Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/274,455

ELECTRO-CONDUCTIVE CONTACT PIN, MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR, AND ELECTRO-CONDUCTIVE CONTACT PIN MODULE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 27, 2024
Examiner
PRETLOW, DEMETRIUS R
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Point Engineering Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
588 granted / 678 resolved
+18.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
727
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 678 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 10, 11, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yeh et al. (US 20140266280) . Regarding claim 10, Yeh teach An electro-conductive contact pin module, (Note Fig. 5) comprising: a support frame including connecting portions; (22, Fig. 5, par. 0040) and electro-conductive contact pins (11, par. 0041, Fig. 4B) provided in the support frame through the connecting portions, (Note holding structure 22) wherein each of the electro-conductive contact pins comprises: a pin body (10, Fig. 3) including first and second end portions and an intermediate portion between the first and second end portions; an insulating coating formed on a surface of the intermediate portion of the pin body; (Note annotated Fig. 3 below) and a functional coating formed on a surface of the first end portion of the pin body.(Note annotated Fig. 3 below) Regarding claim 12, Yeh et al. teach An electro-conductive contact pin, (Note 11, Fig. 3 below) comprising: a pin body including first and second end portions and an intermediate portion between the first and second end portions; (Note annotated Fig. 3 below) an insulating coating formed on a surface of the intermediate portion of the pin body; (Note annotated Fig. 3 below) and a functional coating formed on a surface of the first end portion of the pin body. (Note annotated Fig. 3 below) Regarding claim 20, Yeh et al. teach An electro-conductive contact pin, (Note 11, Fig. 3 below) comprising a pin body including first and second end portions and an intermediate portion between the first and second end portions, (Note 11, Fig. 3 below) wherein the first end portion is further provided with a functional coating on a surface thereof in addition to a material constituting the second end portion, (Note 11, Fig. 3 below) and the intermediate portion is further provided with an insulating coating on a surface thereof in addition to a material constituting the first end portion. (Note 11, Fig. 3 below) PNG media_image1.png 504 488 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11, Yeh et al. teach wherein the functional coating is formed on at least a portion of the support frame. (Note probe 11 containing functional coating is connected to the holding structure 22 which is interpreted as being formed on a portion of the support frame.) 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20140266280) in view of Campbell et al. (US 20050134298) Yeh et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations. Regarding claim 13, Yeh et al. does not teach wherein the functional coating is continuously formed on the surfaces of the intermediate portion and the first end portion of the pin body, and is not formed on a surface of the second end portion. Campbell et al. teach wherein the functional coating is continuously formed on the surfaces of the intermediate portion and the first end portion of the pin body, and is not formed on a surface of the second end portion. (Note annotated Fig. 10 below and par. 0038) PNG media_image2.png 274 670 media_image2.png Greyscale Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeh et al. to include the teaching of wherein the functional coating is continuously formed on the surfaces of the intermediate portion and the first end portion of the pin body, and is not formed on a surface of the second end portion to reduce cost by using less material. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20140266280) in view of Tunaboylu et al. (US 20060027747). Yeh et a. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations. Regarding claim 14, Yeh et al. does not teach wherein the functional coating is formed only on the first end portion. Tunaboylu et al. teach wherein the functional coating is formed only on the first end portion. (A method of processing a probe element includes (a) providing a probe element comprising a first conductive material, and (b) coating only a tip portion of the probe element with a second conductive material.) Note abstract. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeh et al. to include the teaching of wherein the functional coating is formed only on the first end portion provide increased hardness and wear protection while minimizing cost. (Note Tunaboylu et al. par. 0017) Regarding claim 15, Yeh et al. does not teach wherein the functional coating is made of Au. Tunaboylu et al. teach wherein the functional coating is made of Au. (Note par. 0003) Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeh et al. to include the teaching of wherein the functional coating is made of Au to increase the hardness and decrease wear of the probe. (Note Tunaboylu et al. par. 0003) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20140266280) in view of Eldridge et al. (US 20180299486). Yeh et al. teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations. Regarding claim 16, Yeh et al. does not teach wherein a fine trench extending in a thickness direction of the electro-conductive contact pin is provided on a side surface of the second end portion. Eldridge et al. teach wherein a fine trench (Note gap 132, par. 0036, Fig. 1C) extending in a thickness direction of the electro-conductive contact pin is provided on a side surface of the second end portion. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeh et al. to include the teaching of a fine trench extending in a thickness direction of the electro-conductive contact pin is provided on a side surface of the second end portion to electrically insulate the secondary structure from the signal structure but sufficiently small to maintain a relatively small loop inductance in applications in which the signal path is utilized as a delivery path for a signal from a signal source. (Note Eldridge et al. par. 0037) Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh et al. (US 20140266280) in view of Tanioka et al. (US 20060082380). Yeh teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations. Regarding claim 17, Yeh et al. does not teach wherein a side surface of the second end portion is different in roughness range from a side surface of the first end portion. Tanioka et al. teach wherein a side surface of the second end portion is different in roughness range from a side surface of the first end portion. (a roughness pattern comprising fine marks is provided on the surfaces of the probe pins on the side having the electric contacts for contacting the electrodes of the semiconductor device to be inspected.) Note abstract. Examiner’s position is that one side of the probe is rough and the other side is not . Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeh et a. to include the teaching of wherein a side surface of the second end portion is different in roughness range from a side surface of the first end portion to provide higher friction, which helps the probe maintain consistent contact with the workpiece Regarding claim 18, Yeh et al. does not teach wherein a side surface of the second end portion is different in roughness range from a side surface of the intermediate portion. Tanioka et al. teach wherein a side surface of the second end portion is different in roughness range from a side surface of the intermediate portion. (a roughness pattern comprising fine marks is provided on the surfaces of the probe pins on the side having the electric contacts for contacting the electrodes of the semiconductor device to be inspected.) Note abstract. Examiner’s position is that the probes has intermediate portion and that one side of the probe is rough (contact side) and the opposite side which also has an intermediate portion is not. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yeh et al. to include the teaching of a side surface of the second end portion is different in roughness range from a side surface of the intermediate portion to provide higher friction, which helps the probe maintain consistent contact with the workpiece. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30. 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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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. /DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 /LEE E RODAK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12584975
VOLTAGE AND CURRENT-SENSING-LESS SHORT-CIRCUIT PROTECTION AND LOCALIZATION FOR POWER DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12560646
FORM FACTOR EQUIVALENT LOAD TESTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12553331
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN ARRAY OF DIFFERENT DOWNHOLE SENSORS IN A SINGLE TOOL BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12546832
Short Circuit Detection Apparatus
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12535538
ACTIVE DETECTION OF AN ARC FAULT
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+7.5%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 678 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