DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 11/19/2025, is as follows:
- Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are pending.
- Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 11, 14 and 15 have been amended.
- Claims 3 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 15 as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1, 2, 4, 10-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 4,963,822 by Prokopp et al., (Prokopp hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Prokopp teaches in Figure 1, a testing head with vertical probes for a probe card, the testing head comprising:
at least one pair of guide plates (12, 13) arranged parallel to each other in a prefixed, spaced-apart relation, and provided with a plurality of guide and housing holes (holes accommodating probes 11 in the upper and lower guide plates 12 and 13 respectively);
a plurality of contact probes (11) housed and extended between corresponding holes of said guide plates; and
at least one additional plate (14) slidingly associated next to one or the other of said guide plates (sliding in the direction of B and A, with respect to and parallel to the guide plates) and provided with a plurality of openings (openings 16) which define, in continuity with the holes of the associated guide plate, insertion passages for said probes, wherein the sliding of the additional plate with respect to the associated guide plate modifies a minimum section of said insertion passages (as the additional plate is slide in the A or B direction, the minimum section of insertion passage is reduced, forcing the probe from an initial position 11’ to a 11);
wherein a narrower section of said openings has an axial extension, measured along a
sliding direction of the additional plate, greater than that of the holes of the associated guide plate (the additional plate’s opening diameter is larger than the diameter of the housing holes, so as to allow the probes to stay in place while the sliding plate moves them laterally, as illustrated in Figures 2-4).
As to claim 2, Prokopp teaches in Figure 1, said openings (16) are a plurality of openings corresponding to the plurality of holes of the associated guide plate.
As to claim 4, Prokopp teaches in Figure 1, said openings (16) have at least one rectilinear edge (inside circumferential surface the opening 16)) perpendicular to the sliding direction.
As to claim 10, Prokopp teaches in Figure 1, said additional plate (14) is slidingly guided between a non-operating position (position where probes are not bent and allowed to contact the chip, as illustrated by ghost identifier 11’ – which happens when unit 21 is not operating to bend said probes) and an operating position (position shown in Figure 1, where probes are bent towards the right by the sliding of the plate in the A direction – which happens when unit 21 is operating to bend the probes), wherein a minimum section in the non-operating position is greater than a minimum section in the operating position (see for example, minimum section formed in the position of Figure 2, vs the minimum section formed in the position of Figure 4).
As to claim 11, Prokopp teaches in Figure 1, said openings (16) have opposite edges in a sliding direction of the additional plate; wherein in said operating position one of said edges partially masks a port from the holes of the guide plate associated with the additional plate.
As to claim 12, Prokopp teaches in Figure 1, the sliding of said at least one additional plate (14) is bidirectional (in the direction A and B).
As to claim 14, Prokopp teaches the respective guide hole of the parallel guide plates are offset from each other (the holes in plate 12 and the holes in plate 13 are offset from each other in the vertical direction. That is, they are not immediately next to each other but offset by a distance equal to spacers 15).
As to claim 15, Prokopp teaches in Figure 1, a method of assembly of a testing head with vertical probes for a probe card, comprising the steps of:
providing at least one pair of guide plates arranged parallel to each other in a prefixed, spaced-apart relation (12 and 13), and provided with a plurality of guide and housing holes (holes in plates 12 and 13 holding probes 11);
providing at least one additional plate (14) slidingly associated next to one or the other of said guide plates (plate 14 slides in a direction A and B with respect to the guide plates) and provided with a plurality of openings (opening 16) which define, in continuity with the holes of the associated guide plate, insertion passages for probes (11), wherein the sliding of the additional plate with respect to the associated guide plate modifies a minimum section of said insertion passages (as illustrated for example, in Figures 2-4);
bringing said additional plate into a non-operating position (position where probes are not bent and allowed to contact the chip, as illustrated by ghost identifier 11’ – which happens when unit 21 is not operating to bend said probes), in which a minimum section of said insertion passages is maximum (as shown in Figure 2);
introducing a plurality of contact probes into the corresponding holes of said guide plates (inherently, the probes are inserted into the holes in order to assemble the completed device shown in Figure 1), and passing through said insertion passages; and
bringing said additional plate into an operating position (position shown in Figure 1, where probes are bent towards the right by the sliding of the plate in the A direction – which happens when unit 21 is operating to bend the probes), in which a minimum section of said insertion passages, within which the probes are housed, is minimum (see for example Figure 4); wherein a narrower section of said openings has axial extension (diameter of holes in plate 14), measured along a sliding direction of the additional plate (along the direction A for example), greater than that of the holes of the associated guide plate.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokopp in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2017/0122983 by Acconcia et al., (Acconcia hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 13, Prokopp substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the probes have at least one transversal enlargement capable of preventing a complete crossing of at least one of the guide holes of one of said guide plates.
Acconcia teaches in figure 9A, probes (21) including a transversal enlargement (21A) capable of preventing a complete crossing of the probes with respect with holes on a guide structure (22).
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 probe enlargements on probes as taught by Acconcia, in the device/system/method of Prokopp, in order to gain the advantage of ensuring the probes are secured and fixed in place on the guide plates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record doesn’t teach alone or in combination, the testing head wherein the guide plate associated with the additional plate comprises a first and a second plate-shaped portions which are parallel to each other and are separated by a gap in which said additional plate slides, in combination with all other elements recited.
As to claims 6-9, the claims are objected as they further limit objected claim 5 above.
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 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 10, 2026