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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 2025-12-09 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, 12, 15-17, and 21-24 remain pending in this application. No Claim(s) have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2025-12-09 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no need to combine the references of Andres and Lee as the motivation for combining is not needed on Andres as there is no need to push to initiate any slide because the gripper could not move. Thus, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Andres in view of Lee as the modification is unnecessary and would make the structure of the gripper assembly of Andres more complicated without any practical purpose.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not be obvious to modify Andres in view of Lee, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The combined teachings of Andres in view of Lee do teach a gripper assembly containing a slider as claimed in claim 1 and detailed in the rejection below.
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 1-3, 9-11, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres et al. (US-11879925-B1) in view of Lee (KR-102172376-B1 – Refer to attached machine translation for cited references).
Regarding Claim 1, Andres teaches a test apparatus, comprising:
a body (Fig 2 or 3: alignment plate, 110) having an opening (Fig 3: opening, 112);
first and second sliders (Figs 4-10: gripper assembly, 120) with respective ends that face one another in the opening (See Annotated Figure 2 of Andres), positions of the first and second sliders adjustable (Figs 5-10: extender, 124) along a first direction;
third and fourth sliders (Figs 4-10: gripper assembly, 120) with respective ends that face one another in the opening (See Annotated Figure 2 of Andres), positions of the third and fourth sliders adjustable (Figs 5-10: extender, 124) along a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (See Annotated Figure 2 Andres); and
a clamp (Fig 3: handler, 102) configured to apply a clamping force along a third direction to a device under test (DUT) (Col. 6, ln. 50-55 | Fig 2: DUT, 130) positioned in the opening (See Fig 2), the third direction orthogonal to the first and second directions (See Annotated Figure 3 of Andres).
Andres does not teach wherein each slider has an indented slot on a side surface, the side surface in parallel with the third direction.
However, Lee teaches wherein each slider has an indented slot on a side surface (Fig 5: side groove, 430. Para [0032] teaches the groove is on the side portion of the slider body), the side surface in parallel with the third direction. (From figure 5, the groove can be seen located on a side whose surface is parallel with the third direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sliders of Andres, to incorporate the indented slot of Lee. A motivation for this modification is to allow another member to push against the groove to initiate the slide, as taught by Lee in Paragraph [0070].
Regarding Claim 2, Andres further teaches wherein the ends of the first, second, third, and fourth sliders have a ramp surface at a non-zero angle to the third direction (Fig 10: chamfer, 124G).
Regarding Claim 3, The Andres further teaches wherein the ends of the first, second, third, and fourth sliders have a second surface extending from the ramp surface (Fig 10: Can be seen below 124G, unlabeled).
Regarding Claim 9, Andres teaches a system for evaluating an electronic a device under test (DUT), comprising:
a circuit board (Col. 5, ln. 60-65); and
a test apparatus, comprising:
a body (Fig 3: alignment plate, 110) mounted to the circuit board (Col. 5, ln. 60-65) and having an opening (Fig 3: opening, 112) over a portion of the circuit board;
first and second sliders (Figs 4-10: gripper assembly, 120) with respective ends that face one another in the opening (See Fig 2), positions of the first and second sliders adjustable along a first direction (Figs 5-10: extender, 124);
third and fourth sliders (Figs 4-10: gripper assembly, 120) with respective ends that face one another in the opening (See Fig 2), positions of the third and fourth sliders adjustable along a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction (See Fig 2); and
a clamp (Fig 3: handler, 102) configured to apply a clamping force along a third direction to engage the DUT (Col. 6, ln. 50-55 | Fig 2: DUT, 130) to the portion of the circuit board, the third direction orthogonal to the first and second directions (See Figs 3 or 7).
Andres does not teach wherein each slider has an indented slot on a side surface, the side surface in parallel with the third direction.
However, Lee teaches wherein each slider has an indented slot on a side surface (Fig 5: side groove, 430. Para [0032] teaches the groove is on the side portion of the slider body), the side surface in parallel with the third direction. (From figure 5, the groove can be seen located on a side whose surface is parallel with the third direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sliders of Andres, to incorporate the indented slot of Lee. A motivation for this modification is to allow another member to push against the groove to initiate the slide, as taught by Lee in Paragraph [0070].
Regarding Claim 10, Andres further teaches wherein the ends of the first, second, third, and fourth sliders have a ramp surface at a non-zero angle to the third direction (Fig 10: chamfer, 124G).
Regarding Claim 11, Andres further teaches wherein the ends of the first, second, third, and fourth sliders have a second surface extending from the ramp surface (Fig 10: Can be seen below 124G, unlabeled).
Regarding Claim 15, Andres teaches a method for testing a device under test (DUT), the method comprising:
adjusting respective positions of first and second sliders (Figs 4-10: gripper assembly, 120) along a first direction in an opening of a test apparatus body mounted to a circuit board (Col. 5, ln. 60-65), the first and second sliders having respective ends that face one another in the opening (See Annotated Fig 2 of Andres);
adjusting respective positions of third and fourth sliders along (Figs 4-10: gripper assembly, 120) a second direction orthogonal to the first direction in the opening (See Annotated Figure 2 on Andres), the third and fourth sliders having respective ends that face one another in the opening (See Annotated Figure 2 on Andres);
positioning the DUT in the opening (See Fig 2 | col. 7 ln. 30-35);
engaging a clamp to apply a clamping force (col. 6 ln. 53-65) along a third direction to engage the DUT to a portion of the circuit board, the third direction orthogonal to the first and second directions (See Annotated Figure 3 of Andres); and
electrically testing the DUT (Col. 5, ln. 60 - col. 10 ln. 20).
Andres does not teach wherein each slider has an indented slot on a side surface, the side surface in parallel with the third direction.
However, Lee teaches wherein each slider has an indented slot on a side surface (Fig 5: side groove, 430. Para [0032] teaches the groove is on the side portion of the slider body), the side surface in parallel with the third direction. (From figure 5, the groove can be seen located on a side whose surface is parallel with the third direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sliders of Andres, to incorporate the indented slot of Lee. A motivation for this modification is to allow another member to push against the groove to initiate the slide, as taught by Lee in Paragraph [0070].
Regarding Claim 16, Andres further teaches wherein the ends of the first, second, third, and fourth sliders have a ramp surface at a non-zero angle to the third direction (Fig 10: chamfer, 124G).
Regarding Claim 17, Andres further teaches wherein the ends of the first, second, third, and fourth sliders have a second surface extending from the ramp surface (Fig 10: Can be seen below 124G, unlabeled).
PNG
media_image1.png
743
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Andres
PNG
media_image2.png
562
1195
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of Andres
Claims 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres in view of Lee and further in view of Haslam et al. (US-20210283377-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, The combination of Andres in view of Lee teaches first, second, third and fourth sliders. Andres in view of Lee does not teach that the sliders have a ribbed surface. However, Haslam teaches a slider (Fig 3A: slider, 170) with a ribbed surface (Fig 3A: ribs, 171). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sliders of Andres in view of Lee to incorporate the ribbed surface of Haslam. A motivation for doing so would be to improve a user’s grip on the slider as taught by Haslam (Para [0051]).
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Andres in view of Lee teaches first, second, third and fourth sliders. Andres in view of Lee does not teach that the sliders have a ribbed surface. However, Haslam teaches a slider (Fig 3A: slider, 170) with a ribbed surface (Fig 3A: ribs, 171). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the sliders of Andres in view of Lee to incorporate the ribbed surface of Haslam. A motivation for doing so would be to improve a user’s grip on the slider as taught by Haslam (Para [0051]).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andres in view of Lee and further in view of Panagas (US-20130200913-A1).
Regarding Claim 21 and 22, The combination of Andres in view of Lee teaches the test apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Andres in view of Lee does not teach wherein the body further comprises a slot. wherein the clamp comprises a clamp tab configured to engage and lock in the slot. However, Panagas teaches wherein the clamp (Fig 15: guide structure, 50) comprises a clamp tab (Fig 15: engagement feature, 51) configured to engage and lock in the slot (Para [0078] teaches guide structure may be used to securely fasten). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the body and clamp of Andres in view of Lee to incorporate the slot and tab of Panagas. A motivation for this change is to have a means to securely fasten the objects together as taught by Panagas in paragraph [0078].
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, The combination of Andres in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 9. The combination of Andres in view of Lee does not teach wherein the body further comprises a slot. wherein the clamp comprises a clamp tab configured to engage and lock in the slot. However, Panagas teaches wherein the clamp (Fig 15: guide structure, 50) comprises a clamp tab (Fig 15: engagement feature, 51) configured to engage and lock in the slot (Para [0078] teaches guide structure may be used to securely fasten). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the body and clamp of Andres in view of Lee to incorporate the slot and tab of Panagas. A motivation for this change is to have a means to securely fasten the objects together as taught by Panagas in paragraph [0078].
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 JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858