DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed on 12 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 are now pending in the application.
Amendments to the claims 1-2 to overcome the informalities are acceptable. Therefore, Specification and claim objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 7, last paragraph that “Maekawa in image 3 shows an example of a cleaning sheet in which abrasive grains 61 are adhered to the surface layer of sponge 63. In this configuration, the tip of the probe 1 becomes rounded, and the conical shape is lost. In other words, the contact surface pressure when the probe contacts the electrode decreases, thereby reducing the force that breaks the oxide film on the electrode surface. It therefore appears to be inappropriate to compare the embodiment of the present invention shown in image 1 with Maekawa. Kida in image 4 illustrates a washing tank, not a cleaning sheet. This is, therefore, an entirely unrelated reference. Thus for at least these reasons, Broz in view of Fujimura and Maekawa or Broz in view of Fujimura, Kida and Maekawa fails to make obvious claims 1 and 2.”
Examiner respectfully submits that Broz teaches an abrasive cleaning gel film 202 in Fig. 4A, for forming a probe 13 into a conical shape 403 in Fig. 8B. Broz does not teach a vibrating surface of an ultrasonic transducer and is ultrasonically vibrated; or the tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the abrasive cleaning gel layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed, by piercing the probe tip 3000-4000 times into the abrasive plate is performed to form the tip of the probe into the conical shape. Maekawa teaches shaping a probe in Figs. 6A to 6C including the tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the abrasive cleaning gel layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed, is performed one or more times to form the tip of the probe into the conical shape. Though, Maekawa teaches “repeatedly piercing the probe into an abrasive pad” in para. [0051], Maekawa does not teach an ultrasonic vibrating surface. Therefore, from the teaching of Maekawa, Figs. 6A to 6C and para. [0051], one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that using an ultrasonic vibrating surface would improve the shaping performance by controlling the repeated piercing of the probe tip into an abrasive surface. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant invention that any surprising results were derived, or that any special steps were devised or defining a specific speed in which the probe tip is penetrated and pull-up that forms a conical shape. Therefore, from the teachings on an abrasive cleaning gel that forms a conical shape of a probe tip of Broz and from the teaching of Maekawa para. [0051], the tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the abrasive cleaning gel layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed at 3000-4000 times into the abrasive plate, and from the teachings of an ultrasonic vibration surface of Fujimura, the recited method as currently claimed in claims 1 and 2 are insufficient to define over the prior art references Broz in view of Maekawa and Fujimura.
Specification
The following title is suggested:
-- METHOD FOR CLEANING PROBE TIP AND METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FORMING PROBE TIP INTO CONICAL SHAPE --
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broz (US 20140331421) in view of Fujimura (US 20010035196) and Maekawa (US 20030090280).
[AltContent: textbox (abrasive cleaning gel)][AltContent: textbox (adhesive)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
265
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4A, Broz.
Regarding claim 1, Broz teaches, a method for forming a tip of a probe for test (probe card electrical contact elements 13, Figs. 2A and 2B, para. [0051]) into a conical shape (see contact element 403 in Fig. 8B, micro-feature geometry may be adjusted during the manufacturing of a cleaning layer such that the material can be used reshape, sharpen or refurbish the probe element tips, para. [0062]), wherein under the conditions that an abrasive cleaning gel film (cleaning medium 220, see annotated Fig. 4A above, using predetermined volumetric and mass densities of abrasive particles, the abrasiveness of the pad can be systematically affected in order to round or sharpen the probe tips, para. [0059]) having an abrasive cleaning gel layer (cleaning pad layer 202, Fig. 4A, para. [0053], a cleaning pad with an abrasive surface coating or abrasively coated polyurethane foam layer, para. [0015]) and being configured to be stuck to a surface (adhesive layer 204, Figs. 4A-4B and 8A-8B) is adhered.
Broz does not teach a vibrating surface of an ultrasonic transducer and is ultrasonically vibrating; tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the abrasive cleaning gel layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed, is performed one or more times to form the tip of the probe into the conical shape. However, Maekawa teaches a method of cleaning a test probe in Figs. 6A to 6C, including an abrasive sheet 63 in which,
PNG
media_image2.png
248
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6A, Maekawa.
the tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the abrasive cleaning gel layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed, is performed one or more times to form the tip of the probe into the conical shape (see annotated Fig. 6A above, piercing the probe tip several hundred times into an abrasive plate in which grinding materials comprise diamond abrasive grains in the range of #6000-10000, by piercing the probe tip 3000-4000 times into the abrasive plate…surface roughness of the probe tip is improved, para. [0051]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Maekawa, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of reshaping a tip of a probe for test of Broz and to include a predetermined number of piercing as taught by Maekawa so that it enables to shape the probe tips by inserting to the abrasive medium at a constant speed and at a predetermined depth. Doing so would enable improving the surface roughness by grinding the probe tip with the abrasive grains.
[AltContent: textbox (probe)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (vibrating surface)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
543
379
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4, Fujimura.
Modified Broz does not teach a vibrating surface of an ultrasonic transducer. However, Fujimura teaches a method of cleaning and shaping probe tips 12 in Fig. 1, and an abrasive sheet 120, in which, a vibrating surface of an ultrasonic transducer and is ultrasonically vibrated in axial direction (ultrasonic vibrator 22, see annotated Fig. 4 below, para. [0042]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Fujimura, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a tip of a probe for test of Broz in Fig. 8B and to include an ultrasonic vibrator 22 and to stuck the cleaning medium 220 of Broz onto the ultrasonic vibrator 22 so that it enables the probe to undergo ultrasonic vibrations in axial direction of the probe that remove any foreign particles while shaping the probe. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant invention that any surprising results were derived, or that any special steps were devised or a specific speed in order to penetrate and pull-up the probe into and from the abrasive cleaning gel. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broz (US 20140331421) in view of Fujimura (US 20010035196), Kido (JP 2003001202) and Maekawa (US 20030090280).
Regarding claim 2, Broz teaches, a method for forming a tip of a probe (electrical contact elements 13, Figs. 2A and 2B, probe card contact elements, para. [0051]) for test into a conical shape (micro-feature geometry may be adjusted during the manufacturing of a cleaning layer such that the material can be used reshape, sharpen or refurbish the probe element tips, para. [0062]).
Broz does not teach a container having a shallow bottom is fixed to a vibrating surface of an ultrasonic transducer and is filled with a viscous fluid or a gel fluid in which fine abrasive grains are mixed and dispersed to form a viscous fluid or gel fluid layer therein, and an axial direction of the probe is matched with a vibrating direction of the ultrasonic transducer, an operation, in which the tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the viscous fluid or gel fluid layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed, is performed one or more times to form the tip of the probe into the conical shape. However, Fujimura teaches a method of cleaning and shaping probe tips 12, and an abrasive sheet 120, in which, a container having a shallow bottom (cylindrical body 21, see annotated Fig. 4 above, with an open side, para. [0047]) is fixed to a vibrating surface of an ultrasonic transducer (ultrasonic vibrator 22, see annotated Fig. 4, para. [0042], abrasive sheet 120, Fig. 5) therein, and an axial direction of the probe is matched with a vibrating direction of the ultrasonic transducer (see Fig. 4). Fujimura teaches in Fig. 5 and in para. [0008-0009] that an abrasive sheet 120 and probe 110 is caused to pierce the abrasive sheet 120 several times. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Fujimura, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a tip of a probe for test of Broz and to include an ultrasonic vibrator 22 and to stick the cleaning abrasive sheet 120 in Fig. 5 inside the cylindrical body 21 so that it enables the forming standing waves inside the cylindrical body by bringing the cylindrical body in close proximity to the probe.
Modified Broz does not explicitly teach a viscous fluid or a gel fluid in which fine abrasive grains are mixed and dispersed to form a viscous fluid or gel fluid layer. However, Kido teaches a method of cleaning a test probe in which, a viscous fluid or a gel fluid in which fine abrasive grains are mixed and dispersed to form a viscous fluid or gel fluid layer (a cleaning liquid containing an abrasive, para. [0004]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Kido, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a tip of a probe for test of Broz and to include an ultrasonic vibrator 22 and to fill with the cleaning fluid as taught by Kido so that it enables to prevent settling and accumulating the abrasive particles inside the cleaning gel fluid.
Modified Broz does not teach the tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the viscous fluid or gel fluid layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed, is performed one or more times to form the tip of the probe into the conical shape. However, Maekawa teaches a method of cleaning a test probe including an abrasive sheet in which, the tip of the probe is penetrated to a predetermined depth in the abrasive cleaning gel layer at a constant speed and then pulled up at a constant speed, is performed one or more times to form the tip of the probe into the conical shape (piercing the probe tip several hundred times into an abrasive plate in which grinding materials comprise diamond abrasive grains in the range of #6000-10000, surface roughness of the probe tip is improved, para. [0051]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Maekawa, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a tip of a probe for test of Broz and to modify the sharpening method of Broz and to include a predetermined number of piercing as taught by Maekawa so that it enables forming the probe tips to a desired shape. Doing so would enable improving the surface roughness of the probe tip. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant invention that any surprising results were derived, or that any special steps were devised or a specific speed in order to penetrate and pull-up the probe into and from the abrasive cleaning gel. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, SUNIL K. SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722