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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 3 recites “plurality of packaged devices under test (DUTs)” while line 9 recites “plurality of DUTs”. For clarity and consistency, line 9 should recite “plurality of packaged DUTs”. The same modification should be made in claims 2, 17 and 20.
Regarding claim 6, line 3 recites “the one or more pistons”. Claim 4, from which claim 6 depends recites “plurality of pistons” in line 3. For clarity and consistency, claim 6, line 3 should recite “the plurality of pistons”.
Claims 2-5 and 7-21 depending from claims 1 or 6 are objected for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0176515).
Regarding claim 1, Lopez et al. teaches a thermal control system (100) comprising: one or more thermal heads (100a) configured to simultaneously control a temperature of a plurality of packaged devices under test (DUTs) (10) (as disclosed in para. 0052), at least one of the thermal heads (100a) comprising: one or more heat exchanger assemblies (HEAs) (390) configured to heat or cool one or more piston block assemblies (PBAs) (200, 300) (as shown in fig. 2A-8B and disclosed in para. 0068, 0075 and 0080-0081); wherein the one or more PBAs (200, 300) are configured to apply force to one or more plate assemblies (400) and transfer heat or cooling to the one or more plate assemblies (as disclosed in para. 0065); and wherein the one or more plate assemblies (400) are configured to heat or cool the plurality of DUTs (as disclosed in para. 0068).
Regarding claim 3, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lopez et al. teaches wherein at least one of the one or more HEAs (390) comprise one or more of: a liquid-cooled cold plate, a cooling medium (as disclosed in para. 0080), a Peltier device, or a heat exchanger configured to adjust one or more temperatures of the one or more HEAs.
Regarding claim 4, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lopez et al. teaches wherein at least one of the PBAs (200, 300) comprises one or more piston blocks (200), at least one of the one or more piston blocks comprising a plurality of pistons (220).
Regarding claim 16, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lopez et al. teaches one or more convective flow channels (340a, 314 and 340b) configured to carry temperature conditioned air (as shown in fig. 6-7 and disclosed in para. 0075 and 0080).
Regarding claim 17, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lopez et al. teaches one or more conductive temperature conditioning structures (410) including one or more internal fluid channels (channels where 410 are positioned, as shown in fig. 3) configured to transfer heat to or from one or more structures configured to support or electrically couple the DUTs (10) (as disclosed in para. 0061).
Regarding claim 18, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lopez et al. teaches one or more internal fluid-delivery pathways (340a, 314 and 340b) configured to route temperature conditioned fluid to one or more temperature-conditioning structures (300) (as shown in fig. 6-7 and disclosed in para. 0075).
Regarding claim 19, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lopez et al. teaches one or more thermal controllers (610) configured to control a temperature of the one or more thermal heads (100a) (as disclosed in para. 0081).
Regarding claim 21, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, Lopez et al. teaches a thermal conditioning subsystem (500) configured to supply temperature conditioned fluid to the one or more HEAs (390) (as shown in fig. 6-7).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0176515) in view of KIM et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0026485).
Regarding claim 2, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Lopez et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the plurality of DUTs comprises more than 32 DUTs. However, KIM et al. teaches wherein the plurality of DUTs comprises more than 32 DUTs (as shown in fig. 1-2).
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 plurality of DUTs comprise more than 32 DUTs as taught by KIM et al. with the invention of Lopez et al. in order to simultaneously and efficiently inspect a highly desired number of devices.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0176515) in view of WAKE (WO 2016/031794 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Lopez et al. fails to specifically teach wherein at least one of the PBAs comprises one or more seal rings. However, WAKE teaches wherein at least one of the PBAs comprises one or more seal rings (35) (as shown in fig. 6).
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 at least one of the PBAs comprise one or more seal rings as taught by WAKE with the invention of Lopez et al. in order to prevent fluid leakage.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0176515) in view of Kabbani et al. (US Pat. 12,000,885).
Regarding claim 13, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Lopez et al. fails to specifically teach a demultiplexer configured to control a temperature of a plurality of zones of the one or more thermal heads. However, Kabbani et al. teaches a demultiplexer (2000) configured to control a temperature of a plurality of zones of the one or more thermal heads (as shown in fig. 20 and disclosed in col. 31, lines 25-42).
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 demultiplexer configured to control a temperature of a plurality of zones of the one or more thermal heads as taught by Kabbani et al. with the invention of Lopez et al. in order to allow variable time increases in heater zone power densities with each heater zone having its own thermal channel (Kabbani et al. col. 32, lines 28-34).
Regarding claim 20, Lopez et al. teaches the limitations of claim 19.
Lopez et al. fails to specifically teach wherein the one or more thermal controllers comprise one or more Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) and a plurality of demultiplexed channels configured to control the temperature of the plurality of DUTs. However, Kabbani et al. teaches wherein the one or more thermal controllers comprise one or more Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) (1875) and a plurality of demultiplexed channels (2020v) configured to control the temperature of the plurality of DUTs (1605A) (as shown in fig. 16A-20).
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 one or more thermal controllers comprise one or more Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) and a plurality of demultiplexed channels configured to control the temperature of the plurality of DUTs as taught by Kabbani et al. with the invention of Lopez et al. in order to have accuracy and precision (Kabbani et al. col. 29, lines 4-21), as well as, allow variable time increases in heater zone power densities with each heater zone having its own thermal channel (Kabbani et al. col. 32, lines 28-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6-7, the prior art fails to specifically teach a thermal control system comprising: wherein at least one of the one or more piston blocks further comprises one or more pivots comprising a curved surface configured to fit against a curved surface of the one or more pistons, wherein the one or more pivots are configured to rotate to apply constant force to a receiving surface of at least one of the one or more plate assemblies, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 8-12, the prior art fails to specifically teach a thermal control system comprising: wherein at least one of the one of more plate assemblies comprises: one or more pusher blocks, at least one of the one or more pusher blocks comprises one or more mandrels; one or more pedestals attached to the one or more pusher blocks; and one or more flex film heaters, wherein the one or more flex film heaters are flexible and configured to transfer heat to at least one of the one or more pusher blocks, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claims 14-15, the prior art fails to specifically teach a thermal control system comprising: wherein at least one of the one or more plate assemblies comprises: one or more pusher blocks; one or more pedestals attached to the one or more pusher blocks; one or more rigid heaters positioned between the one or more pusher blocks and the one or more pedestals, wherein the one or more rigid heaters are configured to heat the one or more pedestals; and one or more flex cables or wires electrically coupled to the one or more rigid heaters, wherein the one or more flex cables or wires are configured to supply voltages or currents to the one or more rigid heaters, in combination with all the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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