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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) in view of Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe et al. teaches a semiconductor test apparatus comprising: a socket base (43); a probe guide (38); and at least one probe pin (35), wherein the socket base (43) has a first surface (31, as shown in fig. 1) and a second surface (32, as shown in fig. 1) opposite to the first surface in a first direction, the socket base (43) has at least one first opening (33) penetrating the socket base (43) along with the first direction (as shown in fig. 1), the probe guide (38) is movably disposed in the first opening (33) along with the first direction (as shown in fig. 2A-2C), the probe guide (38) has a first end (38b) protruding from the first surface (31) when the probe guide (38) is moved from the second surface (32) to the first surface (31) along with the first direction (as shown in fig. 2A-2C), and a second end (where 39 is positioned, as shown in fig. 1) opposite to the first end, the probe guide (38) has a second opening penetrating the probe guide (38) along with the first direction (as shown in fig. 1), the probe pin (35) extends along the first direction (as shown in fig. 1) and has a tip portion (37b) disposed at a third end in the first direction (as shown in fig. 1), the tip portion (37) is inserted in the second opening from the second end (where 39 is positioned, as shown in fig. 1) so that the third end is able to protrude from the first end (as shown in fig. 2A-2C), and when the tip portion (37) contacts an external terminal (24a) of a to-be-inspected device (24) (as shown in fig. 2C), the probe guide (38) and the probe pin (35) are integrated (as shown in fig. 1).
Watanabe et al. fails to specifically teach an outer diameter of the tip portion decreases as it approaches the third end. However, Saijo et al. teaches an outer diameter (28a, 38c) of the tip portion (28) decreases as it approaches the third end (as shown in fig. 6C and disclosed in para. 0074).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the outer diameter of the tip portion decrease as it approaches the third end as taught by Saijo et al. with the invention of Watanabe et al. in order to ensure accurate contact with the terminal.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Saijo et al. teaches wherein a shape of the tip portion is cone (as shown in fig. 6B and disclosed in para. 0079).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the shape of the tip portion is cone as taught by Saijo et al. with the invention of Watanabe et al. in order to ensure accurate contact with the terminal.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein the third end (indicated with 38b, as shown in fig. 1) protrudes from the first end (section of 38 near 31, as shown in fig. 1) in a state where the third end protrudes from the first surface (31) (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein the probe pin (35) has a base end (39) and a connecting portion (41),the connecting portion (41) connects the tip portion (37) and the base end (39), and the connecting portion (41) contacts an inner wall surface of the second opening when a central axis of the probe pin (35) is inclined with respect to the first direction (as shown in fig. 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein the at least one probe pin (35) is a plurality of probe pins (as shown in fig. 1), and the socket base (43) has a plurality of first openings (33) (as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein a movement of the probe guide (38) along the first direction from the first surface (31) to the second surface (32) is restricted (using 33c and 34c) by the first opening (33), thereby the probe guide (38) separates from the probe pin (35), when the probe pin moves from the first surface (31) to the second surface (32) along the first direction (as shown in fig. 2A-2C).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) and Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sinclair (US Pat. 6,937,045).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide is smaller than a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening and an outer diameter of the probe pin. However, Sinclair teaches wherein a difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide (102) is smaller than a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening (106) and an outer diameter of the probe pin (40) (as shown in fig. 9).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide smaller than a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening and an outer diameter of the probe pin as taught by Sinclair with the invention of the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. in order to provide more freedom of movement to the probe pin.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) and Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BURNS et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0229091).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Watanabe et al. teaches a base end (39); and a connecting portion (41), wherein the connecting portion (41) connects the tip portion (37) and the base end (39) (as shown in fig. 1).
The combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. fails to specifically teach a maximum value of an outer diameter of the tip portion is 150 micrometers or more and less than 160 micrometers. However, BURNS et al. teaches a maximum value of an outer diameter of the tip portion (202) is 150 micrometers or more and less than 160 micrometers (as disclosed in para. 0027).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the maximum value of an outer diameter of the tip portion is 150 micrometers or more and less than 160 micrometers as taught by BURNS et al. with the invention of the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. in order to ensure accurate contact with the terminal.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) and Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winter et al. (US Pat. 6,685,492).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein the probe pin (35) has a base end (39) and a connecting portion (41),the connecting portion (41) connects the tip portion (37) and the base end (39) (as shown in fig. 1).
The combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. fails to specifically teach the second opening has a first portion extending from the second end toward the first end, and a second portion extending from the first portion to the first end, and an inner diameter of the second portion is larger than an outer diameter of the connecting portion and smaller than a maximum value of an outer diameter of the base end. However, Winter et al. teaches the second opening has a first portion (20b) extending from the second end toward the first end, and a second portion (20d) extending from the first portion (20b) to the first end (as shown in fig. 2(a)), and an inner diameter of the second portion (20d) is larger than an outer diameter of the connecting portion (20n) and smaller than a maximum value of an outer diameter of the base end (20k) (as shown in fig. 2(a)).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the second opening has a first portion extending from the second end toward the first end, and a second portion extending from the first portion to the first end, and an inner diameter of the second portion is larger than an outer diameter of the connecting portion and smaller than a maximum value of an outer diameter of the base end as taught by Winter et al. with the invention of the combination of Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. in order to securely attaching the probe pin in place.
Claims 12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340976) in views of Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) and Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140).
Regarding claim 12, ISHII et al. teaches manufacturing method of a semiconductor device, comprising the step of: (a) preparing a to-be-inspected device (SD1) having an integrated circuit (CP) and an external terminal (SB) electrically connected to the integrated circuit (CP) (as shown in fig. 3); (b) preparing a semiconductor test apparatus (TS) having a socket base (G1), a probe guide (PAv), and a probe pin (PAr) (as shown in fig. 5-7); and (c) for electrically contacting to the integrated circuit (CP), deforming the external terminal (SB) by contacting the probe pin (PAr) (as shown in fig. 14).
ISHII et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the socket base has a first surface in a first direction and the first surface is disposed to face the external terminal, the socket base has a first opening penetrating the socket base along with the first direction, the probe guide is disposed in the first opening, a shape of the probe guide is cylindrical extending along the first direction, the probe guide has a second opening penetrating the probe guide along with the first direction, the probe guide has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end in the first direction, the probe pin extends along the first direction and has a third end in the first direction, the probe pin has a tip portion located at the third end, an outer diameter of the tip portion decreases as it approaches the third end, the tip portion is inserted in the second opening from the second end so that the third end is able to protrude from the first end, and when the tip portion contacts the external terminal, the probe guide and the probe pin are integrated. However, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein the socket base (43) has a first surface (31, as shown in fig. 1) in a first direction and the first surface (31) is disposed to face the external terminal (24a) (as shown in fig. 2C), the socket base (43) has a first opening (33) penetrating the socket base (43) along with the first direction (as shown in fig. 1), the probe guide (38) is disposed in the first opening (33), a shape of the probe guide is cylindrical (tube) extending along the first direction (as shown in fig. 1), the probe guide (38) has a second opening penetrating the probe guide (38) along the first direction (as shown in fig. 1), the probe guide (38) has a first end (38b) and a second end (where 39 is positioned, as shown in fig. 1) opposite to the first end in the first direction, the probe pin (35) extends along the first direction (as shown in fig. 1) and has a third end in the first direction (where 37 is located, as shown in fig. 1), the probe pin (35) has a tip portion (37b) located at the third end, the tip portion (37) is inserted in the second opening from the second end (where 39 is positioned, as shown in fig. 1) so that the third end is able to protrude from the first end (as shown in fig. 2A-2C), and when the tip portion (37) contacts the external terminal (24a), the probe guide (38) and the probe pin (35) are integrated (as shown in fig. 2C) and Saijo et al. teaches an outer diameter (28a, 38c) of the tip portion (28) decreases as it approaches the third end (as shown in fig. 6C and disclosed in para. 0074).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the socket base has a first surface in a first direction and the first surface is disposed to face the external terminal, the socket base has a first opening penetrating the socket base along with the first direction, the probe guide is disposed in the first opening, a shape of the probe guide is cylindrical extending along the first direction, the probe guide has a second opening penetrating the probe guide along with the first direction, the probe guide has a first end and a second end opposite to the first end in the first direction, the probe pin extends along the first direction and has a third end in the first direction, the probe pin has a tip portion located at the third end, an outer diameter of the tip portion decreases as it approaches the third end, the tip portion is inserted in the second opening from the second end so that the third end is able to protrude from the first end, and when the tip portion contacts the external terminal, the probe guide and the probe pin are integrated as taught by Watanabe et al. and Sajiro et al. with the invention of ISHII et al. in order to ensure accurate and precise inspection of the semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 12, in addition, Saijo et al. teaches wherein a shape of the tip portion is cone (as shown in fig. 6B and disclosed in para. 0079).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the shape of the tip portion is cone as taught by Saijo et al. with the invention of the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Sajiro et al. in order to ensure accurate contact with the terminal.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of ISHII et al, Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 12, in addition, Watanabe et al. teaches wherein the third end (indicated with 38b, as shown in fig. 1) protrudes from the first end (section of 38 near 31, as shown in fig. 1) in a state where the third end protrudes from the first surface (31) (as shown in fig. 1).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the third end protrudes from the first end in a state where the third end protrudes from the first surface as taught by Watanabe et al. with the invention of the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Sajiro et al. in order to increase the touch distance between the probe pin and the contact to be inspected.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of ISHII et al, Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 12, in addition, ISHII et al. teaches wherein the probe pin (PA) has a base end (PAd) and a connecting portion (PAp), the connecting portion (PAp) is disposed between the tip portion (PAr) and the base end portion (PAd).
The combination of ISHII et al, Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. fails to specifically teach the connecting portion contacts an inner wall surface of the second opening when a central axis of the probe pin is inclined with respect to the first direction. Watanabe et al. teaches the connecting portion (41) contacts an inner wall surface of the second opening when a central axis of the probe pin (35) is inclined with respect to the first direction (as shown in fig. 2A-2C).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the connecting portion contact an inner wall surface of the second opening when a central axis of the probe pin is inclined with respect to the first direction as taught by Watanabe et al. with the invention of the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Sajiro et al. in order to have additional flexibility and avoiding damage to the probe pin.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340976), Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) and Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sinclair (US Pat. 6,937,045).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 12.
The combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. fails to specifically teach wherein a difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide is smaller than a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening and an outer diameter of the probe pin. However, Sinclair teaches wherein a difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide (102) is smaller than a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening (106) and an outer diameter of the probe pin (40) (as shown in fig. 9).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide smaller than a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening and an outer diameter of the probe pin as taught by Sinclair with the invention of the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. in order to provide more freedom of movement to the probe pin.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340976), Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) and Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of BURNS et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0229091).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 12, in addition, ISHII et al. teaches a base end (PAd); and a connecting portion (PAp), wherein the connecting portion (PAp) connects the tip portion (PAr) and the base end (PAd) (as shown in fig. 7).
The combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. fails to specifically teach a maximum value of an outer diameter of the tip portion is 150 micrometers or more and less than 160 micrometers. However, BURNS et al. teaches a maximum value of an outer diameter of the tip portion (202) is 150 micrometers or more and less than 160 micrometers (as disclosed in para. 0027).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the maximum value of an outer diameter of the tip portion is 150 micrometers or more and less than 160 micrometers as taught by BURNS et al. with the invention of the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. in order to ensure accurate contact with the terminal.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0340976), Watanabe et al. (US Pat. 6,464,511) and Saijo et al. (US PGPUB 2001/0023140) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mardi et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0128950).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. teaches the limitations of claim 12.
The combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the tip portion contacts the external terminal with a load of 0.27N or more and less than 0.31N. However, Mardi et al. teaches wherein the tip portion (714) contacts the external terminal with a load of 0.27N or more and less than 0.31N (as disclosed in para. 0097).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the tip portion contacts the external terminal with a load of 0.27N or more and less than 0.31N as taught by Mardi et al. with the invention of the combination of ISHII et al., Watanabe et al. and Saijo et al. in order to apply sufficient pressure to make proper contact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 14 and 19 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 3, the prior art fails to specifically teach a semiconductor test apparatus comprising: wherein a value obtained by dividing by 2 a difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide is 7.5 micrometers or more and less than 17.5 micrometers, and a value obtained by dividing by 2 a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening and an outer diameter of the probe pin is 17.5 micrometers or more and less than 32.5 micrometers, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to specifically teach a semiconductor test apparatus comprising: wherein the probe pin and the probe guide are movable at a distance of 450 micrometers or more and 500 micrometers or less in the first direction, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to specifically teach a manufacturing method of a semiconductor device, comprising: wherein a value obtained by dividing by 2 a difference between an inner diameter of the first opening and an outer diameter of the probe guide is 7.5 micrometers or more and less than 17.5 micrometers, and a value obtained by dividing by 2 a difference between an inner diameter of the second opening and an outer diameter of the probe pin is 17.5 micrometers or more and less than 32.5 micrometers, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to specifically teach a manufacturing method of a semiconductor device, comprising: wherein the probe pin has a base end and a connecting portion, the connecting portion is disposed between the tip portion and the base end, an outer diameter of the connecting portion is equal to or greater than a maximum value of an outer diameter of the base end and equal to or less than a maximum value of the outer diameter of the tip portion, the second opening has a first portion extending from the second end toward the first end, and a second portion extending from the first portion to the first end, and an inner diameter of the second portion is larger than the outer diameter of the connecting portion and smaller than a maximum value of the outer diameter of the base end, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights