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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6-13 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 § 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kister (US Pat. 9,476,911) in view of Voiron (US PGPUB 2020/0185155).
Regarding claim 6, Kister teaches a metal molded article (5500, as shown in fig. 55A-55B) having a first surface (as indicated in the figure below), a second surface (surface opposite the first surface in the back) opposite to the first surface (as shown in fig. 55A-55B), and a side surface (remaining surfaces) connecting the first surface and the second surface to each other (as shown in fig. 55A-55B), the metal molded article comprising: a first side surface area (as indicated in the figure below) located at a first height of the side surface of the metal molded article (as shown in fig. 55A-55B); and a second side surface area (as indicated in the figure below) located at a second height of the side surface of the metal molded article (as shown in fig. 55A-55B), wherein the first side surface area comprises a plurality of fine trenches (5504) formed side by side in a long groove shape extending from the first surface to the second surface (as shown in fig. 55A-55B), wherein the plurality of fine trenches (5504) are formed as grooves and are open recesses at an outer surface of the first side surface area (as shown in fig. 55A-55B), wherein the plurality of fine trenches (5504) are formed side by side in the outer surface of the first side surface area of the metal molded article (as shown in fig. 55A-55B), and wherein the second side surface area does not include fine trenches formed by pores of the anodic aluminum oxide film (as shown in fig. 55A-55B).
PNG
media_image1.png
298
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kister fails to specifically teach wherein the plurality of fine trenches are formed as grooves by pores of an anodic aluminum oxide film. However, Voiron teaches wherein the plurality of fine trenches (3) are formed as grooves by pores of an anodic aluminum oxide film (as disclosed in para. 0011 and 0034).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the plurality of fine trenches formed as grooves by pores of an anodic aluminum oxide film as taught by Voiron with the invention of Kister in order to protect against corrosion from environmental elements, scratches, wear, and chemical exposure.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kister and Voiron teaches the limitations of claim 6, in addition, Kister teaches wherein at least one end of the metal molded article (5500) comprises a protruding tip portion (5506) having a cross-sectional area smaller than a cross-sectional area of a central portion of a body portion (as shown in fig. 55A-55B).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kister and Voiron teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Kister (embodiment of fig. 55A-55B) fails to specifically teach wherein the protruding tip portion is made of a material different from a material of the body portion. However, Kister (embodiment of fig. 40) teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (4006) is made of a material different from a material of the body portion (4002) (as disclosed in para. 0156).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the protruding tip portion made of a material different from a material of the body portion as taught by Kister (embodiment of fig. 40) with the invention of the combination of Kister and Voiron in order to use a harder material for the probe tip compared to the body portion (Kister para. 0156).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kister and Voiron teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Kister (embodiment of fig. 55A-55B) fails to specifically teach wherein the protruding tip portion has the same width as the central portion of the body portion, but has a lower height than the central portion of the body portion. However, Kister (embodiment of fig. 75) teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (7404) has the same width as the central portion of the body portion, but has a lower height than the central portion of the body portion (as shown in fig. 75).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the protruding tip portion has the same width as the central portion of the body portion, but has a lower height than the central portion of the body portion as taught by Kister (embodiment of fig. 75) with the invention of the combination of Kister and Voiron in order to efficiently make contact with bumps on a device under test.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kister and Voiron teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Kister (embodiment of fig. 55A-55B) fails to specifically teach wherein the protruding tip portion has the same height as the central portion of the body portion, but has a narrower width than the central portion of the body portion. However, Kister (embodiment of fig. 77B) teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (7702) has the same height as the central portion of the body portion (pointed with arrow 7700), but has a narrower width than the central portion of the body portion (as shown in fig. 77B).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the protruding tip portion with the same height as the central portion of the body portion, but with a narrower width than the central portion of the body portion as taught by Kister (embodiment of fig. 77B) with the invention of the combination of Kister and Voiron in order to make precise and accurate contact with a particular device under test.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kister and Voiron teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Kister (embodiment of fig. 55A-55B) fails to specifically teach wherein the protruding tip portion is provided at a corner of the end of the metal molded article. However, Kister (embodiment of fig. 76B) teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (7606) is provided at a corner of the end of the metal molded article.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the protruding tip portion provided at a corner of the end of the metal molded article as taught by Kister (embodiment of fig. 76B) with the invention of the combination of Kister and Voiron in order to make precise and accurate contact with a particular device under test.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kister and Voiron teaches the limitations of claim 7, in addition, Kister teaches wherein the protruding tip portion (5506) is provided at a center of the end of the metal molded article (5500) (as shown in fig. 55A-55B).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kister and Voiron teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Kister (embodiment of fig. 55A-55B) fails to specifically teach wherein the protruding tip portion is made of a material having a higher hardness than the body portion. However, Kister (embodiment of fig. 40) teaches wherein the tip portion (4006) is made of a material having a higher hardness (harder material) than the body portion (4002) (as disclosed in para. 0156).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the protruding tip portion made of a material having a higher hardness than the body portion as taught by Kister (embodiment of fig. 40) with the invention of the combination of Kister and Voiron in order to prolong the durability and effectiveness of the metal molded article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights