductor device handling apparatus that handles a device under test (DUT) (e.g. figs. 1-4, [0048], handler 2 for moving DUT 10A) to bring a terminal disposed on a first surface of the DUT into contact with a contact portion of a tester (e.g. figs. 1-4, [0048], handler 2 presses the DUT 10A against the socket 60A mounted on test head 52, and a bottom surface of DUT 10A contacts with contact portion of test head 52 as shown in fig. 4) comprising a tester transmitter (e.g. figs. 1-4, [0077], test head 52 has pads 71 which has a transmitter to enable signal transmission), the semiconductor device handling apparatus comprising:
a holder that holds a second surface of the DUT (e.g. figs. 1-4, [0055], pusher 24 has an opening 243 that holds a top surface of the DUT 10A as shown in fig. 4),
wherein the holder comprises a holder transmitter (e.g. figs. 1-4, [0065] and [0069], radiating elements 32 inside the opening 243 of pusher 24) that transmits a signal between a connection portion disposed on the second surface of the DUT (e.g. figs. 1-4, [0070] and [0077], the radiating elements 32a transmits signals between antenna 12a disposed on the top surface of the DUT 10A) and the tester transmitter (e.g. figs. [0070] and [0077] tester 5 transmits and receives signals between the antenna 12a via the pads 71 as described in paragraph [0077]), and
the holder transmitter inputs and outputs a signal to and from the connection portion (e.g. figs. 1-4, [0070] and [0077], radiating elements 32a transmits and receives signals to and from the antenna 12a as tester 5 transmits and receives signals to and from the antenna 12a via the pads 71 as described in paragraph [0077]).
However, Shiota is silent with regard to an optical connection portion and an optical signal.
Masuda teaches optical connections portions disposed on a surface of a device under test (DUT) (e.g. fig. 1, [0019], optical receiver 12 and optical transmitter 14 on Device under test 10), and a transmitter inputs and outputs an optical signal to and from the corresponding optical connections portions (e.g. fig. 1, [0030], optical interface 152 transmits optical test signal to optical receiver 12 of DUT 10 and receives optical response signal from optical transmitter 14 of DUT 10).
It would produce a predictive result of adding optical interfaces to the corresponding tester and holder to perform optical signal transmission and reception tests on an optical connection portion on the top surface of the DUT, for the purpose of reducing electromagnetic interferences and/or electric noise by transmitting and receiving optical test signals; and/or testing a device under test with an optical interface by using an optical test signal and detect an optical response signal (e.g. Masuda, [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Shiota by applying the teaching of Masuda to explicitly have an optical connection portion and an optical signal, for the purpose of reducing electromagnetic interferences and/or electric noise by transmitting and receiving optical test signals; and/or testing a device under test with an optical interface by using an optical test signal and detect an optical response signal (e.g. Masuda, [0009])..
Regarding claim 2, combination of Shiota and Masuda teaches wherein the holder transmitter inputs and outputs an optical signal to and from the tester transmitter (e.g. as rejected in claim 1, Shiota, fig. 2, as a result of the combination of Shiota and Masuda, the optical interfaces added as a tester transmitter on the test head 52 and as a holder transmitter inside the opening 243 of pusher 24 to perform optical signal transmission and reception tests).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Shiota and Masuda teaches wherein the holder transmitter is separated from the tester transmitter when the holder contacts the terminal and the contact portion (e.g. as rejected in claim 1, Shiota, fig. 4, as a result of the combination of Shiota and Masuda, the optical interfaces are added to the corresponding test head 52 and inside the opening 243 of pusher 24 to perform optical signal transmission and reception tests, where the test head 52 is separated from the inside of the opening 243 when the bottom surface of DUT 10A contacts with contact portion of the test head 52 as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Shiota and Masuda is silent with regard to wherein the holder transmitter contacts the tester transmitter when the holder contacts the terminal and the contact portion (e.g. Masuda, fig. 1, it is obvious and logical to make contacts with optical interfaces 152 of corresponding holder transmitter and the tester transmitter during optical testing because do so would significantly reduce optical interferences from external light sources improve optical signal qualities).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Shiota and Masuda teaches wherein the holder comprises: a main body including an opposing surface that opposes the second surface of the DUT (e.g. Shiota, fig. 4, pusher 24 has opening 243 and the opening 243 has a bottom surface that opposes the top surface of DUT 10A); and a suction holding mechanism that opens on the opposing surface and holds the DUT by suction (e.g. Shiota, fig. 4, [0054], suction pipe 231 connected to vacuum pump 27 to hold the DUT 10A by suction created by the vacuum pump 27).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Shiota and Masuda teaches wherein the semiconductor device handling apparatus comprises a contact arm that holds the holder and moves the holder relative to the contact portion (e.g. Shiota, fig. 1, [0050], contact arm 21 holds and move the opening 243 with DUT 10A relative to the socket 60A mounted on test head 52), and the holder is detachably held at a tip of the contact arm (e.g. Shiota, figs. 1 and 2, [0055], the opening 243 of pusher 24 is detachably mounted to the chuck body 23 which is a tip of the contact arm 21).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Shiota and Masuda teaches a semiconductor device testing apparatus testing a device under test (DUT) (e.g. Shiota, figs. 1-4, [0045], testing apparatus 1A testing device under test (DUT) 10A as shown in fig. 1), comprising: the semiconductor device handling apparatus according to claim 1 (e.g. as rejected in claim 1); and a tester that tests the DUT (e.g. Shiota, figs. 1-4, [0090], test head 52 tests DUT 10A), wherein the tester comprises: a contact portion that inputs and outputs an electrical signal to and from the terminal (e.g. Shiota, figs. 1-5, [0093], the socket 60A mounted on test head 52, and the socket 60A has contactors 62 correspond to the input and output terminals 14 of DUT 10A); and a tester transmitter that inputs and outputs a signal to and from the holder transmitter (e.g. Shiota, figs. 1-4, [0077], test head 52 has pads 71 which has a transmitter to enable signal transmission).
Regarding claim 16, combination of Shiota and Masuda teaches wherein the contact portion comprises a socket disposed on a test head (e.g. Shiota, fig. 5, [0048], the socket 60A mounted on test head 52), and the socket comprises: a contactor contacting the terminal (e.g. Shiota, fig. 5, [0093], socket 60A has contactors 62); and the tester transmitter positioned outside of the contactor (e.g. Shiota, figs. 1-4, [0077], test head 52 has pads 71 which has a transmitter to enable signal transmission, and the pads 71 are positioned outside the contactors 62).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
Claims 8 and 14-15 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; and if the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 8 and 14-15 are overcome without broadening the scopes of claim 8 and 14-15.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the cited and/or searched prior arts either singularly or in combination fail to teaches all the limitations of claim 3, in particular the claim limitation of “wherein the holder transmitter comprises: a first optical transmitter that receives a first optical signal from the tester transmitter and emits a second optical signal to the optical connection portion; and a second optical transmitter that receives a third optical signal from the optical connection portion and emits a fourth optical signal to the tester transmitter”; therefore, claim 3 contains allowable subject matters, as are its dependent claims 4-8 and 14-15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDONG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5815. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAIDONG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
