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. Applicant’s argues that “the framework region is continuous between all adjacent deformation regions of all of the plurality of deformation regions, the feature of Teranishi referred to as a framework region is not continuous between all adjacent deformation regions of all of a plurality of deformation regions.” The Examiner disagrees because as stated in rejection and shown in the annotated fig. 9 below, Teranishi discloses “a framework region [see annotated fig. 9 below] is continuous between all adjacent deformation regions [two deformation regions as shown] of all of a plurality of deformation regions [two deformation regions as shown].”
PNG
media_image1.png
454
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Teranishi et al. (JP 6641772 B2), hereafter Teranishi.
Regarding claim 1, Teranishi at least at fig. 6-9 discloses a probe 3 of probe card use, comprising a probe body [fig. 9] having a plurality of deformation regions [plurality of 31] of recessed shape having a bottom surface or protrusion shape [plurality of protrusion 34/35], and a continuous framework region [as shown below at annotated fig. 9] provided between all adjacent deformation regions [two of 31s] of all of the plurality of deformation regions [between two 31s as shown], wherein the plurality of deformation regions 31 and the framework region [as shown] are configured such that stress is concentrated on a boundary portion [353/342] between the deformation region and the framework region when forces [fig. 10 and fig. 11] are applied from outside to the probe [When force is applied to … the probe pin 3 in the initial state and the first and second contact portions 40 and 50 are pushed into the housing 2, the first and second conductive portions of each elastic unit 31 are moved. 32 and 33 approach each other along the center line CL2, and as shown in FIG. 11].
PNG
media_image2.png
440
312
media_image2.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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi 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, Teranishi discloses the probe of probe card use, according to claim1, wherein the comprises a first metal layer of low resistance [metal of 3]. Teranishi 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 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 Teranishi, 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 Teranishi discloses deformation regions are formed on the surface of the second metal layer.
Regarding claims 9-10, Teranishi discloses the probe of probe card as described above. Teranishi discloses deformations in the probe card of the probe.
Teranishi does not explicitly disclose the method for forming the deformations. 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.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-6, Teranishi discloses the probe of probe card as described above. Teranishi discloses deformations but not in shapes of polygonal prism/pyramid; sphere; quadratic prism or triangular pyramid. 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 Teranishi.
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
March 3, 2026