DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation semiconductor components, and the claim also recites such as wafers or chips which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
It is unclear in claims 6-7 which holes (holes of claim 1 or claim 5) are being referred to. For examination purposes the language will be interpreted as any holes.
It is unclear in claims 9 and 16 which holes (holes of claim 1 or claim 8) are being referred to. For examination purposes the language will be interpreted as any holes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 9, 11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bayer (U.S. Patent No. 4843315). Bayer teaches a device for electrically testing semiconductor components (col. 1, lines 7-18), such as wafers or chips (column 1, lines 15-18), the device comprising: a test head (figures 1 and 2, reference signs 1, 1a and 2 are part of a test head which tests the semiconductor 5); a plurality of test needles (figures 1 and 2, reference sign 2) extending from the test head; a guide plate arranged so that the test needles are movably guided in holes of the guide plate (figures 1 and 2, reference sign 1)(column 1, lines 62-65) and protrude beyond the guide plate (see the tips of the needle projecting beyond reference sign 1 in figures 1 and 2) in a direction of the semiconductor component to be tested; and a protective plate (figures 1 and 2, reference sign 1a; see also column 2, lines 35-42 with regard to the protective function of the plate 1a) provided on the guide plate.
Regarding claim 2, the protective plate (bottom 1a, fig. 1) is fastened to a surface of the guide plate (top 1a) facing the semiconductor component to be tested. (col. 2, lines 48-49 for example).
Regarding claim 11, col. 2, lines 28-32 disclose the protective plate comprises electrically insulating material.
Regarding claim 13, figs. 1-2 show the test needles are received in holes
Regarding claim 14, the holes are configured so that the test needles pass through the holes with a clearance is implicit since the test needles are disclosed as passing through the holes.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, 8-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (U.S. Patent No. 4843315). Bayer teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the protective plate is fastened to the guide plate outside a region in which the test needles are provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize fastening outside a region in which the test needles are provided for the purpose of avoiding interference with the test needles. Additionally, there are two possibilities, fastening inside or outside a region in which the test needles are provided. Given the limited number of possibilities It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize to utilize fastening outside a region in which the test needles are provided. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 5, bolts/screws securing the plates outside the region in which the test needles are provided would also result in holes in the protective plate around the region in which the test needles are provided. Regarding claim 8, this would be in a region of an outer edge of the protective plate.
Regarding claim 6, fig. 3 of Bayer teaches slot shaped holes.
Regarding claim 9, col. 2, lines 42-44 disclose the holes are circular.
Regarding claim 10, Bayer teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for explicitly stating the protective plate is fastened to the guide plate outside a region in which the test needles are provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize fastening outside a region in which the test needles are provided for the purpose of avoiding interference with the test needles. Additionally, there are two possibilities, fastening inside or outside a region in which the test needles are provided. Given the limited number of possibilities It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize to utilize fastening outside a region in which the test needles are provided. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 16, fig. 3 of Bayer teaches slot shaped holes
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (U.S. Patent No. 4843315) in view of Slutz (U.S. Patent No. 6005405). Regarding claim 4, Bayer teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for an adhesive securing the protective plate to the guide plate. Slutz teaches in col. 4, lines 8-9 that it was known to use adhesive for securing the plates (” RTV or a similar adhesive may be used to glue the plates”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Slutz for the purpose of keeping the plates flexibly secured.
Regarding claim 15, Bayer teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the protective plate extends over an entire surface of the test head facing the semiconductor component to be tested. Slutz teaches in fig. 3 that it was known use the protective plate extending over an entire surface of the test head facing the semiconductor component to be tested. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Slutz for the purpose of maximum protection.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (U.S. Patent No. 4843315) in view of Miki (JP2000241454). Bayer teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the protective plate comprises elastic material. Miki teaches that at least part of the protective sheet “can be made of a resin material having elasticity”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Miki for the purpose of coping with thermal expansion.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (U.S. Patent No. 4843315) in view of Beaman (U.S. Publication No. 20080121879). Bayer teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the test head is a vertical probe card. Beaman teaches a vertical probe card. See the figures and claim 60 for examples. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Beaman for the purpose of faster testing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu (CN202110458967) teaches a probe card device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights