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 .
This action is responsive to the amendment of 4/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are overcome by amendment.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s first argument is that Yatsugake and Guenther do not teach a holder with a protrusion part with a first outer surface of constant thickness, an inclined second outer surface, and a third outer surface with a second constant thickness integrally formed as a single piece; however, this argument is unpersuasive. In particular, Yatsugake teaches the constant thickness first outer surface (FIG. 6A, flange portion 523) integrally fixed (paragraph 51) the third constant thickness outer surface (FIG. 6A, cylindrical member 521). While Yatsugake does not teach an inclined surface connecting those two, Guenther does teach a holding unit (FIG. 2, inner sleeve 24, shown in more detail in FIG. 7) with all three parts (FIG. 7, the part above exterior surface 34, exterior surface 34 itself, and the part below exterior surface 34, respectively), which appears to be integrally formed as a single unit. As described below, 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 flange portion and cylindrical member of Yatsugake by connecting them with a taper like that of Guenther so that they fit together in the same precise, repeatable way that Guenther achieves (see COL. 3, lines 52-56 of Guenther). Further, even if one reference or the other were to not teach making the surfaces integral, it is generally considered obvious to do so (see MPEP 2144.04 V B).
Applicant’s second argument is that Yatsugake does not teach the inclined inner surface of the jig, directly connecting the first and second inner surfaces; however, this argument is moot. In particular, Guenther is relied on to teach an inclined inner surface (see Guenther, FIG. 4, partially tapered interior surface 30) that has a mating connection with the tapered outer surface 34 of inner sleeve 24.
Applicant’s third argument is that Guenther does not teach that the exterior surface 34 of the inner sleeve 24 does not directly connect two different inner surfaces facing two different outer surfaces, each of which has a constant thickness; however, this argument is moot. In particular, the present action does not rely on exterior surface 34 inner sleeve 24 directly connecting to inner surfaces. Instead, the partially tapered interior surface 30 of outer sleeve 26 (see FIG. 4) is relied on to provide a mating connection to exterior surface 34, which is analogous to the mating tapers of elements 120 and 220 shown in FIGs. 1 and 3 of the present disclosure.
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 holder unit includes: an inner surface having a same diameter at upper and lower portions of the inner surface (FIG. 6A, inside the flange portion 523 and cylindrical member 521, respectively);
a protrusion part including a first outer surface, the first outer surface having a constant first thickness from the inner surface (FIG. 6A, flange portion 523); and
a third outer surface having a constant second thickness from the inner surface (FIG. 6A, the outer surface of cylindrical member 521),
wherein the first outer surface of the protrusion part and the third outer surface of the holder unit are integrally formed as a single piece (paragraph 51 describes the flange member 523 as integrally fixed to cylindrical member 521. Note that were there is an inclined second outer surface connecting the first and third outer surfaces of Yatsugake, it would likely be integrally fixed, too.),
wherein the jig includes:
a through hole, into which the lens unit and the holder unit are inserted (FIG. 3, through-hole 509);
a first inner surface facing the first outer surface of the protrusion part (FIG. 3, the portion of supporting mount 507 on which a particular optical inspection unit 520 rests has a surface facing the outer surface of flange unit 523 from below);
a second inner surface facing the third outer surface of the holder unit (FIG. 3, the interior surface of through-hole 509).
Yatsugake does not explicitly teach a second outer surface, the second outer surface being inclined from the first outer surface; that the first outer surface of the protrusion part, the second outer surface of the protrusion part, and the third outer surface of the holder unit are integrally formed as a single piece (Yatsugake does teach that the first and third outer surfaces are integrally formed (paragraph 51), but does not teach the second outer surface as claimed, so cannot teach that those two integrally formed pieces are also integrally formed with the missing piece); that the through hole is tapered downward; an inclined part directly connecting the first and second inner surfaces, wherein the inclined part is disposed below the through hole and is tapered downward (in Yatsugake, the first and second inner surfaces are directly connected to each other rather than through an inclined portion); an inclined part directly connecting the first and second inner surfaces, wherein the inclined part is disposed below the through hole and is tapered downward; or that the second outer surface of the protrusion part is 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 a second outer surface (FIG. 7, exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24), the second outer surface being inclined from the first outer surface (FIG. 4, note that the exterior surface 34 is inclined relative to the cylindrical sections above and below it); that the first outer surface of the protrusion part, the second outer surface of the protrusion part, and the third outer surface of the holder unit are integrally formed as a single piece (FIG. 7, note that there are (unnumbered) sections of constant thickness above and below the exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24, which appears to be a single, integrated piece); that the through hole is tapered downward (FIG. 4, partially tapered interior surface 30); an inclined part of the jig, wherein the inclined part is disposed below the through hole and is tapered downward (FIG. 4, tapered portion 30 of outer sleeve 26. Note that the most obvious place to incorporate the tapered portion 30 into the probe card of Yatsugake is between the first and second inner surfaces. Since those elements are directly connected in Yatsugake, interposing a single additional element (such as the taper of Guenther) would cause that additional element to directly connect the first inner surface to the second, as required by this limitation); and that the second outer surface of the protrusion part is supported by the inclined part (COL. 3, lines 59-63. Also see FIG. 2). By including a taper in both the outside surface part holding the objective (FIG. 2 shows how inner sleeve 24 holds objective 10) and the interior surface of the outer sleeve that holds the inner sleeve, Guenther is able to create a pair of surfaces that can only be coupled in a single, precisely repeatable position, even if the inner sleeve is removed from that position in a less-than-precise manner (COL. 4, lines 4-10. The less-than-precise removal from the desired position that Guenther prepares for is accidentally crashing the microscope objective into a sample, but the same adaptations should apply to replacing one objective with another).
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 of Yatsugake with the mating tapers of Guenther in order to gain the predictable benefit of being able to easily and repeatably place one of the holders precisely in the desired position.
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. 6A, the lenses 522 are held inside the cylindrical member 521 and supported by its interior surfaces).
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, indirectly 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. 3, optical inspection unit 520),
wherein the holder unit includes:
an inner surface having a same diameter at upper and lower portions of the inner surface (FIG. 6A, inside the flange portion 523 and cylindrical member 521, respectively);
a protrusion part including a first outer surface, the first outer surface having a constant first thickness from the inner surface (FIG. 6A, flange portion 523); and
a third outer surface having a constant second thickness from the inner surface (FIG. 6A, the outer surface of cylindrical member 521),
wherein the first outer surface of the protrusion part and the third outer surface of the holder unit are integrally formed as a single piece (paragraph 51 describes the flange member 523 as integrally fixed to cylindrical member 521. Note that were there is an inclined second outer surface connecting the first and third outer surfaces of Yatsugake, it would likely be integrally fixed, too.),
wherein the jig further includes:
a first inner surface facing the first outer surface of the protrusion part (FIG. 3, the portion of supporting mount 507 on which a particular optical inspection unit 520 rests has a surface facing the outer surface of flange unit 523 from below);
a second inner surface facing the third outer surface of the holder unit (FIG. 3, the interior surface of through-hole 509).
Yatsugake does not explicitly teach a second outer surface, the second outer surface being inclined from the first outer surface; that the first outer surface of the protrusion part, the second outer surface of the protrusion part, and the third outer surface of the holder unit are integrally formed as a single piece (Yatsugake does teach that the first and third outer surfaces are integrally formed (paragraph 51), but does not teach the second outer surface as claimed, so cannot teach that those two integrally formed pieces are also integrally formed with the missing piece); an inclined part directly connecting the first and second inner surfaces, wherein the inclined part is disposed below the one of the plurality of through holes and is tapered downward (in Yatsugake, the first and second inner surfaces are directly connected to each other rather than through an inclined portion); or that the second outer surface of the protrusion part is 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 a second outer surface (FIG. 7, exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24), the second outer surface being inclined from the first outer surface (FIG. 4, note that the exterior surface 34 is inclined relative to the cylindrical sections above and below it); that the first outer surface of the protrusion part, the second outer surface of the protrusion part, and the third outer surface of the holder unit are integrally formed as a single piece (FIG. 7, note that there are (unnumbered) sections of constant thickness above and below the exterior surface 34 of inner sleeve 24, which appears to be a single, integrated piece); an inclined part of the jig, wherein the inclined part is disposed below the one of the plurality of through holes and is tapered downward (FIG. 4, tapered portion 30 of outer sleeve 26. Note that the most obvious place to incorporate the tapered portion 30 into the probe card of Yatsugake is between the first and second inner surfaces. Since those elements are directly connected in Yatsugake, interposing a single additional element (such as the taper of Guenther) would cause that additional element to directly connect the first inner surface to the second, as required by this limitation); or that the second outer surface of the protrusion part is supported by the inclined part (COL. 3, lines 59-63. Also see FIG. 2). By including a taper in both the outside surface part holding the objective (FIG. 2 shows how inner sleeve 24 holds objective 10) and the interior surface of the outer sleeve that holds the inner sleeve, Guenther is able to create a pair of surfaces that can only be coupled in a single, precisely repeatable position, even if the inner sleeve is removed from that position in a less-than-precise manner (COL. 4, lines 4-10. The less-than-precise removal from the desired position that Guenther prepares for is accidentally crashing the microscope objective into a sample, but the same adaptations should apply to replacing one objective with another).
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 of Yatsugake with the mating tapers of Guenther in order to gain the predictable benefit of being able to easily and repeatably place one of the holders precisely in the desired position.
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, as modified by Guenther 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights