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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2026 has been entered.
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Machida et al (JP 2005-292019 A), hereafter Machida.
Regarding claim 1, Machida at fig. 3-5 discloses a probe 200 of probe card use, comprising a probe body [body of 200 e.g. 210] having a plurality of deformation regions of recessed shape 211 having a bottom surface [bottom surface of 211] or [region between 211] provided between all adjacent deformation regions [all 211] of all of the plurality of deformation regions [all plurality/four 211 as shown], wherein the continuous framework region surrounds at least one of the plurality of deformation regions [portion of 210 between middle two of 211], and wherein the plurality of deformation regions 211 and the framework region are configured such that stress is concentrated on a boundary portion between the deformation region and the framework region when forces are applied from outside to the probe [fig. 4].
PNG
media_image1.png
578
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Machida as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-6, Machida discloses the probe of probe card as described above. Machida discloses deformations but not in a shapes of claims 2-6 i.e. polygonal prism/pyramid; sphere; quadratic prism or triangular pyramid. Rather at fig. 3-4 Machida discloses rectangular slits and at fig. 5 discloses circular, diamond, triangle, concave, U-shape 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 Machida.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machida 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, Machida 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 210]. Machida 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 person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add metal layer as disclosed by Kimura to Machida, 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 Machida discloses deformation regions are formed on the surface of the second metal layer.
Regarding claims 9-10, Machida discloses the probe of probe card use as described above. Machida discloses deformations in the probe.
Machida 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 the 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 Machida and Kimura obtains the claim invention and advantages the claimed probe has to offer.
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).
Conclusion
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
May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights