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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 25 February 2026, is acknowledged. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim s 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 25 February 2026 . 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. Claim s 3-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. C laim 3 recites the broad recitation “ at least 90 wt.% copper ” , and the claim also recites “at least 97 wt.% copper” and “at least 99 wt.% copper” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The limitations of “preferably” and “particularly preferably” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “at least 30 wt.% palladium” , and the claim also recites “at least 35 wt.% palladium” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The limitations of “preferably” and “particularly preferably” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. It also is not clear if the recited palladium-copper-silver alloy has a broader, narrower, or substantially identical content of palladium. C laim 5 recites the broad recitation for electrical conductivity of “at least 35% IACS” , and the claim also recites “at least 40% IACS” and “at least 45% IACS” which are narrower statement s of the range/limitation. The limitations of “preferably” and “particularly preferably” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. C laim 5 also recites the broad recitation for hardness of “at least 170” , and the claim also recites “”at least 190” and “at least “196” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The limitations of “preferably” and “particularly preferably” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. C laim 5 also recites the broad recitation for a tensile strength of “at least 1000 MPa” , and the claim also recites “at least 1100 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The limitation of “preferably” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. C laim 5 also recites the broad recitation for yield strength of “at least 950 MPa” , and the claim also recites “at least 1050 MPa” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The limitation of “preferably” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase is part of the claimed invention. C laim 6 recites multiple limitations for each option, some of these multiple limitations have different ranges either implied or explicitly recited within a single option . The limitations of “in particular”, “preferably”, and “particularly preferably” also render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. C laim 7 recites the broad recitation for precipitates and/or dispersoids of “up to 2 wt.%” , and the claim also recites “up to 1 wt.%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Further regarding claim 7 , the limitation “consisting to at least 95%” of at least one of the listed elements is unclear because “consisting” is a closed recitation but the limitation is open ended in that the recited composition (i.e. of the precipitates and/or dispersoids) does not necessarily add up to 100%, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art is not apprised of what else is included in the limitation “consisting of”. Claim 10 recites the limitation “the material of the inner core layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim; however, the limitation will be considered where the tips consists of a same material as the inner core layer. Claim 11 recites the limitation “The probe needle array” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a probe needle array has not been introduced previously in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1-2 and 8-9 are allowed. Claims 3-7 and 10-11 stand as rejected but would be allowable if the indefiniteness outlined above is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art include the following: Crippa (US 2017/0307657 , previously cited ) teaches a contact probe for a testing head of an apparatus for testing electronic devices integrated on a wafer (i.e. a probe needle for electronic testing of semiconductor elements) (paragraphs 0002-0004). The core may be made of a first material selected from palladium or alloys thereof (paragraph 0041) and a first inner coating layer can be made of a second conductive material, such as copper, silver, etc. (paragraph 0042). An outer coating layer can be made of a third conductive material such as platinum, a palladium alloy, etc. (paragraph 0044). However, the amount of platinum of the core is not disclosed and the copper or silver of the inner coating layer is not taught to be a precipitation-hardened or dispersion-hardened alloy thereof and the proportion is not disclosed. Shishino et al. (US 2014/0377129 , previously cited ) teaches a testing probe for semiconductor integrated circuits where the material is a palladium alloy with additive elements for improved workability; however, there is no indication that the probe is to be a layered composite. Rattig et al. (US 2021/0241935) teaches a clad wire for producing test needles (paragraphs 0002-0006) having a wire core made of rhodium, an inner cladding of aluminum or copper or silver, and an outer cladding made of a metal or metal alloy with greater hardness than the material of the inner cladding (paragraph 0023). The outer cladding may be rhodium, palladium-nickel alloy, etc. (paragraph 0042). Rattig teaches that the soft copper or soft silver allows a high electrical conductivity but it is important to arrange a harder enveloping layer in the form of the outer cladding (paragraph 0082). This would seemingly be teaching against having an outer cover layer of copper or silver. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5904 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Humera Sheikh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0604 . 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. /KIM S. HORGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1784