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, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 01/16/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-8, 10, 12-19 are pending.
- Claims 1, 12 and 15 have been amended.
- Claims 9, 11 and 20 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 15 as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. The applicant argues the that US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2019/0174618 by Chen et al., fails to teach all features recited in claim 15 as amended. Specifically, in page 11 of the filed Remarks, the applicant argues:
“As shown in Fig. 3 of Chen above, it is clear that the chip 64 of Chen is spaced apart from the lateral walls. In other words, the chip 64 of Chen is not located between the lateral walls. Thus, the area on the expansion card 6 used to place the chip 64 thereon, which corresponds to the claimed probe area, is not located between the lateral walls.”
In response, the examiner respectfully notes that the claim doesn’t require the device under test (chip 64) to be located between the recited lateral walls. Claim 15 as amended recites the “probe area” is at least partially located between the guiding portions. As explained in detail in the rejection of claim 15 below, the examiner equates the entire upper surface 62 to the recited “probe area” (see annotated Figure 1 below). Thus, because at least the upper surface around portion 60 is located between the guiding portions, Chen anticipates the claim.
The new grounds of rejection in view of Chen are presented below.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated portion of Figure 1 in Chen
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2019/0174618 by Chen et al., (Chen hereafter).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches in Figure 1, an adapter, comprising:
a socket (51) disposed on and electrically connected with a load board (501), the socket having an opening facing to a direction intersecting with a normal of the load board (opening receiving portion 60 of unit 6);
a connecting plate (plate of unit 6 comprised of edge portion 60, sides 63, 61 and upper surface 62) configured to be detachably inserted into the opening and electrically connected with the socket (when the connecting plate is plugged into the socket as illustrated in Figure 3), the connecting plate defining a probe area away from the load board (upper surface 62 receiving units 64. **See comments below), the probe area being configured to place a device under test (device under test 64. **See comments below) thereon, the connecting plate being electrically connected with the device under test (units 64 are electrically connected to socket 51 through the connecting plate); and
a pair of guiding portions (lateral walls defining the opening of socket 51, see annotated Figure A below) fixed to two opposite ends of the socket with a constant interval therebetween (interval that forms the socket opening receiving the connecting plate), the guiding portions being configured abut against outer edges of the connecting plate to guide and hold the connecting plate therebetween (as the connecting plate is plugged into the socket, in the manner illustrated in Figure 3), the probe area being at least partially located between the guiding portions (at least the portion of the upper surface 62 is located between the guiding portions).
PNG
media_image2.png
599
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure A
** The examiner notes that the claim as recited uses the term “under test” as a label that doesn’t differentiate it from a regular “device.” That is, since no testing procedure or testing equipment associated with the device is recited, and because Chen teaches a device (64) and the device is capable of being tested (for example, running the system to evaluate whether unit 64 performs as expected), Chen anticipates the claim. Likewise, the claim as recited uses the term “a probe area” as a label that doesn’t differentiate the “probe area” from any “area” of the connecting plate. Since the claim doesn’t recite a process of probing the area, a process of contacting the area using probes, and/or probes associated with the area, and because Chen teaches a surface (62) that is capable of being probed (for example, probing with a thermometer to gauge the temperature of any portion of the surface) Chen anticipates the claim.
As to claim 16, Chen teaches in Figure 1, the direction is perpendicular to the normal (direction parallel to the plane defining the surface of board 50, and thus intersecting with the normal of the board is perpendicular to the normal of the board).
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(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of the US Patent US 8,972,633 by Karamcheti et al., (Karamcheti hereafter).
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches the connecting plate comprises:
a plate body (plate of unit 6 comprised of edge portion 60, sides 63, 61 and upper surface 62 having a flat plate-like shape), the probe area (upper surface 62) is located on the plate body.
a plurality of conductive portions located on the probe area and configured to electrically connect with the device under test (inherently, although not shown, 64 is electrically connected to electrically conductive receiving portions that allow for an electrical connection between device under test 64 and the socket);
and a terminal portion (not shown terminals in edge portion 60 which allow a connection to the socket terminals) connected with the plate body, the terminal portion being configured to be inserted into and electrically connected with the socket (as illustrated in Figure 3).
Chen substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning that the conductive portions are connected with an edge of the plate body and connected with the conductive portions.
Karamcheti teaches in Figure 3A, a connecting plate (300) comprising a plate body (300A), a plurality of conductive portions (lines 303A-N or 306A-N) configured to electrically connect with devices (307A-N or 302) and a terminal portion (301) connected with an edge of the plate body (col. 6, line 19) and electrically connected with the conductive portions, the terminal portion being configured to be inserted into and electrically connected with the socket (see col. 6, lines 16-18).
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 edge connecting portions as taught by Karamcheti, in the connecting plate of Chen, in order to provide a connection between the socket and the connecting plate at the very edge of the plate, thus ensuring the conductive plate’s length and thus, the overall size of the system, is kept to a minimum.
As to claim 18, Chen in view of Karamcheti teaches that at least one of the conductive portions (for example, Karamcheti’s lines 303A-N or 306A-N) is shape as a line structure.
As to claim 19, Chen in view of Karamcheti teaches the conductive portions (for example, Karamcheti’s lines 303A-N or 306A-N) are separated from each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10, 12-14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In terms of claim 1, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination a testing equipment comprising a frame defining an accommodation space, the tester and the load board being at least partially located in the accommodation space; a platform connected with the frame, the platform having an opening communicated with the accommodation space, the adapter being exposed through the opening; a probe holder disposed on the platform; and at least one probe held by the probe holder, the probe holder being configured to control the probe to contact with the device under test through the opening, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 2-8, 10 and 12-14, the claims are allowed as they further limit allowed claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 4,840,570 by Mann, Jr.; James A. directed to sockets that allow for the connection of boards in a direction parallel to a board supporting said socket, as well as supports/guides that help align said boards during insertion. See Figure below:
PNG
media_image4.png
838
609
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 February 7, 2026