DETAILED ACTION
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 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 3/30/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1, 4-14 and 29-40 are pending.
- Claims 1 has been amended.
- Claims 2-3 and 15-28 have been canceled.
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 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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 6,855,010 by Yen, (Yen hereafter) in view of the US Patent US 11,973,301 by Frodis, (Frodis hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Yen teaches in Figure 2, a probe for use in a vertical probe array, the probe comprising:
a mechanically resilient first member (101);
at least one electrically conductive second member (103);
a probe tip configured to make temporary electrical contact to a device under test (102);
a probe base configured to make electrical contact to a test apparatus (10);
wherein a mechanical compliance between the probe tip and the probe base is primarily determined by the mechanically resilient first member (as the tip is pressed against the contacted surface);
wherein an electrical current path between the probe tip and the probe base is primarily through the at least one electrically conductive second member (as illustrated in Figure 2B, current flows from the tip towards the base though an electrical current path that includes primarily, the portion of 103 that allows current to flow between the portion of 101 contacting 103 and the base. The examiner notes the recitation “wherein an electrical current path” doesn’t necessitate said path to be the only current path between the probe tip and the probe base);
wherein the at least one electrically conductive second member is permanently affixed to the mechanically resilient first member at the probe base (as shown in Figure 2, both elements are integrated into a single unit);
wherein the at least one electrically conductive second member comprises two members (103 to the left of 101 and 103 to the right of 101) disposed to sandwich the mechanically resilient first member (101) in a horizontal direction.
Yen substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the probe being a multilayer probe having a layer stacking direction.
Frodis teaches a method of making probes through stacking multiple layers to create a single conductive probe unit. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of multilayered probes comprising stacked layers as taught by Frodis, and make the Yen probes as multilayer structures, in order to allow the option of including includes different materials in the probe layers, allowing the user to fine tune the rigidity, flexibility or conductivity of the probes as desired/needed for the application.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen in view of Frodis and further in view of the US Patent US 11,156,637 by Kister et al., (Kister hereafter).
Regarding claim 12, Yen substantially teaches all of the recited element mentioned above, except for explicitly mentioning the presence of two or more probes according to claim 1 and one or more guide plates having guide plate holes in which the two or more probes according to claim 1 are disposed.
Kister teaches in Figure 1A, a probe arrangement, comprising two probes each including a mechanically resilient first member (114); at least one electrically conductive second member (110); and a probe tip (120) configured to make temporary electrical contact to a device under test (102). Furthermore, Kister teaches, one or more guide plates (106) having guide plate holes in which the two or more probes according to claim 1 are disposed.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of guide plates supporting a plurality of compressible probes as taught by Kister, in the device/system/method of Yen in view of Frodis, in order to gain the option of aligning and supporting multiple probes to be used in applications where there is a need to contact multiple points of the contacted device at the same time.
As to claim 13, in addition to that explained in the rejection of claim 12, Kister teaches in Figure(s) 1A, the vertical probe array of claim 12, wherein the guide plate holes are angled (0 degree angle) with respect to a vertical direction of the vertical probe array.
As to claim 14, in addition to that explained in the rejection of claim 12, Kister teaches in Figure(s) 1A, the vertical probe array of claim 13, wherein an angle of the guide plate holes (0 degree angle) is selected to define a scrub motion (no scrub to minimal scrub) of the probe tips of the two or more probes according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-40 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 29, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a probe wherein the at least one electrically conductive second member and the mechanically resilient first member are in distinct layers of the multilayer probe, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 30-40, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 29.
Claims 4-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, a probe wherein the probe tip includes a tip feature that mechanically engages with a rail feature of the at least one electrically conductive second member to provide both electrical contact and a slidable mechanical contact between the probe tip and the at least one electrically conductive second member, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 5-11, the claims are objected as they inherit the allowable subject matter in claim 4 noted above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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.
/RICHARD ISLA/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 April 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights