Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/242,074

FLEXIBLE CONTACTOR AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 05, 2023
Examiner
FIGUEROA, FELIX O
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Withmems Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
73%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
528 granted / 910 resolved
-10.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
963
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.0%
+13.0% vs TC avg
§102
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 910 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning. The drawings are objected to because they have elements shown in cross section which are not properly crosshatched. Insulating members shown in cross section should be properly crosshatched. See for example 300. It is brought to applicant’s attention that the conventional crosshatch for insulating members shown in cross section consist of lines of two different thicknesses alternatively disposed. PNG media_image1.png 35 156 media_image1.png Greyscale Magnetic elements such as 230, should be cross-hatch with crossing/intersecting lines, as follows. PNG media_image2.png 56 178 media_image2.png Greyscale Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “in parallel” in claim 1 is used by the claim but does not appear to accurately describe the invention. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In this case, it appears that the second elastic parts are connected in series or in line with first elastic parts. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balucani (US 2012/0071037, previously cited in IDS) in view of Lee (US 2015/0377923). Regarding claim 1, Balucani discloses a flexible contactor that electrically connects a first pad of an inspection target object with a second pad of an inspection device, comprising, a plurality of first parts (400-1a, 4001c / 420a, 420c), each of the first parts, the plurality of first parts including first parts disposed at each of both end portions of the flexible contactor in a longitudinal direction (420a, 420c); and a plurality of second elastic parts (405a, 405c) connected in parallel (in line) to the plurality of first parts in the longitudinal direction, the plurality of second elastic parts containing second conductive particles and be formed being elastically deformable, the plurality of second elastic parts being disposed between adjacent first parts of the plurality of first elastic parts, wherein the first part and the second elastic part are different from each other in at least one of physical properties including hardness, Young's modulus, and resistivity; and the flexible contactor comprises a single elongated body (Fig, 4B) and is configured to be assembled by insertion into a housing in the longitudinal direction such that an assembly tolerance with respect to the housing is managed (intended use). Lee teaches a flexible contactor that electrically connects a first pad of an inspection target object with a second pad of an inspection device, comprising, a first elastic part (130) containing a first conductive particle (131) and being formed elastically deformable; and a second elastic part (111), which is connected in parallel (in line) to the first elastic part in a longitudinal direction, containing second conductive particles (111a) and being elastically deformable, wherein the first elastic part and the second elastic part are different from each other in at least one of physical properties including hardness, Young's modulus, and resistivity; and the flexible contactor comprises a single elongated body and is configured to be assembled by insertion into a housing in the longitudinal direction such that an assembly tolerance with respect to the housing is managed (intended use). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the first parts being elastic, as taught by Lee, in order to improve the efficiency of the interface while reducing wear on the test object and device. Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the first conductive particles and the second conductive particles being different from each other in at least one of material and size (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses a density of the first conductive particles in the first elastic part being different from a density of the second conductive particles in the second elastic part (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 4, Balucani discloses that one of the plurality of first parts or the plurality of second elastic parts are spaced apart from each other, and the other of the plurality of first parts or the plurality of second elastic parts are interposed therebetween in the longitudinal direction. Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the first elastic part and the second elastic part being different from each other in cross-sectional shape as viewed from the longitudinal direction (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 6, Balucani discloses the plurality of first parts connected to each of both end portions of the flexible contactor in the longitudinal direction. Lee teaches a size of the first conductive particle is smaller than wherein a size of the second conductive particle (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the first elastic part and the second elastic part being hardened by a phase change (method of manufacturing, not germane to apparatus claim) and integrally formed with each other (Fig. 4). 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 FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009. 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. /FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 05, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597739
HIGH-FREQUENCY HIGH-SPEED TRANSMISSION CABLE MODULE AND UPPER COVER OF THE COVER BODY THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592511
METAL SHELL-LESS RECEPTACLE CONNECTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586936
BATTERY POST TERMINAL ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580331
FLEXIBLE PRINTED WIRING BOARD WITH CRIMP TERMINAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12537323
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR TERMINAL-FREE CIRCUIT CONNECTORS AND FLEXIBLE MULTILAYERED INTERCONNECT CIRCUITS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
73%
With Interview (+14.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 910 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month