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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s first argument is that Yatsugake does not teach the new limitation that “the holder includes: an inner surface having the same diameter at upper and lower portions of the inner surface” as recited in amended claim 1, however, this argument is not persuasive. Optical inspection unit 520 (shown in detail in FIG. 6A of Yatsugake) includes an inner surface with an upper portion (inside the flange portion 523) and a lower portion (holding spacer 528) shown as having the same diameter.
Applicant’s second argument is that Yatsugake’s flange portion 523 does not disclose a protrusion part with the first, second, and third outer surfaces with the inclinations now recited in claim 1 as amended, however, this argument is moot. The present action instead relies on inner sleeve 24 of Guenther to teach the now-claimed outer surfaces and their relative inclinations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 14-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same diameter" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as requiring that a diameter at an upper portion is the same as a diameter at a lower portion of the inner surface.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the same diameter" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as requiring that a diameter at an upper portion is the same as a diameter at a lower portion of the inner surface.
Claims 3-6, 9, 11, and 14-16 are indefinite for depending, directly or indirectly, on an indefinite claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 9-11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsugake (US Patent Document 20070268483) in view of Guenther (US Patent 6266183).
Regarding claim 1, Yatsugake teaches a probe card (abstract), comprising:
a lens unit (FIG. 6A, built-in optical lens(es) 522 and cylindrical member 521) through which light is irradiated from a light source unit (FIG. 3, test light L);
a jig into which the lens unit is inserted (FIG. 3, mount mechanism 506), and
a holder unit configured to closely support the lens unit (FIG. 3, optical inspection unit 520),
wherein the jig includes:
a through hole, into which the lens unit and the holder are inserted (FIG. 3, through-hole 509); and
wherein the holder includes:
an inner surface having the same diameter at upper (FIG. 6A, inside the flange portion 523) and lower portions of the inner surface (FIG. 6A, holding spacer 528 and shown as having the same diameter as the upper portion);
a protrusion part (FIG. 6A, flange portion 523) including a first outer surface (FIG. 6A, part of the outer surface of flange portion 523) and a third outer surface (FIG. 6A, another part of flange portion 523), the first outer surface having a constant first thickness from the inner surface and the third outer surface having a constant second thickness from the inner surface (FIG. 6A, each part of flange portion 523 is shown as having a constant thickness from the inner surface).
Yatsugake does not explicitly teach that the through hole is tapered downward nor an inclined part located below the through hole and tapered downward, nor that a second outer surface of the protrusion part is inclined from the first and third outer surfaces and supported by the inclined part.
In the same field of endeavor of ensuring that optics are properly aligned after they are moved, Guenther does teach that the through hole is tapered downward (FIG. 4, tapered interior surface 30); an inclined part located below the through hole (FIG. 2, outer sleeve 26, which contains the tapered interior surface 30 (see FIG. 4) is located below inner sleeve 24 and cylindrical opening 28) and tapered downward (FIG. 4, tapered portion 30); and that a second outer surface of the protrusion part is inclined from the first and third outer surfaces and supported by the inclined part (FIG. 7, exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24, which is inclined relative to a first outer surface above the inclined part (where the hole for pin 38 is located) and relative to a third outer surface (located near the end near the label “FIG.7”). The inclined exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24 is supported by the inclined interior surface 30 of outer sleeve 26). By using the inclinations and tapers of the components, Guenther is able to align optical components repeatably after they are moved.
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 probe card with replaceable optics of Yatsugake with the mating tapers of Guenther, motivated to funnel the piece containing the optical elements into proper alignment more easily as part of swapping the optical elements.
Regarding claim 3, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 1 (as described above).
Yatsugake further teaches that the holder unit includes a first through hole into which the lens unit is inserted (FIG. 3, through-hole 509).
Regarding claim 4, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 3 (as described above).
Yatsugake further teaches that the lens unit is inserted into the holder unit through the first through hole (FIG. 6A shows the lenses inserted) and supported by an inner surface of the holder (FIG. 3, cylindrical member 521 is held up by flange portion 523).
Regarding claim 5, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 1 (as described above).
Yatsugake further teaches that the lens unit is supported by an upper end of the holder unit (FIG. 3, flange portion 523, holding up the lenses, is at the upper end of the holder).
Regarding claim 9, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 1 (as described above).
Yatsugake further teaches that the holder unit is structured to be separated from the jig or inserted into the jig (paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 10, Yatsugake teaches a probe card (abstract), comprising: a jig including a plurality of through holes (FIG. 3 shows multiple instances of through hole 509 each with an optical inspection unit 520);
a lens unit inserted into the jig through one of the plurality of through holes (FIG. 6A, lenses 522);
a holder unit inserted into the jig and configured to hold the lens unit (FIG. 6A, small-diameter lens housing portion 525 and large-diameter housing portion 525),
wherein the holder includes:
an inner surface having the same diameter at upper (FIG. 6A, inside the flange portion 523) and lower portions of the inner surface (FIG. 6A, holding spacer 528 and shown as having the same diameter as the upper portion);
a protrusion part (FIG. 6A, flange portion 523) including a first outer surface (FIG. 6A, part of the outer surface of flange portion 523) and a third outer surface (FIG. 6A, another part of flange portion 523), the first outer surface having a constant first thickness from the inner surface and the third outer surface having a constant second thickness from the inner surface (FIG. 6A, each part of flange portion 523 is shown as having a constant thickness from the inner surface).
Yatsugake does not explicitly teach that the through hole is tapered downward nor an inclined part located below the through hole and tapered downward, nor that a second outer surface of the protrusion part is inclined from the first and third outer surfaces and supported by the inclined part.
In the same field of endeavor of ensuring that optics are properly aligned after they are moved, Guenther does teach that the through hole is tapered downward (FIG. 4, tapered interior surface 30); an inclined part located below the through hole (FIG. 2, outer sleeve 26, which contains the tapered interior surface 30 (see FIG. 4) is located below inner sleeve 24 and cylindrical opening 28) and tapered downward (FIG. 4, tapered portion 30); and that a second outer surface of the protrusion part is inclined from the first and third outer surfaces and supported by the inclined part (FIG. 7, exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24, which is inclined relative to a first outer surface above the inclined part (where the hole for pin 38 is located) and relative to a third outer surface (located near the end near the label “FIG.7”). The inclined exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24 is supported by the inclined interior surface 30 of outer sleeve 26). By using the inclinations and tapers of the components, Guenther is able to align optical components repeatably after they are moved.
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 probe card with replaceable optics of Yatsugake with the mating tapers of Guenther, motivated to funnel the piece containing the optical elements into proper alignment more easily as part of swapping the optical elements.
Regarding claim 11, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 10 (as described above).
Yatsugake further teaches that the holder unit is supported by an inner lower portion of the jig (FIG. 6A, stepped portion 527).
Regarding claim 15, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 10 (as described above).
Yatsugake further teaches that the lens unit is supported by an upper circumferential surface of the holder unit (FIG. 7, lens 522B3 rests atop spacer 528, supported by an upper circumferential surface thereof).
Regarding claim 16, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 10 (as described above).
Yatsugake further teaches that the holder unit includes a plastic material (paragraph 51, non-translucent resin (i.e., a plastic material)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsugake (US Patent Document 20070268483) in view of Guenther (US Patent 6266183) and further in view of Thorlabs 1 (Non-Patent Literature “Retaining Rings”).
Regarding claim 6, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 1 (as described above).
While Yatsugake does teach the use of a non-translucent resin, Yatsugake does not teach the use of rubber explicitly.
In the same field of endeavor of mechanical parts for holding lenses, Thorlabs 1 does teach that a holder unit includes a rubber material (page 4, stress-free retaining rings include a rubber O-ring). By doing so, Thorlabs reduces stress on components and blocks stray light.
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 Yatsugake with Thorlabs 1’s inclusion of rubber in order to reduce stress on components and seal out stray light so as to increase signal to noise ratio in measurements.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yatsugake (US Patent Document 20070268483) in view of Guenther (US Patent 6266183) and further in view of Thorlabs 2 (Non-Patent Literature “Reflective Microscope Objectives”).
Regarding claim 14, Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, teaches or renders obvious the probe card of claim 10 (as described above).
Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, does not explicitly teach that the jig tapers toward a bottom of the jig such that an outer diameter of the jig at a top of the jig is greater than an outer diameter of the jig at a bottom of the jig.
In the same field of endeavor of the mechanical design of optical systems used to study small subjects, Thorlabs 2 does teach the use of a taper such that an outer diameter of the optical system at a top of the optical system is greater than an outer diameter of the optical system at a bottom of the optical system (page 1, overview section, antepenultimate paragraph). The outer taper is designed to maximize space for an access to the sample.
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 probe card with replaceable optics of Yatsugake, as modified by Guenther, with the exterior taper of Thorlabs 2, motivated by the desire to maximize available space around the bottom of the optical elements, which could be used, for example, to include the electrical probes for the probe card.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877