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 species A, probe head of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vinci (US 5672964).
Regarding claim 1, Vinci at fig. 1-10 discloses a probe head [fig. 1] comprising: a housing 12 having a first housing portion [12a, fig. 4] and a second housing portion [12b, fig. 4] joined along a longitudinal axis 19, wherein the housing has a cylindrical portion [12a, 12b forming irregular cylindrical shape as shown, also see “In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”] at a distal end [end of 12 near 40] and has a proximal end [end 20 of 12] that tapers into an oblique truncated portion 20 having an input angle [between 19 and 30]; and a truncated end surface [surface of 20/12 surrounding 24] of the oblique truncated portion with an input opening [opening 48 in 20/12 for 24] oriented perpendicularly to an input axis [surface is perpendicular to 30].
Regarding claim 4, Vinci at fig. 1-10 discloses probe head of claim 1, further comprising a tip connector 22 mounted to the probe head at the input opening 48.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinci as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campbell (US 6462529 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Vinci discloses the intermediate grip portion 13 is generally smooth and straight along the rear thereof while it is provided with 4 depressions, indentations or recesses 18 along the front longitudinal length thereof dimensioned and configurated to receive the fingers of the user when curled about the intermediate gripping portion 13. Vinci is silent about a probe head mount configured to receive an external support structure, wherein the probe head mount is provided on a bottom side of the cylindrical housing and has a mounting axis. Campbell at fig. 2 disclose a probe head mount [portion of probe head 22 for 26] configured to receive an external support structure 26/20, wherein the probe head mount is provided on a bottom side of the housing [as shown] and has a mounting axis [vertical axis of 26, as an example]. Campbell in other embodiment at fig. 6 discloses use of attached mechanism 100 between probe head 22 and the external support structure 20. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add teaching of Campbell to the probe head of Vinci so modified Vinci obtains hands-free operation as further disclosed by Campbell (see Abstract as an example).
Regarding claim 3, Campbell discloses the external support structure is a bipod or a monopod [see 24 of 20].
Claim(s) 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinci as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Springer (US 5640155).
Regarding claim 5, Vinci discloses the upper end 14 is a probe support portion 20 of the housing 12 which, as will be more fully described in connection with FIGS. 3-6, includes means for mounting an internally threaded socket 22 adapted to interchangeably receive an elongate test probe, needle 24 or other accessory (e.g. prods, probes, clips or other items normally used for testing) provided at one end with external threads 26. Vinci is silent about input cable connected to the tip connector. Springer discloses a probe head 12 with an input cable [cable as shown of 10] connected to the tip connector [as shown on 12]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to use teaching of Springer to modify the test probe 24 of Vinci, in order to obtain advantages that Springer have to offer i.e. extend test connection.
Regarding claim 6, Springer discloses the probe head of claim 5, further comprising a probe tip [end of 10 as shown] connected to the input cable along the input axis [as shown].
Regarding claim 7, modified Vinci, particularly Springer discloses the probe head of claim 6, wherein the probe tip is in contact with a test point [point of source/unit under test for 10], on a device under testing (DUT) [source/unit under test]. Modified Vinci discloses the test point, the probe tip, and the input cable are aligned with the probe head proximal end along the input axis.
Regarding claim 8, modified Vinci discloses the test point. Use of the test point is obfuscated by a DUT structural component is not positive to Claimed probe head. DUT can offer obstructions at the test point but cable and tip of Springer and modified Vinci can be used to test the test point at the obfuscated by a DUT structural component.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, modified Vinci discloses wherein the input cable is substantially straight.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, modified Vinci discloses wherein the input cable has a length from about 3 cm to about 6 cm [obvious to cable of Springer, see “In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”].
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinci as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldner et al. (US 6211982 B1), hereafter Goldner.
Regarding claim 13, Vinci discloses all the elements including a signal output assembly having a cable for signal output [output of 24, see fig. 7 and its description]. Vinci is silent about said signal output assembly having a fiber optic cable for digital signal output. Use of fiber optic cable for digital signal is old and well known in the art for vastly superior speed and bandwidth, much longer transmission distances with lower signal loss (attenuation), immunity to electromagnetic interference (EMI), increased security, and greater durability. Goldner discloses the current sensor 12 preferably utilizes the technology of a standard step-down transformer-type clamp-on current detector 16 with an electrical resistor 18 for providing an appropriate voltage output proportional to the magnitude of the measured current. The signal output by the current sensor 12 is then input to a conversion module 20. Goldner also discloses signals output from the integrated optics interferometer 24 are input to the telemetry optical fiber 40, which guides the signals to the source/detection module 39. Goldner therefore discloses a signal output [from 12 as an example] assembly 10/40 having a fiber optic cable 40 for digital signal output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use teaching of Goldner to modify the probe head of Vinci to obtain advantages that Goldner and optical fiber has to offer i.e. to obtain an encoded digital signal (see column 1 of Goldner)
Regarding claim 14, Vinci discloses probe head of claim 1, further comprising a modular power source compartment 44.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1968. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/PARESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights