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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
It is noted that the drawing objection related to claim 25 was raised in the previous Office Action mailed 4/9/2026, however, the Applicant did not present any arguments related to Claim 25.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ‘spring probes or pogo pins’ recited in claim 25, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 depends from Claim 20, which requires compliant pins to be elastomeric pins. Claim 25 recites the compliant pins are ‘spring probes’ or ‘pogo-pins’. It is not clear, if the elastomeric compliant pins could be pogo-pins, as the pogo-pins contains coil spring (see Rathburn ‘067 reference).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-14, 17-20, 26, 27 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose a socket comprising a substrate with opening, and first and second recesses and a hole through the substrate, an elastomeric pin with first and second heads, the first head having an uppermost surface below the first surface of the substrate, and the second head having a bottommost surface above the second surface of the substrate, and wherein a diameter of the first head and a diameter of the second head are greater than a diameter of the hole through the substrate.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose a socket comprising a substrate and a blind recess, a first and second elastomeric pins inserted into recesses, wherein a first pad is below the first elastomeric pin and a second pad is above the second elastomeric pin, and wherein the first pad and the second pad form a capacitor.
Regarding Claim 20, the prior art of record does not disclose a die, a package substrate, a socket comprising compliant pins, wherein the elastomeric pins are positioned in openings through the socket substrate, and wherein the elastomeric pins are surrounded by conductive vias; and a board coupled to the socket.
Regarding Claim 26, the prior art of record does not disclose a substrate with first and second recesses, a through hole coupling he recesses, and an elastomeric pin inserted into the opening. In addition, the claim recites, wherein a diameter of the first head and a diameter of the second head are greater than a diameter of the hole through the substrate, wherein a plurality of vias through the substrate surround a perimeter of the elastomeric pin.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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.
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
