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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-04-27 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2026-05-06 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-03-30 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-14 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9 have been amended. Claim(s) 2 has been canceled. Claim(s) 10-14 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 and their dependent claims, 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 § 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.
Claims 1, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon (US-7248065-B2) in view of Hsu et al. (TW-I644104-B, Corresponds to TW-201835575-A From applicant IDS, refer to machine translation attached in the office action dated 2025-09-12) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20250180603-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Leon teaches each of the vertical probes comprising a tail portion (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon), a head portion (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon, includes everything below the line labeled "head portion"), and a body portion located between the tail portion and the head portion (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon),
wherein the head portion comprises a probe tip section (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon), and a head portion installation section located between the body portion and the probe tip section (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon);
the whole probe tip section and the whole head portion installation section are electrically conductive (col 5 lines 29-32 teaches the entire probe may be made from electrically conductive material);
the probe tip section comprises a probe tip contact part (Can be seen in annotated Figure 3a of Leon) for contacting an electrically conductive contact of a device under test (The abstract teaches the probe is used for testing), and a probe tip gradually narrowing part located between the head portion installation section and the probe tip contact part (Fig 3a: portion, 11t);
widths of the head portion installation section and the probe tip contact part on a horizontal axis are a first width and a second width respectively (Refer to Fig 3a);
the second width is smaller than the first width (Can be seen in Fig 3a);
a width of the probe tip gradually narrowing part on the horizontal axis is decreased from the first width to the second width (Can be seen in Fig 3a);
lengths of the probe tip gradually narrowing part and the probe tip contact part on a vertical axis are a first length and a second length respectively (Refer to Fig 3a);
a cross section of the probe tip contact part is shaped as a circle (col 5 lines 63-67 teaches the cross section of the probe may be shaped as a circle);
the second width is a diameter of the probe tip contact part (Refer to Fig 3a);
wherein the probe tip gradually narrowing part is formed with a processing fillet having a concave arc surface (Fig 3a: portion, 11t), and the head portion installation section and the probe tip gradually narrowing part are electrically conductive (col 5 lines 29-32 teaches the entire probe may be made from electrically conductive material);
wherein a cross section of the head portion installation section is shaped as a circle, and the first width is a diameter of the head portion installation section (col 5 lines 63-67 teaches the cross section of the probe may be shaped as a circle).
Leon does not teach a probe seat comprising an upper die unit (Fig 7: lower guide plate, 112), and a lower die unit disposed below the upper die unit (Fig 7: upper guide plate, 111), the upper die unit comprising at least one upper die (Can be seen from the Figure 7), and a plurality of upper guiding holes penetrating through the at least one upper die (See Fig 7), the lower die unit comprising at least one lower die (See Fig 7), and a plurality of lower guiding holes penetrating through the at least one lower die (See Fig 7), each of the upper die unit and the lower die unit having an upper surface and a lower surface (Fig 7 shows each guide plate with two surfaces), an accommodating space being formed between the lower surface of the upper die unit and the upper surface of the lower die unit (Fig 7: space, S, the two guide plates, 111 & 112, have surfaces that face each other in the space and therefore meet this limitation); and a plurality of vertical probes (Fig 2 and 7, probes, 120),
the tail portion and the head portion being inserted through the upper guiding hole and the lower guiding hole of the probe seat respectively (Can be seen in Fig 7), the body portion being located in the accommodating space (Can be seen in Fig 7);
the head portion installation section is partially located in the lower guiding hole of the probe seat, and partially protrudes out of the lower surface of the lower die unit (Can be seen in annotated Fig 7 of Hsu);
the head portion installation section protrudes out of the lower surface of the lower die unit for a length on the vertical axis, which is a third length (Though it can be seen in Fig 7, it is much more evident in Fig 14. Refer to Annotated Fig 14 of Hsu, which is the same embodiment as Figure 7, but at a later stage of manufacture).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the probes of Leon, to be incorporated into the probe head of Hsu. A motivation for this modification is a probe head allows the gathering of a plurality of probes as shown and taught by Hsu.
The combination of Leon in view of Hsu does show in their figures dimensions that are consistent with teachings of the limitations
the second length is larger than the first length; and
the third length is smaller than a sum of the first length and the second length.
The combination of Leon in view of Hsu does not explicitly teach these features. However, it has been held In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the measurement of the probe of the combination. A motivation for this change is sizing and spacing constraints of the probe head or object to be tested.
The combination of Leon in view of Hsu does not explicitly teach the second width is larger than or equal to 20 micrometers and smaller than or equal to 70 micrometers. However, Ahn teaches the second width is larger than or equal to 20 micrometers and smaller than or equal to 70 micrometers (Para [0066] teaches the width of the probe is 40 µm to 200 µm, therefore the width of the smaller probe tip may exist within the claimed range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the probe of the combination to incorporate the probe measurements of Ahn. A motivation for this modification would be to accommodate spacing constraints of probe head or device under test.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Leon in view of Hsu in view of Ahn, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the first width is smaller than or equal to 100 micrometers (Ahn - Para [0066] teaches the width of the probe may be 40 µm to 200 µm, therefore 100 µm exists within this range). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Leon in view of Hsu in view of Ahn, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the third length is smaller than 250 micrometers (Ahn - Para [0112] teaches the length of the entire probe to be 300 µm to 3mm. Therefore, it is evident that the much smaller portion extending out of GP1 is smaller than 250 µm). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
399
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 3a of Leon
PNG
media_image2.png
485
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 7 of Hsu
PNG
media_image3.png
418
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 14 of Hsu
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Leon in view of Hsu in view of Ahn, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the sum of the first length and the second length is smaller than or equal to 25 times the second width (Ahn - Para [0066] teaches the width of the entire probe may be 40 µm, 25 times 40 µm equals 1000 µm. Para [0112] teaches the total length of the probe may be 300 µm to 3 mm, therefore it can be shown that the sum of the first and second lengths may be smaller than 1000 µm). These features are necessarily taught by the combination of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Leon in view of Hsu in view of Ahn does teach probes sized in micrometers. The combination does not explicitly teach a radius of the processing fillet is larger than 20 micrometers; the first length is smaller than 70 micrometers. However, it has been held In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the measurement of the probe of the combination. A motivation for this change is sizing and spacing constraints of the probe head or object to be tested.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leon in view of Hsu in view of Ahn in further view of Wei (TW-I639836-B – From Applicant IDS, refer to machine translation attached in office action dated 2025-09-12 for references cited).
Regarding Claim 9, Leon teaches vertical probes comprising a tail portion(Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon), a head portion (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon, includes everything below the line labeled "head portion"), and a body portion located between the tail portion and the head portion (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon),
the head portion comprising a probe tip section(Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon), and a head portion installation section located between the body portion and the probe tip section (Can be seen in annotated Fig 3a of Leon),
the whole probe tip section and the whole head portion installation section being electrically conductive (col 5 lines 29-32 teaches the entire probe may be made from electrically conductive material),
the probe tip section comprising a probe tip contact part (Can be seen in annotated Figure 3a of Leon), and a probe tip gradually narrowing part located between the head portion installation section and the probe tip contact part (Fig 3a: portion, 11t),
widths of the head portion installation section and the probe tip contact part on a horizontal axis being a first width and a second width respectively (Refer to Fig 3a),
a width of the probe tip gradually narrowing part on the horizontal axis being decreased from the first width to the second width (Can be seen in Fig 3a),
lengths of the probe tip gradually narrowing part and the probe tip contact part on a vertical axis being a first length and a second length respectively (Refer to Fig 3a),
wherein the probe tip gradually narrowing part is formed with a processing fillet having a concave arc surface (Fig 3a: arced portion, 11t), and the head portion installation section and the probe tip gradually narrowing part are electrically conductive (col 5 lines 29-32 teaches the entire probe may be made from electrically conductive material);
wherein a cross section of the head portion installation section is shaped as a circle, and the first width is a diameter of the head portion installation section (col 5 lines 63-67 teaches the cross section of the probe may be shaped as a circle).
Leon does not teach obtaining a method of producing a tested semiconductor die, the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining a probe card comprising a main circuit board (Fig 1: circuit board, 300), and a probe head (Fig 1: probe head, 100) disposed on the main circuit board (Para [0096] teaches fixing the guide plate, 622, of the probe card, 60, to a circuit board (not shown in drawings) and directly connecting the probes to the circuit board),
the probe head comprising a probe seat and a plurality of vertical probes,
the probe seat comprising an upper die unit, and a lower die unit disposed below the upper die unit, the upper die unit comprising at least one upper die, and a plurality of upper guiding holes penetrating through the at least one upper die, the lower die unit comprising at least one lower die, and a plurality of lower guiding holes penetrating through the at least one lower die, each of the upper die unit and the lower die unit having an upper surface and a lower surface, an accommodating space being formed between the lower surface of the upper die unit and the upper surface of the lower die unit,
the tail portion and the head portion being inserted through the upper guiding hole and the lower guiding hole of the probe seat respectively, the body portion being located in the accommodating space,
the head portion installation section being partially located in the lower guiding hole of the probe seat and partially protruding out of the lower surface of the lower die unit,
the head portion installation section protruding out of the lower surface of the lower die unit for a length on the vertical axis, which is a third length,
the vertical probes of the probe head being electrically connected with the main circuit board;
effecting contact between the probe tip contact parts of ones of the vertical probes of the probe card and ones of electrically conductive contacts of the semiconductor die; and
testing the semiconductor die by providing test signals between the ones of the electrically conductive contacts and the ones of the vertical probes through the probe card;
However, Hsu teaches a method of producing a tested semiconductor die, the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining a probe card comprising a main circuit board (Fig 1: circuit board, 300), and a probe head (Fig 1: probe head, 100),
the probe head comprising a probe seat and a plurality of vertical probes (Fig 2 and 7, probes, 120),
the probe seat comprising an upper die unit (Fig 7: lower guide plate, 112), and a lower die unit disposed below the upper die unit (Fig 7: upper guide plate, 111), the upper die unit comprising at least one upper die (Can be seen from the Figure 7), and a plurality of upper guiding holes penetrating through the at least one upper die (See Fig 7), the lower die unit comprising at least one lower die, and a plurality of lower guiding holes penetrating through the at least one lower die (See Fig 7), each of the upper die unit and the lower die unit having an upper surface and a lower surface (Fig 7 shows each guide plate with two surfaces), an accommodating space being formed between the lower surface of the upper die unit and the upper surface of the lower die unit (Fig 7: space, S, the two guide plates, 111 & 112, have surfaces that face each other in the space and therefore meet this limitation),
the tail portion and the head portion being inserted through the upper guiding hole and the lower guiding hole of the probe seat respectively (Can be seen in Fig 7), the body portion being located in the accommodating space (Can be seen in Fig 7),
the head portion installation section being partially located in the lower guiding hole of the probe seat and partially protruding out of the lower surface of the lower die unit (Can be seen in annotated Fig 7 of Hsu),
the head portion installation section protruding out of the lower surface of the lower die unit for a length on the vertical axis, which is a third length (Though it can be seen in Fig 7, it is much more evident in Fig 14. Refer to Annotated Fig 14 of Hsu, which is the same embodiment as Figure 7, but at a later stage of manufacture),
the vertical probes of the probe head being electrically connected with the main circuit board (Para [0047] teaches the probe head is electrically connected to the circuit board, 300);
effecting contact between the probe tip contact parts of ones of the vertical probes of the probe card and ones of electrically conductive contacts of the semiconductor die (Para [0003]-[0004] teaches the invention is for contacting pads on an object under test, the object being a semiconductor and may include, among other things a die); and
testing the semiconductor die by providing test signals between the ones of the electrically conductive contacts and the ones of the vertical probes through the probe card (Para [0004] teaches sending test signals to the device under test via the probe card);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the probes of Leon, to be incorporated into the probe head and method of Hsu. A motivation for this modification is a probe head allows the gathering of a plurality of probes as shown and taught by Hsu.
The combination of Leon in view of Hsu does show in their figures dimensions that are consistent with teachings of the limitations
the second length is larger than the first length; and
the third length is smaller than a sum of the first length and the second length.
The combination of Leon in view of Hsu does not explicitly teach these features. However, it has been held In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the measurement of the probe of the combination. A motivation for this change is sizing and spacing constraints of the probe head or object to be tested.
The combination of Leon in view of Hsu does not explicitly teach the second width is larger than or equal to 20 micrometers and smaller than or equal to 70 micrometers. However, Ahn teaches the second width is larger than or equal to 20 micrometers and smaller than or equal to 70 micrometers (Para [0066] teaches the width of the probe is 40 µm to 200 µm, therefore the width of the smaller probe tip may exist within the claimed range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the probe of the combination to incorporate the probe measurements of Ahn. A motivation for this modification would be to accommodate spacing constraints of probe head or device under test.
The combination of Leon in view of Hsu in view of Ahn teaches a probe head electrically connected to a circuit board and disposed on a space transformer, which is located between the circuit board and probe head. The combination does not teach a probe head directly disposed on the main circuit board. However, Wei teaches a probe head disposed on the main circuit board (Para [0096] teaches fixing the guide plate, 622, of the probe card, 60, to a circuit board (not shown in drawings) and directly connecting the probes to the circuit board). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the probe head of the combination to be fixed directly to the circuit board as taught in Wei. A motivation for this modification is to shorten the electrical path length by not including a space transformer, or spacing constraints.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art does not teach “wherein the probe tip gradually narrowing part and the probe tip contact part have a plurality of horizontal abrasion dents arranged vertically; a terminal end segment of the probe tip contact part has a plurality of vertical abrasion dents arranged horizontally.”
Abrading a surface of a probe pin contact part is known, it is the combination of the horizontal abrasions with the vertical abrasions and their placement on the probe tip that is not taught by the prior art.
It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH J BARRON whose telephone number is (571)272-0902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 09:30-17:30 ET.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at (571) 270-5628. 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.
/JEREMIAH J BARRON/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights