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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 2025-12-19 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-12, and 18-25 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1-8, 11-12, and 18-19 have been amended. Claim(s) 13-17 have been canceled. Claim(s) 21-25 has/have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-12-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references anticipate or suggest the arrangement of the amended claim 1. Applicant used Figure 3 of Wu to show that the arrangement of the amended claim is taught not by Wu.
The examiner respectfully disagrees, Wu does teach the amended claim 1 as best it is understood by the examiner (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection below for interpretation). Specifically, the annotated Figure 4 of Wu as shown in the previous office action, and further annotated in this office action below teaches the features of the amended claim. Refer to 35 USC 103 rejection below for more detail.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 18, and 21 contains a typographical error in the final limitation of the claims. The word “impedance” is misspelled as “impendence” in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 18-25 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.
Claim 1 states, “the pin block has a second permittivity that is less than the first permittivity…” in lines 12-13. It is unclear what is meant by the “pin block has a second permittivity”, in the claims it states “the pin block is formed from a material having a first permittivity” so it is not clear how the pin block can also have a second permittivity if there is no such material with the second permittivity from which at least part of the pin block is also formed. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the second permittivity to refer to the gaps between the pin, identified as the cavity in the instant specification. In other words, the examiner interprets this claim to mean the second permittivity exists within the confines of the pin block but may not be part of the actual physical pin block.
Additionally, Claim 1 states “rectangular wall of material” in line 9. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 2 states “rectangular wall of material” in line 2. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 3 states “rectangular wall of material” in line 6. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 5 states “rectangular wall of material” in line 3. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 7 states “rectangular wall of material” in line 5. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 8 states “rectangular wall of material” in line 3. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 1. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Additionally, Claim 8 states “the rectangular wall of material has a permittivity between the first permittivity and permittivity of air” in line 3. It is unclear how the permittivity of the wall of material can differ from the material as initiated in the independent claim 1. Since the wall of material has not been differentiated in the claim as being different from the material with a first permittivity in claim 1 this claim is indefinite as it is not clear if these materials should be different. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim to read – the rectangular wall if formed from a second material having a permittivity… --
Claim 18 states “rectangular wall of material” and “wall of material” in lines 6 and 15. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 18. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Additionally, Claim 18 states “the pin block has a second permittivity that is less than the first permittivity…” in line 18. It is unclear what is meant by the “pin block has a second permittivity”, in the claims it states “the pin block is formed from a material having a first permittivity” so it is not clear how the pin block can also have a second permittivity if there is no such material with the second permittivity from which at least part of the pin block is also formed. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the second permittivity to refer to the gaps between the pin, identified as the cavity in the instant specification. In other words, the examiner interprets this claim to mean the second permittivity exists within the confines of the pin block but may not be part of the actual physical pin block.
Claim 19 states “wall of material” in line 1. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 18. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 21 states “wall of material” in lines 16-17. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 21. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Additionally, Claim 21 states “a third differential pin pair extending in the first direction, adjacent to the first differential pin pair in the first direction and adjacent to the first differential pin pair in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction” in lines 10-12. It is unclear how a pin pair can be adjacent to the first pin pair in a first direction, and adjacent to the same pin pair in the second direction orthogonal to the first. It seems from the figures that a pin pair can only be adjacent to another pin pair in either a first direction or a second direction and not both. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this claim such that if a third differential pin pair is adjacent to a first differential pin pair in either direction it will be sufficient to read on the claim.
Additionally, Claim 21 states “the pin block has a second permittivity that is less than the first permittivity…” in claim 21 line 20. It is unclear what is meant by the “pin block has a second permittivity”, in the claims it states “the pin block is formed from a material having a first permittivity” so it is not clear how the pin block can also have a second permittivity if there is no such material with the second permittivity from which at least part of the pin block is also formed. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the second permittivity to refer to the gaps between the pin, identified as the cavity in the instant specification. In other words, the examiner interprets this claim to mean the second permittivity exists within the confines of the pin block but may not be part of the actual physical pin block.
Claim 22 states “wall of material” in line 1, claim 23 lines 6-7, claim 25 lines 3 and 5. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 21. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 23 states “wall of material” in lines 6-7, claim 25 lines 3 and 5. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 21. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Claim 25 states “wall of material” in lines 3 and 5. It is unclear if the material mentioned in these claims is the same as the material from which the pin block is formed as initiated in the independent claim 21. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret this such that any material will be sufficient to read on these claims.
Regarding Claims 2-12, 18-20, and 22-25, These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 18, 21, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US-20060284634-A1) in view of Lee (US-20160356842-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches a pin block formed from a material having a first permittivity (Fig 1-5: insulating body, 122/222/322); and
pins disposed in the pin block in a lattice of predetermined locations (Fig 3 shows a lattice of pins within the insulating body, Fig 4-5 are partial cross section views of the socket which shows only one column), the pins extending completely through the pin block to provide electrical contact to an electronic package disposed on the pin block (Fig 1 shows the pins extending entirely through the insulating body to connect to contacts of electronic package, 10), the pins including differential pin pairs (Para [0028] teaches the pins may be configured as differential signal pairs),
wherein each differential pin pair has a first pin and a second pin extending in a first direction from the first pin (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
adjacent differential pin pairs in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction are separated by a rectangular wall of material that extends in the first direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
differential pin pairs that are adjacent to each other in the first direction are separated by a medium having a single permittivity (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu, the air gap between the pins), and
the pin block has a second permittivity that is less than the first permittivity (Fig 3-5: low dielectric constant region, 122b/222b/322b, Para [0026] teaches the dielectric constant in the regions 122b is lower than in the rest of the insulating body, 122) to reduce a differential impendence of at least some of the differential pin pairs (Para [0028] teaches improving the impedance continuity between a differential signal pair of pins).
Wu does not explicitly teach the pins disposed with a fine pitch. However, Lee teaches pins in a fine pitch (Para [0048] teaches pins with a fine pitch of 0.5 mm). Therefore, 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 pitch of Wu, to have the dimensions of Lee. A motivation for this is miniaturizing components is increasingly more popular an necessary.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 of Wu
Regarding Claim 4, Wu further teaches pins of each of the differential pin pairs are separated by the medium having the single permittivity (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu further teaches an air buffer extends in the second direction between the pins of the adjacent differential pin pairs and the rectangular wall of material (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu further teaches the air buffer extends in the second direction entirely between each of the pins of the adjacent differential pin pairs and the rectangular wall of material (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu).
Regarding Claim 12, Wu further teaches the pin block is formed from alternating solid layers of the material and hollow layers of the material (can be seen in Fig 4, a vertical slice of the pin block through the space that the pins occupy would have solid and hollow layers).
Regarding Claim 18, Wu teaches forming a pin block from a material having a first permittivity (Fig 1-5: insulating body, 122/222/322), forming of the pin block comprising:
providing openings for pins to extend completely through the pin block at predetermined locations (Fig 3 shows a lattice of pins within the insulating body, Fig 4-5 are partial cross section views of the socket which shows only one column, Fig 1 shows the pins, 124a, in openings);
forming a wall of material between at least some of the openings (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu); and
inserting the pins into the openings to enable electrical contact to an electronic package (Fig 1 shows contact between devices 10 and 110, through contacts 14 and 114), wherein:
the pins include pins of differential pin pairs (Para [0028] teaches the pins may be configured as differential signal pairs),
each differential pin pair has a first pin and a second pin extending in a first direction from the first pin (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
adjacent differential pin pairs in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction are separated by a rectangular wall of material that extends in the first direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
differential pin pairs that are adjacent to each other in the first direction are separated by a medium having a single permittivity (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu), and
the pin block has a second permittivity that is less than the first permittivity (Fig 3-5: low dielectric constant region, 122b/222b/322b, Para [0026] teaches the dielectric constant in the regions 122b is lower than in the rest of the insulating body, 122) to reduce a differential impendence of at least some of the differential pin pairs (Para [0028] teaches improving the impedance continuity between a differential signal pair of pins).
Wu does not teach fine pitch openings for pins. However, Lee teaches fine pitch openings for pins (Para [0048] teaches pins with a fine pitch of 0.5 mm). Therefore, 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 pitch of Wu, to have the dimensions of Lee. A motivation for this is miniaturizing components is increasingly more popular an necessary.
Regarding Claim 21, Wu teaches
a pin block formed from a material having a first permittivity (Fig 1-5: insulating body, 122/222/322); and
pins disposed in the pin block in a lattice of predetermined locations (Fig 3 shows a lattice of pins within the insulating body, Fig 4-5 are partial cross section views of the socket which shows only one column), the pins extending completely through the pin block to provide electrical contact to an electronic package disposed on the pin block (Fig 1 shows the pins extending entirely through the insulating body to connect to contacts of electronic package, 10), the pins including differential pin pairs (Para [0028] teaches the pins may be configured as differential signal pairs),
wherein the pins include:
a first differential pin pair extending in a first direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
a second differential pin pair extending in the first direction and adjacent to the first differential pin pair in the first direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
a third differential pin pair extending in the first direction, adjacent to the first differential pin pair in the first direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu) and adjacent to the first differential pin pair in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu, Refer to the 35 USC 112b rejection for examiner's interpretation of the claim),
a fourth differential pin pair extending in the first direction, adjacent to the third differential pin pair in the first direction, and adjacent to the second differential pin pair in the second direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
the first differential pin pair and the third differential pin pair are separated by a wall of material extending in the first direction (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu),
the first differential pin pair and the second differential pin pair are separated by a medium having a single permittivity (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu), and
the pin block has a second permittivity that is less than the first permittivity (Fig 3-5: low dielectric constant region, 122b/222b/322b, Para [0026] teaches the dielectric constant in the regions 122b is lower than in the rest of the insulating body, 122) to reduce a differential impendence of at least some of the first, second, third, and fourth differential pin pairs (Para [0028] teaches improving the impedance continuity between a differential signal pair of pins).
Wu does not explicitly teach the pins disposed with a fine pitch. However, Lee teaches pins in a fine pitch (Para [0048] teaches pins with a fine pitch of 0.5 mm). Therefore, 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 pitch of Wu, to have the dimensions of Lee. A motivation for this is miniaturizing components is increasingly more popular an necessary.
Regarding Claim 24, Wu further teaches a first air buffer encircles a first pin of the first differential pin pair, and a second air buffer encircles a first pin of the third differential pin pair (The air buffer in Fig 4 can be seen to encircle the pins).
Regarding Claim 25, Wu further teaches the first air buffer extends in the second direction entirely between the first pin of the first differential pin pair and the wall of material (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu), and the second air buffer extends in the second direction entirely between the first pin of the third differential pin pair and the wall of material (Can be seen in the annotated Figure 4 of Wu).
Claims 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee in further view of Jin Cheong Deok (KR-102059515-B1, see attached machine translation in previous office action for references cited).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu in view of Lee does not explicitly teach a non-conductive layer surrounds each of the pins of the adjacent differential pin pairs such that the non-conductive layer is disposed between the pin and the air buffer. However, Jin Cheong Deok teaches a non-conductive layer surrounds each of the pins of the adjacent differential pin pairs such that the non-conductive layer is disposed between the pin and the air buffer (Para [0024] with reference to Fig 3 teaches the coating portion, 202, of the probe needle, 200, prevents short circuiting of the adjacent probe needles, thus the coating portion is a non-conductive layer). Therefore, 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 pins of the combination to include the non-conductive layer of Jin Cheong Deok. A motivation for this modification is to prevent pins from inadvertently shorting as taught by Deok in Para [0024].
Regarding Claim 9, Wu in view of Lee teaches the pin block comprises a cavity in which the pins are disposed, the cavity defined by walls connected by a base (Refer to annotated Figure 1 of Wu) that retains one end of the pins (Figs 1-5 show a cavity defined by walls that the pins are in), and
the apparatus further comprises:
a pin retainer configured to retain another end of the pins (Refer to annotated Figure 1 of Wu).
Wu in view of Lee does not teach a shim disposed between the pin block and the pin retainer, the shim configured to provide mechanical support for the pins. However, Jin Cheong Deok teaches a shim disposed between the pin block and the pin retainer, the shim configured to provide mechanical support for the pins (Fig 3: correction module, 700. Para [0031] teaches the correction module corrects probe bending, therefore supporting the probes between the upper and lower frames.). Therefore, 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 apparatus of Wu in view of Lee to incorporate the supporting module of Jin Cheong Deok. A motivation for this modification is to support the probes to prevent bending as taught by Jin Cheong Deok in paragraph [0031].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wu in view of Lee in view of Jin Cheong Deok, as presented with respect to claim 9, teaches the apparatus comprises a plurality of shims separated from each other by a first separator disposed between edges of the plurality of shims (Deok - Fig 3 shows the correction module contains a plurality of individual shims (calibration block), 710, these a visibly separated from each other and the ),
a first shim of the plurality of shims separated from the pin block by a second separator disposed between edges of the first shim and edges of the pin block (Deok - Fig 3 shows the shims, 710, are separated from the pin block (frame), 401), and
a second shim of the plurality of shims separated from the pin retainer by a third separator disposed between edges of the second shim and edges of the pin retainer (Deok - Fig 3 shows the shim, 710, separated from the pin retainer by the vertical prongs of the U-shaped subframe, 302. The horizontal portion of the subframe being the portion retaining the pins). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee in further view of Nakayama et al. (US-20100041251-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wu in view of Lee does not teach the pin block is formed from a shielding material. However, Nakayama teaches the pin block is formed from a shielding material (Para [0087] teaches the pin block (holder substrate, 71) blocks electromagnetic waves). Therefore, 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 material of Wu, to be a shielding material of Nakayama. A motivation for this modification is to block electromagnetic waves as taught by Nakayama in paragraph [0087].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Lee in further view of Xie et al. (Refer to attached NPL document).
Regarding Claim 20, Wu in view of Lee does not teach wherein forming the pin block comprises printing alternating thin and hollow layers that contain the openings. However, Xie teaches printing alternating thin and hollow layers that contain openings (Page 3, 2nd column, last paragraph teaches 3d-printing channels which are then injected with liquid metal, it would be necessary for the apparatus to alternate between solid and hollow layers which the liquid metal is injected into). Therefore, 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 forming of the pin block of Wu in view of Lee to be printed as taught in Xie. A motivation for this modification is printing allows a great degree of flexibility in geometric designs as taught in Xie on page 2, column 1, 2nd paragraph.
PNG
media_image2.png
558
545
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 of Wu
Conclusion
It is noted that no prior art rejection is applied to claims 2-3, 8, 19 and 22-23.
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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858