Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kishi et al. (US 2021/0041482 A1) hereafter Kishi.
Regarding claim 1, Kishi at fig. 1-4 discloses a probe 3 of probe card 43 use, comprising a probe body [body as shown of 3] having a plurality of deformation regions [71-75, as an example ¶0049] of recessed shape having a bottom surface [bottom surface of slit 71-75] or protrusion shape, and a continuous framework region 61-65 provided between all adjacent deformation regions of all of the plurality of deformation regions, the probe body being plate-shaped [as shown], wherein the continuous framework region surrounds [61-66 with 32/34] at least one of the plurality of deformation regions, wherein the plurality of deformation regions are arranged in a two-dimensional pattern along a horizontal axis and a vertical axis [as shown], and wherein the plurality of deformation regions and the framework region are configured such that stress is concentrated on a boundary portion [boundary portion between 71-75 and 61-66] between the deformation region and the framework region when forces are applied from outside [fig. 4] to the probe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-6, Kishi discloses the probe of the probe card as described above. Kishi discloses deformations but not in the shapes of claims 2-6 i.e. polygonal prism/pyramid; sphere; quadratic prism or triangular pyramid. Rather, at fig. 1-4, Kishi discloses rectangular slits. It would have been an obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to use different shapes as claimed because it is a matter of design choice to have different shapes of the deformation (as applicant admitted that different shapes of deformation can be used), since the applicant has not disclosed that any particular shaped deformation solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the deformations disclosed in Kishi.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2017/0346211 A1), hereafter Kimura.
Regarding claims 8 and 7, Kishi discloses the probe of probe card use, according to claim 1, wherein the probe body comprises a first metal layer of low resistance [metal of 3]. Kishi is silent about said first metal layer wrapped in by a second metal layer (covering layer for claim 7) of hard material, and the deformation regions are formed on the surface of the second metal layer. Kimura at ¶0066 discloses the probe body comprises a first metal layer 12 of low resistance wrapped in by a second metal layer (covering layer) 11/13 of hard material [the outer metallic layers 11 and 13 and the intermediate metallic layer 12 are formed of mutually different materials. The outer metallic layers 11 and 13 are stress layers using a metallic material having higher mechanical strength, whereas the intermediate metallic layer 12 is a conductive layer using a metallic material having smaller resistivity.]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add metal layer as disclosed by Kimura to Kishi, so a configuration that sandwiches the first metal layer between the two stress layers makes it possible to reduce resistance to improve the current resistant characteristics without increasing the cross section area. Modified Kishi discloses deformation regions are formed on the surface of the second metal layer.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kishi discloses the probe of probe card use as described above. Machida discloses deformations in the probe. Kishi does not explicitly disclose the method for forming the deformations as claimed. The use of the electric conduction layer in the electro casting method or metal molding method is well known in the related art (see ¶0008-0009 of the instant application). Kimura at fig. 6-7 discloses an electric conduction layer and method of forming different metal layers. Regarding product-by-process limitations of claims 9-10, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2113. Therefore, the combination of Kishi and Kimura obtains the claim invention and advantages the claimed probe has to offer.
Conclusion
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 02/097453 at fig. 1(c) discloses plate shaped probe body with deformation regions as per claim 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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.
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights