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 October 4, 2022, and January 24, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on May 7, 2026, has been received and made of record. Claims 1, 3-12, 14-21, 32, and 44-45 are pending. Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 14 have been amended. Claim 2 is now canceled. Claims 13, 22-31, and 33-43 were canceled by way of previous amendment. Claims 21, 32, & 44-45 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment to the Claim(s) have overcome each and every U.S.C. §112(b) rejection(s) set forth in the Final Office Action mailed January 7, 2026, hereafter referred to as the Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, please see pp. 9-12 of Applicant remarks, filed May 7, 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of amended independent claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ota et al. (US 20220026481 A1, Fil. Date Dec. 19, 2019, hereinafter, Ota), in view of Kaida et al. (US 20190353684 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 21, 2019, hereinafter, Kaida), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. New ground(s) of rejections have been made in view of Chung (US 2008/0278188 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 13, 2008), Garabedian et al. (US 2007/0057685 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 15, 2007), in view of Foster et al. (US 2005/0062464 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 24, 2005), and further in view of Bottoms et al. (US 2010/0066393 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 18, 2010), which further teach, disclose, and or suggest amended independent claim 1. Further, the rejection(s) of amended independent claim(s) 1, and dependent claims 3-12 & 14-20, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claim 1, are respectively maintained. Updated rejections based on amended features follow.
In response to the Applicant’s argument, see pp. 9-11 of Applicant remarks, Applicant argues that “these features are not taught or suggested in the prior art”, in regard to amended independent claim 1. The remarks do not provide any specific reason(s) as to why either the findings of fact or legal conclusion of obviousness is allegedly in error. 37 CFR 1.111(b) requires that a proper response to an Office Action must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action. Further, Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations, thus the remarks in response to the findings of fact or legal conclusion of obviousness do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 714.02. In order to avoid an interpretation of the Applicant’s remarks as being non-responsive under MPEP § 714.02, Examiner will interpret Applicant’s response as complete and any rejections that are not expressly addressed in the Remarks dated May 7, 2026 will be treated as proper and not disputed.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, & 14-20 are 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 1 recites “to bond the probes to the MPH in an upright state at the predetermined positions during a bonding process, and to be separated from the MPH after the bonding process,…” in ll. 3-4, where “during a bonding process,... and to be separated from the MPH after the bonding process,…” are not disclosed in the specification. The specification mentions in [0023] “the probes introduced into the guide holes are bonded to the MPH at the positions and then separated along the guide holes…” with no mention of the sequence of “during a bonding process,” or “to be separated from the MPH after the bonding process,…”. Claims 3-12 & 14-20, which do not rectify the defect, are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 2008/0278188 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 13, 2008, hereinafter, Chung), in view of Garabedian et al. (US 2007/0057685 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 15, 2007, hereinafter, Garabedian), in view of Bottoms et al. (US 2010/0066393 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 18, 2010, hereinafter, Bottoms), and further in view of Foster et al. (US 2005/0062464 A1, Pub. Date Mar. 24, 2005, hereinafter, Foster).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chung, teaches:
A jig of manufacturing a probe card (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]: teaches manufacturing a probe card; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]: corroborates and teaches the equivalent structure of a jig (interposer array assembly) used to construct a probe card), the probe card comprising a plurality of probes and a micro probe head (MPH) (Chung: [0034]: teaches a probe card comprising probes and an MPH (space transformer)),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
the jig which is configured to make the plurality of probes upright at predetermined positions, the jig comprises:
a guide hole plate having test coordinates corresponding to positions of a plurality of pads arranged on a wafer or a semiconductor chip, and having a plurality of guide holes respectively accommodating the probes at positions of the test coordinate; and
wherein the guide hole plate includes a lower surface that is closest to a ground when positioned parallel to the ground, an upper surface opposite to the lower surface, and a side surface extending along outer periphery of the upper surface and the lower surface and connecting the upper surface and the lower surface,
wherein the guide hole is hollow communicating vertically from the upper surface to the lower surface including a first opening part formed on the upper surface, a second opening part formed on the lower surface and an inner surface extending between outer periphery of the first opening part and the second opening part,
However, Garabedian, further teaches:
the jig which is configured to make the plurality of probes upright at predetermined positions ([0003], [0006]-[0007], [0014]-[0015], [0017], [0046], [0059]-[0060], [0062], [0064], [0067], [Claim 1], & [Claim 16]: teaches an interposer (equivalent to the jig) comprising a substrate with holes that retain the probe spring elements in an upright position), the jig comprises:
a guide hole plate having test coordinates corresponding to positions of a plurality of pads arranged on a wafer or a semiconductor chip ([0015], [0045], [0047], [0049], [0057]-[0059], [0062], [0064], [0067], [0069]-[0070], [0073], [0090]-[0092], [Claim 16], [Claim 19], [Claim 26], [Claim 35], [Claim 37], [Claim 58], [Claim 63], [Claim 69], & [Claim 71]: teaches a guide hole plate (e.g., interposer substrate 100) forming an array corresponding to test coordinates), and having a plurality of guide holes respectively accommodating the probes at positions of the test coordinate ([0015], [0045], [0047],[0049], [0057]-[0059], [0062], [0064], [0067], [0069]-[0070], [0073], [0090]-[0092], [Claim 16], [Claim 19], [Claim 26], [Claim 35], [Claim 37], [Claim 58], [Claim 63], [Claim 69], & [Claim 71]: teaches the plurality of guide holes (e.g., machined holes 810) accommodating the probes (e.g., spring elements 110)); and
wherein the guide hole plate includes a lower surface that is closest to a ground when positioned parallel to the ground ([Abstract], [0003], [0045], [0052], [0057]-[0058], [0062], [Claim 35], [Claim 37], [Claim 69], & [Claim 71]: teaches a lower surface of the guide hole plate that is closest to the ground when positioned parallel), an upper surface opposite to the lower surface [Abstract], [0003], [0045], [0052], [0057]-[0058], [0062], [Claim 35], [Claim 37], [Claim 69], & [Claim 71]: teaches an upper surface opposite the lower surface), and a side surface extending along outer periphery of the upper surface and the lower surface and connecting the upper surface and the lower surface ([Abstract], [0015], [0017], [0045]-[0046], [0056], [0059]-[0060], [0062], [0064], [0066]-[0067], [0070], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 12], [Claim 33], [Claim 41], [Claim 51], [Claim 72], [Claim 74]: teaches sides side surfaces connecting the upper and lower surfaces, further, a three-dimensional plate must possess an outer perimeter edge),
wherein the guide hole is hollow communicating vertically from the upper surface to the lower surface ([Abstract], [0003], [0007], [0010], [0014]-[0015], [0017], [0045]-[0046], [0049], [0056], [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0062], [0064], [0067]-[0071], [0073], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 15], [Claim 16], [Claim 19], [Claim 21], [Claim 35], [Claim 37], [Claim 52], [Claim 53], [Claim 58], [Claim 59], [Claim 69], & [Claim 71],: teaches the hollow vertical holes extending through the plate) including a first opening part formed on the upper surface ([Abstract], [0015], [0045]-[0046], [0049], [0064], [0067], [0069], [0071], [0073], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], [Claim 19], [Claim 26], [Claim 36], [Claim 38], [Claim 39], [Claim 40], [Claim 41], [Claim 51], [Claim 58], [Claim 63], [Claim 70], [Claim 72], [Claim 73]: teaches a hole opening at the upper surface where the upper portion of the probe extends out), a second opening part formed on the lower surface ([Abstract], [0015], [0045]-[0046], [0049], [0064], [0067], [0069], [0071], [0073], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], [Claim 19], [Claim 26], [Claim 36], [Claim 38], [Claim 39], [Claim 40], [Claim 41], [Claim 51], [Claim 58], [Claim 63], [Claim 70], [Claim 72], & [Claim 73]: teaches the hole opening at the lower surface where the lower portion of the probe extends out) and an inner surface extending between outer periphery of the first opening part and the second opening part ([Abstract], [0015], [0017], [0045]-[0046], [0049], [0056], [0059]-[0060], [0062], [0064], [0066]-[0067], [0069], [0070]-[0071], [0073], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 1], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], [Claim 19], [Claim 26], [Claim 33], [Claim 36], [Claim 38], [Claim 39], [Claim 40], [Claim 41], [Claim 51], [Claim 58], [Claim 63], [Claim 70], [Claim 72], [Claim 73], & [Claim 74]: teaches the inner walls of the via 120 connecting the top and bottom openings, Fig. 3 illustrates the internal vertical boundaries/walls of the via 120 spanning from surface 100A to 100B),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the probe card fabrication of Chung to utilize the mechanical guide hole plate taught by Garabedian to hold the probes during the bonding process. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize the precision and reliability of the probe assembly process. A manufacturer utilizing Chung’s method to bond high-density arrays of microscopic probes would recognize that relying on a transfer apparatus (e.g., vacuum chuck) and epoxy flow to keep the probes upright and aligned on the X-Y axis is difficult and prone to shifting. Therefore, the manufacturer would look to known mechanical alignment tools in the art, such as Garabedian’s guide hole plate. Incorporating Garabedian’s guide hole plate into Chung’s assembly workflow, the manufacturer gains the predictable engineering advantage of a physical template that supports every single probe laterally. This ensures that the probes do not tilt or shift out of their exact test coordinates while they are bonded to the MPH, yielding an accurate, reliable, and mass-producible probe card (KSR).
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, are silent in regard to:
to bond the probes to the MPH in an upright state at the predetermined positions during a bonding process, and to be separated from the MPH after the bonding process,
wherein the guide hole plate induces introduction and separation of the probes along inner surfaces of the guide holes, so that the probes introduced into the guide holes are bonded to the MPH at the positions and then separated along the guide holes,
so that the probes introduced into the guide holes are bonded to the MPH at the positions and then separated along the guide holes,
However, Chung, in combination with Bottoms, further teach:
to bond the probes to the MPH in an upright state at the predetermined positions during a bonding process (Chung: [0064]: teaches placing probes at predetermined positions and mounting them; Bottoms: [Abstract], [0014], [0028], [0078]-[0079], & [0082]: teaches bonding probes step to a final contactor substrate 30 (constitutes the MPH)),
so that the probes introduced into the guide holes are bonded to the MPH at the positions and then separated along the guide holes (Chung: [0060] & [0062]-[0064]; Bottoms: [Abstract], [0014], [0028], [0070], [0077]-[0080], [0082]-[0084], [0090], [0162], [0177 ]-0172]: teaches bonding the hold probes and separating the temporary jig (temporary substrate 63)),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the probe card fabrication method of Chung to incorporate the temporary holding and separation methodology taught by Bottoms. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize the mass-production and alignment stability of the probe card assembly. A manufacturer utilizing Chung’s method would recognize that relying on a vacuum chuck to transfer and hold high-density, microscopic probes individually or in small clusters during an adhesive curing or bonding process is susceptible to alignment shifting and is time-consuming. To solve this, a POSITA would look to known batch-transfer methodologies in the art, such as the temporary substrate technique taught by Bottoms. By temporarily holding the entire array of probes in a separable jig during the bonding phase, the manufacturer gains the predictable advantage/results of securing all probes simultaneously in perfect X-Y-Z alignment against the MPH while the bond sets. Once the bond Is secure, removing the temporary jig, as taught by Bottoms, leaves behind a perfectly aligned, permanently bonded probe array, increasing the manufacturing throughput, reducing alignment errors, and improving the overall yield of the completed probe cards (KSR).
However, Garabedian, in combination with Bottoms, further teach:
wherein the guide hole plate induces introduction and separation of the probes along inner surfaces of the guide holes (Garabedian: [0015], [0049], [0054], [0056], [0058]-[0059], [0061]-[0062], [0064], [0067], [0069]-[0071], [0073], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 19], [Claim 26], [Claim 35], [Claim 37], [Claim 63], [Claim 69], & [Claim 71]: teaches the holes and accept the probes; Bottoms: [Abstract], [0028], [0070]-[0071], [0082]-[0084], [0087]-[0088], [0092]-[0093], [0095], [0111], [0114], [0116]-[0117], [0124], [0128]-[0129], [0132]-[0135], [0143]-[0144], [0147], [0155], [0157]-[0159], [0167], [0162],[0164], [0168]-[0169], [0175], [0177], [0179], & [0194]: teaches the ability to separate the probes from the temporary substrate),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the probe alignment apparatus of Garabedian to be utilized as the temporary, separable manufacturing jig in the batch-bonding methodology taught by Bottoms. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize the mass-production, alignment stability, and yield of high-density probe cards. A manufacturer looking to execute the temporary batch-transfer and bonding method of Bottoms would require a reliable tool to hold the microscopic probes in perfect alignment during the transfer phase. Utilizing the guide hole plate structure of Garabedian as the temporary substrate provides the predictable engineering advantage of securely gripping every single probe laterally. This ensures that the probes do not tilt or shift out of their strict upright orientations and precise test coordinates while the adhesive or bonding agent cures against the MPH. Once the bond is secure, separating Garabedian’s guide hole plate, as taught by Bottoms temporary substrate method, leaves behind a perfectly aligned, permanently bonded probe array, streamlining manufacturing throughput and reducing alignment errors (KSR).
However, Bottoms, further teaches:
and to be separated from the MPH after the bonding process ([0014], [0070], [0082], [0084], [0177], & [0179]: teaches separating the temporary jig structure after bonding),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the probe alignment assembly of the Chung/Garabedian/ Foster combination to function as the temporary, separable manufacturing jig taught by Bottoms. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the temporary mass-transfer methodology of Bottoms to the mechanical alignment jig to optimize the manufacturing workflow and the physical characteristics of the final probe card. A manufacturer would recognize that permanently leaving a heavy, bulky alignment plate attached to the final probe head limits the mechanical flexibility of the probes and adds unnecessary weight/volume to the testing equipment. By utilizing the alignment assembly strictly as a temporary jig, as taught by Bottoms, the manufacturer gains the predictable engineering advantage of holding all probes in perfect X-Y-Z alignment while the bonding agent cures against the MPH, and subsequently separating the jig. This batch-transfer method leaves behind a lightweight, permanently boded probe array on the MPH, while allowing the bulky guide hole jig to be removed, cleaned, and reused for the next batch of probe cards, significantly improving manufacturing efficiency and throughput (KSR).
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, and Bottoms, are silent in regard to:
a reference plate that the guide hole plate is detachably coupled on, that tips of the probes introduced through the guide holes are seated on, and that supports the probes in the upright state along with the guide holes,
wherein the reference plate is closely attached to the lower surface to seal the second opening part so that a probe introduced through the first opening part does not pass through the second opening part and sets an internal space of an open shape with only the first opening part together with the inner surface, and
However, Foster, further teaches:
a reference plate that the guide hole plate is detachably coupled on ([0039]-[0045]: teaches a reference plate 42 that that guide/probe assembly is detachably coupled on via a latching mechanism), that tips of the probes introduced through the guide holes are seated on ([Abstract], [0007], [0036]-[0040], [0044]-[0048], [0050]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [Claim 1], [Claim 10], [Claim 15], [Claim 20], [Claim 23]: teaches seating the probe tips against the reference plate to planarize them),
wherein the reference plate is closely attached to the lower surface to seal the second opening part (Figs. 5 & 6; [0004], [0007], [0034]-[0035], [0039], [0041]-[0050], [0052]-[0057], [Claim 2], & [Claim 14]: teaches closely attaching the planar rigid reference plate against the assembly, which seals the bottom openings of the guide holes, Figs. 5 & 6 illustrate the flat planar surface 44 resting tightly against the underside of the assembly) so that a probe introduced through the first opening part does not pass through the second opening part ([0007], [0034]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [0052]-[0057], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 5], [Claim 6], [Claim 11], [Claim 14], & [Claim 22]: teaches a solid rigid material of the reference plate acts as a physical hard stop, preventing anything from passing through),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the temporary guide hole jig of the Chung/Garabedian/Bottoms combination by detachably coupling it to the planar reference plate of Foster so that the bottom openings of the guide holes are sealed by the planar surface. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to solve the well-known problem of precise coplanarity in mass-produced probe cards. In semiconductor testing, it is critical that all probe tips lie in a perfectly uniform plane so they make simultaneous and reliable electrical contact with a wafer without causing damage. A manufacturer utilizing Garabedian’s guide holes to establish the lateral test coordinates would look to known mechanical planarization tools in the art, such as Foster’s detachable reference plate, to establish the vertical uniform planarity. Attaching Foster’s reference plate to the lower surface of Garabedian’s guide plate seals the second opening part of the holes, creating a “blind hole” jig that physically blocks the probes from passing completely through. This mechanical arrangement forces all inserted probes to seat at the exact same depth. By utilizing this physical hard stop, the manufacturer ensures that when Chung’s permanent boding step is executed, the probe array is perfectly planarized, yielding the reliable and predictable manufacturing result of a uniformly planarized probe array ready for bonding without relying on fluid epoxy control (KSR).
However, Garabedian, in combination with Foster, further teach:
and that supports the probes in the upright state along with the guide holes (Garabedian: [Abstract], [0012], [0014]-[0015], [0045], [0062]-[0064], [0067], [0069], [0071]-[0073], [0090]-[0092], [Claim 1], [Claim 19], [Claim 26], [Claim 37], [Claim 38], [Claim 58], [Claim 63], [Claim 71], [Claim 72]; Foster: [0032], [0034], [0036], [0040]-[0041], [0044], [0050]-[0051]-[0052], [Claim 25]; combined teach the guide holes holding the sides of the probes while the reference plate physically supports them from the bottom),
and sets an internal space of an open shape with only the first opening part together with the inner surface (Garabedian: [0015], [0045], [0048]-[0049], [0057]-[0058], [0062], [0070], [Claim 1], [Claim 14], & [Claim 40]; Foster: [0034]-[0041], [0043]-[0050], [0052]-[0057], [Claim 1], [Claim 4], [Claim 5], [Claim 6], [Claim 11], [Claim 14], & [Claim 22]: the combination teach that by mechanically forcing Foster’s solid planar surface 44 against the bottom opening 100B of Garabedian’s through via 120, the bottom is structurally sealed, resulting in an internal cavity open only at the top surface 100A); and
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the open-ended guide hole plate of Garabedian by detachably coupling it to the planar reference plate of Foster, such that the bottom openings of the guide holes are sealed by the planar surface. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to solve the well-known problem of achieving precise Z-axis coplanarity in high-density probe card manufacturing. A manufacturer utilizing Garabedian’s guide holes to establish the lateral (X-Y axis) test coordinates of the probes would look to known mechanical planarization tools in the art, such as Foster’s rigid detachable reference plate, to establish the vertical (Z-axis) uniform planarity. Attaching Foster’s reference plate closely to the lower surface of Garabedian’s guide plate, seals the lower openings of the guide holes, creating an internal space of an open shape, a “blind hole” open only at the top. This predictable mechanical arrangement acts as a physical hard-stop that prevents the probes from passing completely through the second opening part. By utilizing this combination, the manufacturer forces all inserted probes to seat at the exact same depth within the guide holes, predictably yielding an accurate, uniformly planarized probe array ready for final bonding or testing operations (KSR).
However, Chung, in combination with Foster, further teach:
wherein a planarity based on tips of the plurality of probes is uniform (Chung: [0066]; Foster: [Abstract], [0002], [0007], [0032], [0034], [0037], [0039], [0043]-[0049], [0052]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [Claim 1], [Claim 10], [Claim 14], & [Claim 24]: both references teach establishing uniform planarity across the probe tips).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the probe card fabrication of Chung by incorporating the planar reference plate taught by Foster to set the probe heights during the bonding phase. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize the precision, reliability, and repeatability of the probe assembly process. A manufacturer utilizing Chung’s method to bond high-density arrays of microscopic probes would recognize that relying on the control and fluid dynamics of an uncured epoxy layer to establish Z-axis coplanarity is susceptible to microscopic settling, tilting, or curing variations. To solve this predictable manufacturing tolerance issue, a POSITA would look to known mechanical planarization tools in the art, such as Foster’s reference plate. By mechanically seating the tips of the probes against Foster’s planar reference plate while the epoxy cures on the opposite end, as taught by Chung, the manufacturer gains the predictable engineering advantage of a physical hard-stop. This guarantees vertical uniformity across the entire probe array, eliminating the reliance on fluid epoxy control and resulting in a reliable, predictably planarized probe card (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein the probe introduced through the first opening part is lowered toward the second opening part while in contact with at least a part of the inner surface.
However, Garabedian, further teaches:
wherein the probe introduced through the first opening part is lowered toward the second opening part ([0014]-[0017], [0045]-[0046], [0048]-[0049], [0056]-[0057], [0059]-[0067] ,[0069], [0073], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 36], [Claim 39], [Claim 70], [Claim 73]: teaches inserting the probe elements into the top opening of the via/hole so they extend through the substrate to the bottom opening, this physical act of insertion requires the probe to be lowered from the first (top) opening toward the second (bottom) opening) while in contact with at least a part of the inner surface ([Abstract], [0003], [0006], [0010], [0014]-[0017], [0045]-[0047], [0052]-[0054], [0056]-[0062], [0064], [0066]-[0068], [0072], [0091]-[0092], [Claim 1], [Claim 3], [Claim 5], [Claim 7], [Claim 8], [Claim 9], [Claim 12], [Claim 14], [Claim 18], [Claim 19], [Claim 27], [Claim 28], [Claim 29], [Claim 33], [Claim 40], [Claim 41], [Claim 44], [Claim 46], [Claim 47], [Claim 48], [Claim 51], [Claim 60], [Claim 65], [Claim 70], [Claim 72], [Claim 72], [Claim 73], [Claim 77]: teaches that the holes “accept and retain” the spring elements in an “appropriate position” to make contact during engagement).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Configuring the guide holes of Garabedian such that the probe contacts the inner surface as it is lowered toward the second opening part during the temporary jig assembly method of Chung and Bottoms. A POSITA would recognize that this contact is a predictable, and mechanically necessary feature of using a precision alignment jig. In order to fulfill Garabedian’s stated purpose of “retaining” the probes in an exact upright orientation and precise X-Y coordinate of Chung’s permanent bonding process, the inner diameter of the guide hole must be machined with extremely tight tolerances relative to the outer dimensions of the probe. Due to the necessary tight tolerances, the physical act of introducing and lowering the probe through the first opening part, would inherently dictate that the probe will slide against and contact at least a portion of the inner surface. A manufacturer would be motivated to design the guide hole to ensure this sliding contact occurs; if the holes were machined wide enough to allow the probe to drop through without touching the inner walls, the probe would wobble or tilt laterally. This would defeat the purpose of using the guide hole plate to maintain strict upright alignment during the assembly of a high-density probe card. This guarantees vertical uniformity across the entire probe array, eliminating the reliance on fluid epoxy control and resulting in a reliable, predictably planarized probe array (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Garabedian, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein a supporting part protruding outwardly from a fore end of the probe spans one area of the outer periphery of the first opening part.
However, Garabedian, further teaches:
wherein a supporting part protruding outwardly from a fore end of the probe ([0049], [0069], [0071], [0073], [Claim 26], [Claim 63], & [Claim 90]: teaches structural elements protruding outwardly from the probe (e.g., shoulders, protrusions, or retainer tabs) to act as supporting/retaining features) spans one area of the outer periphery of the first opening part ([0069], [0073], [Claim 26], & [Claim 63]: teaches that these protruding shoulders or tabs mate with “stepped holes” in the substrate, the protruding shoulder of the probe rests upon the step, thereby spanning the outer periphery of the opening, to capture and hold the probe securely within the plate).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Utilizing the specific protruding retaining features (shoulders/tabs) and stepped vias taught by Garabedian within the assembly method of the broader combination. A POSITA would recognize that incorporating a protruding supporting part that spans the periphery of the guide hole is an advantageous and predictable engineering design. As Garabedian notes, the protruding shoulders mate with the step in the via to assist in maintaining the laterally compliant spring element within the via. A manufacturer would be motivated to use this stepped, protruding design because it creates a mechanical vertical stop that prevents the probe from falling straight through the guide plate during the initial loading phase, simplifying the handling and alignment of the probes before the Foster reference plate is attached at the bottom, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein when the probe is inserted into the guide hole,
However, Garabedian, further teaches:
wherein when the probe is inserted into the guide hole ([0067]: teaches the physical act of inserting the probe elements (spring elements 110) into the guide holes (machined holes 810)),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the temporary manufacturing jig combination of Chung/Foster/Bottoms to incorporate the specific, stepped guide hole plate taught by Garabedian. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teaches to solve the well-known manufacturing challenge of handling and aligning thousands of microscopic, freestanding probes during assembly. A manufacturer utilizing a temporary jig (Bottoms) to planarize and bond probes (Foster/Chung) requires a physical template that securely holds the probes in place during the initial loading phase. By utilizing Garabedian’s guide hole plate, the manufacturer gains the predictable engineering advantage of robust lateral alignment (X-Y coordinates). Further, by utilizing Garabedian’s “stepped via” and “protruding shoulder” design, the manufacturer gains a vertical hard-stop. This allows assembly systems to drop individual probes into the guide plate without the probes falling straight through the bottom openings before the Foster reference plate is clamped into position. This structural integration transforms a manual alignment process into a highly efficient, repeatable, and scalable mechanical assembly, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, and Bottoms, are silent in regard to:
a tip of the probe is in contact with the reference plate through the second opening part to be maintained in an upright state in the internal space.
However, Garabedian, in combination with Foster, further teach:
a tip of the probe is in contact with the reference plate through the second opening part (Garabedian: [0045], [0058]-[0059], [0062], [Claim 35], [Claim 37], [Claim 69], [Claim 71]; Foster: [0034], [0039], [Claim 7], [Claim 8], [Claim 15], [Claim 20], & [Claim 23]: combined with the guide plate of Garabedian, teaches urging the probe elements until their tips contact and seat against the planar reference plate, which is attached to the bottom surface of the guide plate, the probe tip makes this contact at the second opening part (the bottom opening of the hole)) to be maintained in an upright state in the internal space (Garabedian: [0057]-[0059], [0067], [0073], [0090], & [Claim 16]: combined references teach collaborative support, teaching the inner walls of the guide holes provide lateral X-Y support (keeping the pin upright); Foster: [0039]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0043], [0047], [0055]-[0057], &[Claim 27]: combined references teach collaborative support, teaching a reference plate provides vertical Z-axis support, preventing the pin from falling through the internal space).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the open-ended guide hole plate of Garabedian by detachably coupling it to the planar reference plate of Foster, such that the reference plate closely covers the second opening parts on the lower surface of the guide plate. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to solve the well-known problem of simultaneously achieving precise lateral alignment and vertical coplanarity in high-density probe arrays. A manufacturer utilizing Garabedian’s through-holes to establish the upright X-Y test coordinates of the probes would look to known mechanical planarization tools, such as Foster’s rigid detachable reference plate, to establish the required vertical (Z-axis) uniform planarity. By clamping Foster’s reference plate flat against the bottom of Garabedian’s guide plate, the bottom via openings (second opening parts) would be sealed by the planar surface. When probes are inserted into the upper openings, they are guided by the inner walls until their tips reach the bottom opening and make direct physical contact with the reference plate. This predictable structural combination leverages the inner surface of Garabedian’s via(s) to prevent lateral tilting and the surface of Foster’s plate to halt vertical progression, creating a defined internal space that mechanically locks the probe into an upright, uniformly planarized state ready for bonding (KSR).
Claim(s) 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, in view of Garabedian, in view of Bottoms, in view of Foster, in view of Kaida et al. (US 2019/0353684 A1, Pub. Date Nov. 21, 2019, hereinafter, Kaida), and further in view of Takeya (US 2012/0042509 A1, Pub. Date Feb. 23, 2012, hereinafter, Takeya).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, and Foster, are silent in regard to:
wherein all the guide holes formed in the one guide hole have a same shape of one of a circle, a triangle, a square and a rectangle,
However, Kaida, in combination with Takeya, further teach:
wherein all the guide holes formed in the one guide hole have a same shape of one of a circle, a triangle, a square and a rectangle (Kaida: [Figs. 9 & 10; [0079]-[0088], [0090], [0099], & [0100]-[0109]: teaches probe insertion holes in a guide plate that have a circular shape without grooves and the use of simple non-tapered holes, where the probe insertion hole 324 is described as a “through-hole with a substantially circular shape” and its figures consistently depict straight-through, uniform bores; Takeya: Fig. 12; [0065] & [0082]-[0086]: reinforces by teaching through-holes with a circular cross-section),
PNG
media_image1.png
742
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
850
804
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
785
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide hole plate of the Garabedian/Foster/Bottoms combination with Chung’s fabrication, to utilize the circular, constant-cross-sectional geometry taught by Kaida and Takeya. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize the manufacturability and reliability of the guide hole plate. A manufacturer looking to mass-produce the temporary alignment jig of Garabedian would look to known, reliable, and cost-effective fabrication methods in the art, such as the standard drilling or laser processing taught by Takeya. Utilizing these standard processes yields the circular, constant-area through-holes described by Kaida and Takeya. Further, providing a constant circular cross-section offers the predictable mechanical advantage of creating a uniform inner wall for the probe pin to slide against. This prevents the probes from snagging, binding, or tilting during the high-density insertion and planarization phases, ensuring the probe tips are leveled against the reference plate before bonding. This combination represents the application of known geometric features (Kaida/Takeya) to a known alignment apparatus, Garabedian, to yield the expected predictable and manufacturing results (KSR).
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, Foster, and Kaida, are silent in regard to:
and have a same shape and area in transverse cross section from the first opening part to the second opening part.
However, Takeya, further teaches:
and have a same shape and area in transverse cross section from the first opening part to the second opening part (Figs. 2B & 5; [0072]: teaches that the through-holes are formed by standard drilling processes, inherently yielding straight cylinder walls. Figures illustrate the straight-walled holes passing through the substrate, maintaining the same circular shape and area from the top surface to the bottom surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide hole plate of the Garabedian/Foster/Bottoms/Kaida combination with Chung’s fabrication, to utilize the constant-cross-sectional geometry and drilling/laser formation methods taught by Takeya. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Takeya to optimize the manufacturability and mechanical reliability of the guide hole plate. A manufacturer looking to mass-produce the temporary alignment jig of Garabedian would look to known, reliable, and cost-effective fabrication methods in the art, such as the standard mechanical drilling or laser processing taught by Takeya. Utilizing these standard processes yields the constant-area straight-walled through-holes. Further, providing a constant circular cross-section without internal steps offers the predictable mechanical advantage of creating a uniform inner wall for the probe pin to slide against. This prevents the micro-probes from snagging, binding, or tilting during the high-density insertion and planarization phases, ensuring the probe tips are leveled against the reference plate before bonding. This combination represents the application of known manufacturing technique and its resulting geometry, (Takeya), to a known alignment apparatus, Garabedian, to yield the expected predictable and assembly results (KSR).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, Garabedian, in view of Bottoms, in view of Foster, and further in view of Kim (US 2009/0261850 A1, Pub. Date Oct. 22, 2009, hereinafter, Kim).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, and Foster, are silent in regard to:
wherein when the probe is maintained in the upright state, a depth of the guide hole relative to a total height of the upright probe is about 70% to 99.9% so that a part of the fore end side of the probe protrudes through the first opening part.
However, Kim, further teaches:
wherein the probe is maintained in the upright state ([0018], [0030], [0075], [0084]-[0086], [0091]-[0092], [0094], [0099], [0108]-[0109], [0111], [0124]-[0125], [0135], [Claim 16], & [Claim 18]: teaches that the probe substrate body includes guide holes to hold the probe bodies in position), a depth of the guide hole relative to a total height of the upright probe is about 70% to 99.9% (Figs. 3, 4, & 5; [0020], [0032], & [Claim 20]: teaches and illustrates that the guide hole is formed through the body such that the probe body is retained within the hole along its length, reflects a structural design where the guide retains the probe along the majority of its body (70-99.9%), an optimization for structural support) so that a part of the fore end side of the probe protrudes through the first opening part ([0020], [0027], [0032], [Claim 8], [Claim 15], & [Claim 20]: states the probe body is received such that it is exposed to contact the pads).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiment of a single reference. Nevertheless, it 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, to employ combination and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. Modifying the guide hole plate of the established combination to incorporate the specific probe-retention-to-tip-exposure structural relationship taught by Kim. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these teachings to ensure reliable and repeatable probe card assembly. Kim provides the structural optimization for the probe retention within the jig. A POSITA would be motivated to size the guide hole depth relative to the probe body as taught by Kim to achieve two engineering goals: maximizing the lateral support provided by the guide plate walls to maintain perpendicularity (uprightness) of the probe, and controlling the length of the exposed “fore end” (tip) protruding from the first opening part, ensuring sufficient reach for bonding to the MPH, preventing excessive length that could lead to probe damage during the transfer process. This combination represents the application of known mechanical design principles for probe retention to a known manufacturing jig assembly (Garabedian/Foster/Bottoms) to yield the predictable result of a precisely manufactured high-density probe array (KSR).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, in view of Garabedian, in view of Bottoms, in view of Foster, in view of Crippa et al. (US 10228392B2, Pat. Date Mar. 12, 2019, hereinafter Crippa), and further in view of Jerman et al. (US 6049650, Pat. Date Apr. 11, 2000, hereinafter, Jerman).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, and Foster, are silent in regard to:
wherein a metal coating layer that is attracted to a magnet
wherein the metal coating layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of nickel, iron, cobalt, tungsten and stainless steel, or an alloy of two or more selected from the group.
However, Crippa, further teaches:
wherein a metal coating layer that is attracted to a magnet ([Col. 3, ll. 17-27], [Col. 6, ll. 10-20, 32-43, & 49-64], [Col. 7, ll. 8-12], [Col. 9, ll. 4-9], [Claim 2], [Claim 3], [Claim 13], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 26], [Claim 27], [Claim 33], & [Claim 34]: identifies nickel alloys as suitable magnetic materials)
wherein the metal coating layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of nickel, iron, cobalt, tungsten and stainless steel, or an alloy of two or more selected from the group ([Col. 1, ll. 26-30 & 38-43], [Col. 6, ll. 10-20, 40-43, & 56-61], [Col. 7, ll. 8-12], [Claim 2], [Claim 3], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 26], [Claim 27], [Claim 33], & [Claim 34]: discloses “nickel or a nickel alloy” as the material used for its conductive/adhesion films).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide hole plates of Chung’s manufacturing jig to include the nickel or nickel alloy coating taught by Crippa. The motivation for this modification is to apply a known material to a known structure to achieve a predictable result. A POSITA would predictably select the nickel/nickel-alloy coatings taught by Crippa because Crippa has proven these specific materials to be compatible with the strict dimensional tolerances and operational environment of the probe card assemblies. Therefore, substituting or adding the specific magnetic material (nickel) taught by Crippa to the structural jig component taught by Chung is a routine design choice and a predictable variation, that would yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, Foster, and Crippa are silent in regard to:
is formed on the lower surface of the guide hole plate, the metal coating layer is absent in the inner surface of the guide hole, and
However, Jerman, further teaches:
is formed on the lower surface of the guide hole plate ([Col. 8, ll. 29-38], [Col. 11, ll. 29-55], [Col. 24, ll. 39-45], [Col. 25, ll. 7-14], [Claim 68]: teaches the micro-fabrication process of depositing a “plating base” onto a specific substrate surface so that a metal layer can be formed where intended), the metal coating layer is absent in the inner surface of the guide hole ([Col. 24, ll. 39-57], [Col. 25, ll. 7-18], [Claim 62], & [Claim 68]: teaches applying a patterned photoresist mask, by masking the inside of the holes before plating, the metal coating grows on the exposed lower surface but is blocked from growing inside the holes, resulting in the coating being “absent” on the inner surfaces), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the selective photolithographic masking and plating process taught by Jerman to apply the magnetic coating of Crippa onto the guide hole plate of Chung. A POSITA would predictably employ Jerman’s masking technique to protect the inner surfaces of the guide holes during the deposition process. The POSITA would be motivated to do this to preserve the dimensional tolerances of the alignment holes while magnetizing the lower surface of the plate. This combination is the execution of a standard manufacturing step (Jerman) to achieve the predictable result of a selectively coated surface on a known structure (Chung). Therefore, achieving a structure where the coating is “absent in the inner surface of the guide hole” is the predictable outcome of applying a standard industry technique, ready for improvement, to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]), wherein the guide hole plate ([0007]-[0008], [0065], [0069], [Claim 16], & [Claim 25]: discloses the use of layered substrates (e.g., space transformer and interposer) that contain apertures (guide holes) used to align and assemble the unit probe modules)
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, and Foster, are silent in regard to:
comprises a magnetic body that is attracted to a magnet.
However, Crippa, further teaches:
comprises a magnetic body that is attracted to a magnet ([Col. 3, ll. 17-27], [Col. 6, ll. 10-20, 32-43, & 49-64], [Col. 7, ll. 8-12], [Col. 9, ll. 4-9 & 22-38], [Claim 2], [Claim 3], [Claim 13], [Claim 14], [Claim 16], [Claim 26], [Claim 27], [Claim 33], & [Claim 34]: discloses the use of nickel and nickel alloys, which are ferromagnetic and attracted to magnets, for precision components within contact probes and testing heads)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the magnetic materials taught by Crippa into the guide hole plates of Chung’s manufacturing jig, either by fabricating a portion of the plate from the alloys or adding a magnetic body insert. The motivation to do so is from the predictable application of known magnetic materials to a known jig structure to allow the guide plate to be “attracted to a magnet”. In order to enable magnetic handling, securement, or alignment during the manufacturing steps without requiring bulky clamps that might interfere with microscopic probes, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]), wherein the guide hole plate ([0007]-[0008], [0065], [0069], [Claim 16], & [Claim 25])
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, and Bottoms, are silent in regard to:
comprises a material that is not attracted to a magnet.
However, Bottoms, further teaches:
comprises a material that is not attracted to a magnet (Bottoms: [0072], [0090], [0094]-[0095], [0120], [0130], [0134]-[0135], [0143]-[0144], [0179], [0195], [Claim 4], & [Claim 10]: discloses standard substrate materials used in the field (e.g., ceramic, glass, polyimide silicon, FR-4), that are non-magnetic based on scientific fact).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one the standard materials (e.g., ceramic or silicon, etc.) taught by Bottoms to fabricate Chung’s guide plate. The standard materials are non-magnetic, the resulting structure would predictably yield a guide hole plate that is “not attracted to a magnet.” This is a case of selecting a known material from a list of standard industry materials to perform its well-known function (structural support and electrical isolation), which predictably results in the non-magnetic property, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, in view of Garabedian, in view of Bottoms, in view of Foster, and further in view of Desta et al. (US 8305101 B2, Pat. Date Nov. 6, 2012, hereinafter, Desta).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein at least a part of the outer periphery of the first opening part
However, Chung, in combination with Desta, further teach:
wherein at least a part of the outer periphery of the first opening part (Chung: [0007]-[0008], [0065], [0069], [Claim 16], & [Claim 25]: utilizes apertures (guide holes) in substrates like the space transformer to align probes; Desta: [Col. 4, ll. 42-52], [Col. 7, ll. 52-56], [Col. 8, ll. 6-21], [Col. 21, ll. 33-34], [Col. 23, ll. 3-16], [Claim 20], [Claim 26], [Claim 31], [Claim 32], & [Claim 33]: discloses through-holes in probe head substrates)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tapered wall structure taught by Desta into the outer periphery of the apertures (guide holes) in Chung’s’ assembly jig. The motivation to do so is to apply a known structural modification (tapered hole openings) to a known device (a probe card guide plate) to yield the predictable result of a “lead-in” chamfer. This funnel-like entrance physically guides the micro-probes into the apertures smoothly, reducing insertion friction, preventing damage to the fragile probe tips, and improving the assembly yield of the jig taught by Chung. This constitutes applying a known structure to a known device to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, and Foster, are silent in regard to:
is chamfered to have a tapered inclined structure.
However, Desta, further teaches:
is chamfered to have a tapered inclined structure (Fig. 10; [Col. 7, ll. 52-61] & [Claim 33]:).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the tapered wall structure taught by Desta into the outer periphery of the apertures (guide holes) in Chung’s’ assembly jig. The motivation to do so is to apply a known structural modification (tapered hole openings) to a known device (a probe card guide plate) to yield the predictable result of a “lead-in” chamfer. This funnel-like entrance physically guides the micro-probes into the apertures smoothly, reducing insertion friction, preventing damage to the fragile probe tips, and improving the assembly yield of the jig taught by Chung. This constitutes applying a known structure to a known device to yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]), wherein the guide hole plate and the reference plate ([0007]-[0008], [0065], [0069], [Claim 16], & [Claim 25]: discloses multiple apertured substrates (e.g., the space transformer, interposer, and stiffener plate) function as the guide hole plates and reference plates, their aligned apertures provide the structural reference for the vertical insertion and alignment of the unit probe modules)
Chung, in combination with Garabedian, Bottoms, and Foster, are silent in regard to:
are each made of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient of 90% to 100% with respect to the MPH or the wafer or the semiconductor chip in which a circuit for inspecting the wafer or the semiconductor chip is formed.
However, Desta, further teaches:
are each made of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient of 90% to 100% with respect to the MPH or the wafer or the semiconductor chip in which a circuit for inspecting the wafer or the semiconductor chip is formed (Fig. 17; [Col. 11, ll. 11-43], [Col. 13, ll. 55-62], & [Col. 15, ll. 31-42]: teaches the concept for probe-holding substrates, states that a desirable quality for the probe contactor substrate 1706 is “good thermal expansion matching that of silicon (because the device under test is usually silicon)”, and further teaches “silicon (such as an oxidized or dielectric coated silicon wafer)” as the substrate material, that would provide a 100% CTE match to the silicon wafer, and selecting a material with a “matching” CTE).
PNG
media_image4.png
806
852
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the guide hole and reference plates of Chung’s manufacturing jig to be made of a material having a thermal expansion coefficient (CTE) matched to (i.e., 90% to 100%) with respect to the MPH or the wafer or the semiconductor chip, in which a circuit for inspecting the wafer or the semiconductor chip if formed, as taught by Desta. A POSITA seeking to ensure that the microscopic probes assembled in Chung’s jig remain perfectly aligned with the wafer across various temperature environments, would predictably turn to Desta’s teaching. By selecting substrate materials with a CTE of 90% to 100% relative to the wafer, the POSITA predictable eliminates thermal drift between the jig and the target chip. The motivation is to apply a known design optimization (CTE matching) to a known structure (Chung’s jig) to solve a recognized industry problem, thermal misalignment. This is a standard material selection choice utilized to achieve a predictable environmental stabilization, to achieve expected predictable results that would improve the manufacturing process (KSR).
Claim 14-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, in view of Garabedian, in view of Bottoms, in view of Foster, in view of Kaida, and further in view of Shuto (US 10962568 B2, Fil. Date Feb. 06, 2018, hereinafter, Shuto).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein the reference plate comprises: a seating part in which the guide hole plate is seated in a state of facing the lower surface of the guide hole plate;
a bottom surface that is opposite to the seating part;
However, Kaida, further teaches:
wherein the reference plate comprises (Fig. 6; [0034]-[0039], [0084]-[0088], & [0090]): a seating part (Fig. 6; [0084]-[0088] & [0090]: teaches the interface with the lower surface of the guide hole plate (guide plate 323), where the lamination of the guide plate 323 onto the facing plate 322 requires the facing plate’s seating part to physically contact and support the guide plate’s lower surface, that enables secure mounting and alignment of the probe insertion holes 324 (guide holes)) in which the guide hole plate (Fig. 6; [0084]-[0088], [0090], & [0109]) is seated in a state of facing the lower surface of the guide hole plate (Fig. 6; [0084]-[0088], [0090], & [0109]: seated on the reference plate’s seating part, with probe insertion holes 324 (guide holes), the facing plate 322 (reference plate) includes a seating part (upper surface) that directly interfaces with and supports the lower surface of the guide plate 323 (guide hole plate), ensuring precise alignment and mechanical stability);
a bottom surface that is opposite to the seating part (Fig. 6; [0084]-[0088] & [0090]: teaches the interface with the lower surface of the guide hole plate (guide plate 323), where the lamination of the guide plate 323 onto the facing plate 322 requires the facing plate’s seating part to physically contact and support the guide plate’s lower surface, that enables secure mounting and alignment of the probe insertion holes 324 (guide holes), with facing surface F1, opposite to seating part, contacts semiconductor wafer 100);
PNG
media_image5.png
790
899
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reference plate that comprises a seating part where the guide hole plate is seated in a state of facing the lower surface of the guile hole plate with a bottom surface that is opposite to the seating part, of Kaida to Chung. In order to attain, by combining prior arts, modifying a reference plate with a seating part to physically support the guide hole plate, aligning with its lower surface and a bottom surface opposite the seating part, facing the inspection target, that would improve and ensure precise alignment of the probe insertion holes during assembly, and improve the overall manufacturing process, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Chung, as modified by Kaida, are silent in regard to:
a magnet built-in part in the reference plate, in which one or more magnets are formed in order for magnetic force to act evenly on all of the seating part of the reference plate; and
a magnet detachably mounted to the magnet built-in part.
However, Shuto, further teaches:
a magnet built-in part in the reference plate ([Col. 5, ll. 44-59] & [Col. 6, ll. 5-24]), in which one or more magnets are formed in order for magnetic force to act evenly on all of the seating part of the reference plate ([Col. 5, ll. 44-59] & [Col. 6, ll. 5-24]: states the magnet’s force is designed to “enable all of the probes 34 to be magnetically attracted”, therefore the magnetic field is inherently distributed evenly across the entire seating part of the reference plate where the probes are located); and
a magnet detachably mounted to the magnet built-in part (Fig. 4; [Col. 1, ll. 12-25], [Col. 2, ll. 12-19 & 31-54], [Col. 5, ll. 44-59], [Col. 6, ll. 5-36]: discloses the plate 52, and magnet 54 attached to the plate, with screw holes 59/60, that attach/detach the plate 52 and magnet 54 with screws).
PNG
media_image6.png
897
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the magnetic jig plate taught by Shuto into the probe card manufacturing process taught by Chung. The motivation to combine is to incorporate a known tool (Shuto’s magnetic jig plate) into a known manufacturing process (Chung’s probe card assembly) to yield the predictable result of secure, non-destructive, and uniform clamping of probe components during assembly. In regard to the “detachably mounted” magnet, it is a universally recognized engineering practice to make wear parts or expensive components (e.g., a strong permanent magnet) detachably mounted to the magnet built-in part of the reference plate or built-in recesses. A POSITA would predictably choose to mount the magnet detachably inside Shuto’s plate to allow for the magnet to be removed for calibration, replacement if it loses charge, or swapped out for a magnet of a different strength depending on the specific probe card being manufactured. Modifying a reference plate with a magnet detachably mounted to the magnet built-in part that would provide an even magnetic force on the probe pins as needed, allowing the magnet to be attached/detached, ensuring that the probe pins are aligned to the plate by the magnetic attraction force, would improve and ensure precise alignment of the probe tips into the insertion holes during to prevent damage, improve the overall manufacturing process, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 14 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein the reference plate further comprises one or more inlets communicating in a vertical direction from the seating part to the bottom surface.
However, Kaida, corroborated with Shuto, further teach:
wherein the reference plate (Kaida: Fig. 6; [0034]-[0039], [0084]-[0088], & [0090]; Shuto: [Col. 5, ll. 44-59]: plate 52 serves as the reference plate covering the probe head) further comprises one or more inlets communicating in a vertical direction (Kaida: Figs. 6 & 10; [0084]-[0088], [0090], [0099], & [0102]: teaches the inspection-side support body 32 has a “plurality of probe insertion holes 324 (second through-holes)” formed in it, and the through-holes are “substantially circular in shape”, figures further illustrate the through-holes communicating vertically through the plate; Shuto: [Col. 5, ll. 44-59] & [Col. 6, ll. 5-43]: holes 56 and 60 are through-holes) from the seating part (Kaida: Fig. 6; [0038], [0084]-[0088]: inspection-side support body 32 is a plate with a bottom surface opposite its top “seating part” surface, figure further illustrates this as facing surface F1; Shuto: [Col. 5, ll. 44-59] & [Col. 6, ll. 5-43]: teaches that screws 62 pass entirely through the holes 60 to attach the plate to the probe heath beneath it, a screwdriver is inserted into holes 56 to access set screws beneath the plate) to the bottom surface (Kaida: Figs. 5 & 6; [0079]-[0080]: upper surface of the inspection-side support body 32 functions as the seating part, facing the electrode-side support body 33 and receives the tips of the probes held by the guide hole plate; Shuto: [Col. 5, ll. 44-59] & [Col. 6, ll. 5-43]: these holes allow physical passage from the outer bottom surface all the way through the inner seating part that faces the probe head, communicating in vertical direction completely through the thickness of the reference plate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reference plate that contains one or more inlets communicating in a vertical direction from the seating part to the bottom surface, of Kaida (corroborated by Shuto) to Chung. In order to attain, by combining prior arts and modifying a reference plate to provide one or more inlets (through-holes) of the probe manufacturing jig that would allow communication in a vertical direction, allowing the attachment of a plurality of probes. The motivation is to apply a standard mechanical design feature (e.g., access holes/fastener clearance holes) to a known structure (e.g., reference plate), that would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process, and yield predictable result of allowing tool access and mechanical fastening. A POSITA manufacturing the jig of Chung and utilizing the magnetic plate of Shuto would predictably form vertical inlets through the plate from the bottom surface to the seating part to allow screws to pass through and secure the plates together, as taught by Shuto, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 14 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein the magnet pulls the guide hole plate in a vertical direction to closely contact the seating part, and
the guide hole plate and the reference plate are fixed to each other by the magnetic force of the magnet.
However, Shuto, further teaches:
wherein the magnet pulls the guide hole plate in a vertical direction to closely contact the seating part (Fig. 4; [Col. 1, ll. 12-25], [Col. 2, ll. 12-19 & 31-54], [Col. 3, ll. 63-67], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3], [Col. 5, ll. 44-59], & [Col. 6, ll. 5-48]: jig 50 containing magnet 54 exerts a “magnetic force” to attract and hold components of a probe head, where the probes are “made of a magnetic body” and are “attracted toward the plate” of the jig, figure illustrates plates are attracted in a vertical direction, teaches seating the reference plate 52 directly onto the guide hole plate 40, the magnet applies a vertical pulling force to the metallic components below it, and inherently results in the magnet causing the guide plate to closely and firmly contact the seating part of the reference plate), and
the guide hole plate and the reference plate are fixed to each other by the magnetic force of the magnet (Fig. 4; [Col. 1, ll. 12-25], [Col. 2, ll. 12-19 & 31-54], [Col. 3, ll. 63-67], [Col. 4, ll. 1-3], [Col. 5, ll. 44-59], & [Col. 6, ll. 5-36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the magnet that pulls the guide hole plate in a vertical direction to closely contact the seating part, and the guide hole plate and the reference plate are fixed to each other by a magnetic force of the magnet, of Shuto to Chung. In order to attain, by combining prior arts, using magnetic materials like nickel for the probe components and using the magnet to attract the entire plate for a more stable and secure hold during manufacturing, pulling the magnetic guide plate in a vertical direction to contact the seating part of the reference plate, fixing the two plates to each other by a magnetic force. Substituting one known fastening technique for another known fastening technique to achieve the same structural coupling is obvious. A POSITA would be motivated to rely on the magnetic force of Shuto’s built-in magnet to fix (instead of screws). A POSITA would already know how to make the guide hole plate out of magnetic material (e.g., nickel alloys as taught by Crippa), the built-in magnet of Shuto will naturally and inherently pull the guide hole plate vertically. Designing the magnet to be strong, the POSITA predictably achieves a tool-less, uniform, and secure magnetic fixation between the reference plate and the guide hole plate. The modification solves known drawbacks of mechanical fasteners while yielding the predictable results of secure, rapid plate clamping, that would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 1 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
further comprising a clamping member for mechanically fixing the guide hole plate and the reference plate.
However, Kaida, and Shuto, further teach:
further comprising a clamping member (Kaida: [0009], [0038], [0109], [0137], [0140], & [Claim 9]: teaches a linking member 34, also referred to as a coupling member 34, that “holds the inspection-side support body 32 and the electrode-side support body 33 parallel to each other with a predetermined distance therebetween”, where the linking member 34 fixes the two plates together; Shuto: [Abstract], [Col. 2, ll. 13-20 & 31-55], [Col. 6, ll. 25-48], & [Claim 1]: a threaded screw used to force two plates into engagement constitutes the “clamping member” for mechanically fixing components) for mechanically fixing the guide hole plate and the reference plate (Kaida: Fig. 6; [0084]-[0088], [0090], & [0109]; Shuto: [Col. 6, ll. 25-48], & [Claim 1]: in the probe card assembly, the guide hole plate (probe head 28/lower plate 40) and the reference plate (the jig plate 52) are the two components mated and secured).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the mechanical fixing techniques taught by Kaida (corroborated by Shuto) to secure the guide hole plate and the reference plate in Chung’s manufacturing jig. Kaida teaches a linking member and Shuto teaches mechanical screws, which are a go-to component for mechanically fixing planar substrates in semiconductor tooling. There is no inventive leap required to see that if a reference plate and a guide plate need to move as a single, rigid unit during the manufacturing process, they must be clamped together. Shuto teaches the POSITA how to do this using screws, and Kaida teaches this using a linking member. Applying either Kaida’s linking member or Shuto’s well-known fastening mechanism (screws) to the plates taught by Chung results in a predictable, stable, and rigid jig assembly, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, in view of Garabedian, in view of Bottoms, in view of Foster, in view of Kaida, in view of Shuto, and further in view of Parker et al. (US 2002/0093355 A1, Pub. Date Jul. 18, 2002, hereinafter Parker).
Regarding dependent claim 16, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 15 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, is silent in regard to:
wherein each of the inlets has one open side formed in the seating part that is located on the lower surface of the guide hole plate
However, Kaida, corroborated with Shuto, further teach:
wherein each of the inlets (Kaida: Figs. 6 & 10; [0084]-[0088], [0090], [0099], & [0102]; Shuto: [Col. 5, ll. 44-59] & [Col. 6, ll. 5-43]) has one open side formed in the seating part that is located on the lower surface of the guide hole plate (Kaida: Fig. 6; [0038], [0084]-[0088]: inspection-side support body 32 is a plate with a bottom surface opposite its top “seating part” surface, figure further illustrates this as facing surface F1 and an open side formed on the “seating part”; Shuto: [Col. 5, ll. 44-59] & [Col. 6, ll. 5-43])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reference plate that contains one or more inlets, each with one open side formed in the seating part located on the lower surface of the guide hole plate, where the second opening part of the guide hole does not exist, of Kaida (corroborated with Shuto) to Chung. In order to attain, by combining prior arts and modifying a reference plate with inlets, each inlet with one open side, that would create a space for easy probe handling, or fixing the guide plate to the reference plate, that would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process, and yield predictable results (KSR).
Chung, as modified by Kaida/Shuto, are silent in regard to:
where the second opening part of the guide hole does not exist, and takes air into the other open side to form a negative pressure therein, and
the guide hole plate is in close contact with the seating part by the negative pressure formed in the inlet.
However, Parker, further teaches:
where the second opening part of the guide hole does not exist (Figs. 1 & 2; [Abstract], [0004]-[0007], [0014], [0033], [0035]-[0036], [0045], [0049]-[0050], [0054], & [Claim 5]: seal provides sealed enclosure formed by the probe plate 10, spacer, 14, top plate 12 and an overlying pressure plate, “sealingly engaging” the upper face of the top plate. Further if a vacuum port were placed directly over a through-hole, it would it would draw ambient air through the hole instead of creating a sealed negative pressure against the plate, therefore a vacuum port must interface with a solid, flat surface to achieve a seal),
and takes air into the other open side to form a negative pressure therein (Figs. 1 & 2; [0004]-[0006], [0014], [0033], & [0035]-[0036]: further a vacuum port inherently draws air out of negative pressure), and
the guide hole plate is close contact with the seating part by the negative pressure formed in the inlet (Figs. 1 & 2; [0004]-[0006] & [0035]-[0036]).
PNG
media_image7.png
665
1012
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
628
829
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vacuum clamping system with a reference plate that takes air into the open side to form a negative pressure and the guide hole plate is close contact with the seating part, taught by Parker into the probe card manufacturing jig taught by Chung. Vacuum chucking is an industry-standard method in semiconductor and probe card manufacturing because it applies holding force evenly across the entire surface area, eliminating the warping risks associated with mechanical screws. Configuring the vacuum inlets to be located on the solid portions of the plate by combining prior arts and modifying a reference plate with inlets that take air into the open side to for a negative pressure, that would create a sealed enclosure between multiple plates, causing them to press together (vacuum clamping), is an obvious and required design choice. A POSITA would predictably avoid placing vacuum ports over through-holes to ensure a seal is formed, which is required to generate the negative pressure. The motivation is to apply a known securing technique (vacuum clamping) to a known device (probe card jig) to yield the predictable result of uniform, rapid, and stress-free surface contact between the plates, that would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process with a functional vacuum system, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung, in view of Garabedian, in view of Bottoms, in view of Foster, in view of Kaida, in view of Shuto, and further in view of Marchio, Stanford Magnets. “List of Magnets That Can Withstand High Temperatures.” Last updated on Oct. 17, 2024, retrieved Aug. 15, 2025, hereinafter Marchio.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 14 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, as modified by Kaida/Shuto, are silent in regard to:
wherein the magnet maintains magnetic force at a temperature of 400 degrees Celsius (°C) or higher,
However, Marchio, and further teaches:
wherein the magnet maintains magnetic force at a temperature of 400 degrees Celsius (°C) or higher (Table 1: [Item 1]: “Al-Ni-Co magnets are composed of aluminum, nickel, cobalt, and iron, and these magnets possess the highest maximum operating temperature of 525°C”, further these magnets are characterized by excellent temperature stability and can maintain their magnetic force at maximum operating temperatures up to 500°C-550°C),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the magnet maintaining magnetic force at a temperature of 400°C or higher, of Stanford Magnets to Chung. In order to attain, by combining prior arts and modifying the plates with magnets that can maintain a magnetic force at high temperatures, ensuring the probes are aligned at all times with temperatures of 400°C or higher, that would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process preventing damage to the probes, other system components, or semiconductor wafer, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Chung, is silent in regard to:
moves the probe introduced into the guide hole by magnetism at room temperature to the seating part and prevents a shaking of the probe supported by the seating part.
However, Shuto, further teaches:
moves the probe introduced into the guide hole by magnetism at room temperature to the seating part (Col. 3, ll. 63-67], [Col. 4, ll. 1-4], [Col. 5, ll. 44-59], [Col. 6, ll. 5-48 & 58-64]: when probes are introduced into the guide holes of the lower plate, the magnetic force of the reference plate above them pulls (moves) the probes upward until they contact the seating part of the plate, operates via standard magnetism at room temperature) and prevents a shaking of the probe supported by the seating part (Col. 3, ll. 63-67], [Col. 4, ll. 1-4], [Col. 5, ll. 44-59], [Col. 6, ll. 5-48 & 58-67]: the purpose of the magnet is to secure the probes in place during assembly and maintenance without requiring mechanical clamps, by applying a constant magnetic holding force that attracts all probes tightly against the seating surface, the magnet mechanically locks them in place, preventing shaking, rattling, or misalignment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a magnet that maintains its magnetic force at 400°C or higher, such as an Al-Ni-Co magnet taught by the Stanford Magnets literature, for use in the magnetic reference plate of Shuto. A POSITA manufacturing the probe card jig of Chung and utilizing the magnetic plate of Shuto would recognize that the jig may be subjected to high-temperature processing or testing. To prevent demagnetization and to ensure the probes are prevented from shaking during thermal cycling, the POSITA would predictably specify a high-temperature magnet (400 °C or higher) for the built-in magnet part. Substituting a standard magnet with a high-temperature magnet, by combining prior arts and modifying the plates with magnets that would guide the probe into the guide hole by magnetic forces to the seating part at room temperature, ensuring the probes are aligned at all times, to achieve thermal resilience, is a basic engineering material selection. The combination/modification would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process preventing damage to the probes, other system components, or semiconductor wafer, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Chung, teaches:
The jig of claim 14 (Chung: [Abstract], & [0027]-[0028]; Garabedian: [0001], [0014]-[0017], & [0061]),
Chung, as modified by Kaida/Shuto, are silent in regard to:
wherein the magnet loses its magnetic force at a temperature of 300°C or higher,
However, Marchio, further teaches:
wherein the magnet loses its magnetic force at a temperature of 300°C or higher (Table 1 and Figure 2: [Item 2] – [Item 4]: “Ferrite magnets contain a large amount of iron oxide and a small proportion of other metallic elements. Although ferrite magnets come with a relatively lower maximum operating temperature of 250°C, they are widely used because of their lower cost.”, “Sm-Co magnets come with a strong magnetic power and a maximum operating temperature ranging from 310 to 400°C”, and “Nd-Fe-B magnets, or neodymium magnets, are the most commercially available magnet and their working temperature can reach up to 200 degrees Celsius”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the magnet losing its magnetic force at a temperature of 300°C or higher, of Stanford Magnets to Chung. In order to attain, by combining prior arts and modifying the plates with magnets that can maintain a magnetic force at high temperatures, ensuring the probes are aligned at all times with temperatures of 300°C or higher. Selecting magnets with these features would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process preventing damage to the probes, other system components, or semiconductor wafer, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Chung, is silent in regard to:
moves the probe introduced into the guide hole by magnetism at room temperature to the seating part and prevents a shaking of the probe supported by the seating part.
However, Shuto, further teaches:
moves the probe introduced into the guide hole by magnetism at room temperature to the seating part (Col. 3, ll. 63-67], [Col. 4, ll. 1-4], [Col. 5, ll. 44-59], [Col. 6, ll. 5-48 & 58-64]: when probes are introduced into the guide holes of the lower plate, the magnetic force of the reference plate above them pulls (moves) the probes upward until they contact the seating part of the plate, operates via standard magnetism at room temperature) and prevents a shaking of the probe supported by the seating part (Col. 3, ll. 63-67], [Col. 4, ll. 1-4], [Col. 5, ll. 44-59], [Col. 6, ll. 5-48 & 58-67]: the purpose of the magnet is to secure the probes in place during assembly and maintenance without requiring mechanical clamps, by applying a constant magnetic holding force that attracts all probes tightly against the seating surface, the magnet mechanically locks them in place, preventing shaking, rattling, or misalignment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a standard Neodymium magnet for the clamping function, for use in the magnetic reference plate in Shuto’s jig. Neodymium magnets are the standard for micro-assembly applications due to their high magnetic flux density. Their intrinsic property is to lose magnetism (reach Curie point) between 300°C - 400°C. By specifying that the jig works at room temperature, where the magnet is active, and noting the Curie temperature threshold, would therefore predictably operate a standard magnetic clamping jig. The motivation is to use commercially available, high-strength magnetic material that provides the required functionality, strong attraction at room temperature. To prevent demagnetization and to ensure the probes are prevented from shaking during thermal cycling, the POSITA would predictably specify a high-temperature magnet that (300 °C or higher) for the built-in magnet part. Substituting a standard magnet with a high-temperature magnet, by combining prior arts and modifying the plates with magnets that would guide the probe into the guide hole by magnetic forces to the seating part at room temperature, ensuring the probes are aligned at all times, to achieve thermal resilience, is a basic engineering material selection. The combination/modification would improve and increase the overall manufacturing process preventing damage to the probes, other system components, or semiconductor wafer, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Election/Restrictions
After further consideration, applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 & 14-20, drawn to a jig for manufacturing a probe card, in the reply filed on July 07, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Groups II – IV are not patentably distinct and mutually dependent. This is not found persuasive because the various embodiments require searches in substantially different areas of prior art and the claims embody different inventive concepts that are not linked by a single general inventive concept. All inventions listed are independent or distinct and would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restrictions were not required. At the time of allowance, any claim that depends from allowed claim(s) will be rejoined. See office action dated 05/22/2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 8, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights