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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026-06-10 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-06-10 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-21 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026-06-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument (found on page 9) that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first lower plate 201, the second lower plate 202, and the third lower plate 203 are arranged vertically on different horizontal planes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the claims do not require that the lower plates be arranged on different horizontal planes the prior art of record relied upon in the previous office action does read on applicant’s invention as claimed.
Applicant’s arguments, beginning on Page 10 first paragraph, with respect to claims 1 and its dependents 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, 4-5, 11, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge et al. (US-20190064220-A1) in view of Vettori et al.(US-20190361051-A1) in view of Crippa (US-20220155348-A1 – Cited in office action dated 2025-11-04).
Regarding Claim 1, Eldridge teaches an upper guide plate set including at least a first upper guide plate (Fig 5: metal plate, 504), wherein the first upper guide plate has a plurality of upper guide plate holes (Can be seen in Figure 5, where the probes go through the guide plates);
a lower guide plate set arranged parallel to the upper guide plate set and including a first lower guide plate (Fig 5: guide plate, 106) and a second lower guide plate (Refer to Annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge), wherein each of the first lower guide plate and the second lower guide plate has a plurality of lower guide plate holes (Can be seen in Figure 5, where the probes go through the guide plates);
a first probe set including a plurality of first probes (Refer to Annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge), wherein each of the plurality of first probes has a first contact end and a second contact end (Refer to Annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge), the first contact ends correspondingly pass through the plurality of upper guide plate holes (Can be seen in Figure 5), and the second contact ends correspondingly pass through the plurality of lower guide plate holes (Can be seen in Figure 5);
a second probe set including a plurality of second probes (Refer to Annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge), wherein each of the plurality of second probes has a third contact end and a fourth contact end (Refer to Annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge, these are analogous to the first and second contact ends of the 1st probes), the third contact ends correspondingly pass through the plurality of upper guide plate holes (Can be seen in Figure 5), and the fourth contact ends correspondingly pass through the plurality of lower guide plate holes (Can be seen in Figure 5);
a third lower guide plate, and the third lower guide plate has the plurality of lower guide plate holes (Refer to annotated Figure 5 of Eldridge, Additionally Para [0021] teaches that guide plate, 106, which is a lower guide plate, may include two or more vertically separated guide plates, which would therefore teach at least three lower guide plates);
wherein both of the plurality of first probes and the plurality of second probes correspondingly pass through the first upper guide plate (Can be seen in Figure 5), and both of the plurality of first probes and the plurality of second probes correspondingly pass through at least one of the first lower guide plate and the second lower guide plate (Can be seen in Figure 5);
wherein a position of the second lower guide plate configures lengths of the second contact ends projecting from the lower guide plate set (Refer to annotated Figure 5 of Eldridge);
wherein the first contact ends and the third contact ends are coplanar (Refer to annotated Figure 5 of Eldridge),
Eldridge does not teach wherein a length of each of the plurality of second probes is greater than a length of each of the plurality of first probes; and the second contact ends and the fourth contact ends are not coplanar. However, Vettori teaches a length of each of the plurality of second probes is greater than a length of each of the plurality of first probes (Fig 8 shows a plurality of first, 22, and second probes, 22bis, that are differing lengths); and the second contact ends and the fourth contact ends are not coplanar (Can be seen in Fig 8). 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 for Eldridge to be the differing lengths of Vettori. A motivation for this modification is a longer probe may allow for a different signal applied to each set of probes as the electrical characteristics may be altered depending on probe length.
The combination of Eldridge and Vettori does not teach at least one stiffener disposed between the first lower guide plate and the second lower guide plate. However, Crippa teaches at least one stiffener disposed between the first lower guide plate and the second lower guide plate (Fig 5A: spacer structure, 27u). 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 card of the combination to incorporate the stiffener of Crippa. A motivation for this modification is that the spacer ensures distances between the guide plates are maintained as taught by Crippa in Para [0090].
Regarding Claim 4, Eldridge further teaches wherein the upper guide plate set further includes a second upper guide plate (Fig 5: guide plate, 108), the second upper guide plate is arranged parallel to the first upper guide plate (Can be seen in Figure 5), and the second upper guide plate has the plurality of upper guide plate holes corresponding to the plurality of upper guide plate holes of the first upper guide plate (Can be seen in Fig 5).
Regarding Claim 5, Eldridge further teaches wherein the first upper guide plate further has a first section and a second section that are separated from each other (Unlabeled, but can be seen in Fig 5);
wherein the first probe set passes through the first section, and the second probe set passes through the second section (Refer to annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge, it can be seen the 1st and 2nd probes pass through different sections of the upper guide plate).
Regarding Claim 11, Eldridge further teaches wherein the first probe set and the second probe set each are vertical probes (Can be seen in Fig 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
843
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of Eldridge
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Eldridge in view of Vettori in view of Crippa, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches a third probe set including a plurality of third probes (Refer to annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge);
wherein each of the plurality of third probes has a fifth contact end and a sixth contact end (Refer to annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge, these are analogous to the first and second contact ends of the 1st probes); wherein the lower guide plate set includes a fourth lower guide plate, and the fourth lower guide plate has the plurality of lower guide plate holes (Refer to annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge);
wherein the fifth contact ends correspondingly pass through the plurality of upper guide plate holes (Eldridge - Can be seen in Fig 5), the sixth contact ends correspondingly pass through the plurality of lower guide plate holes (Can be seen in Fig 5),
wherein a position of the fourth lower guide plate determines lengths of the sixth contact ends projecting from the lower guide plate set (Eldridge - Can be seen in Annotated Figure 5 Eldridge, the contact ends project out of the fourth lower guide plate);
wherein the first contact ends, the third contact ends, and the fifth contact ends are coplanar (Eldridge - Can be seen in Fig 5).
The combination of Eldridge in view of Vettori in view of Crippa does not explicitly teach a length of each of the plurality of third probes is greater than the length of each of the plurality of second probes, and the second contact ends, the fourth contact ends, and the sixth contact ends are not coplanar. However, Vettori does teach probes of differing lengths and multiple contact ends that are not coplanar. Therefore, having a third set of probes with a differing length and contact ends not coplanar would be a duplication of parts. It has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the parts of the probes of the combination such that additional probes of a different length are added. A motivation for this modification is a longer probe may allow for a different signal applied to each set of probes as the electrical characteristics may be altered depending on probe length.
Regarding Claim 18, Eldridge further teaches wherein each of the first probe set and the second set does not pass through the fourth lower guide plate (Can be seen in Annotated Fig 5 of Eldridge).
Regarding Claim 19, Eldridge further teaches wherein a length of the fourth lower guide plate is less than the length of the first lower guide plate (Refer to annotated Figure 5 of Eldridge).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge in view of Vettori in view of Crippa and in further view of Perego et al. (US-20180052190-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Eldridge in view of Vettori in view of Crippa does not teach wherein the first probe set and the second probe set have different tip thicknesses. However, Perego teaches wherein the first probe set and the second probe set have different tip thicknesses (Fig 4A shows a probe, 21', with a different thickness in tips than the probe, 21). 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 have different size tips. A motivation for this modification could be that the test equipment or DUT requires a certain contact size for certain signal types so various tip sizes could be needed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eldridge in view of Vettori in view of Crippa and in further view of Ahn et al. (US-20210102975-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Eldridge in view of Vettori in view of Crippa does not teach wherein a distance between the fourth lower guide plate and the first upper guide plate is greater than the distance between the second guide plate and the first upper guide plate. However, Perego teaches wherein a distance between the fourth lower guide plate and the first upper guide plate is greater than the distance between the second guide plate and the first upper guide plate (Fig 8B shows a lower guide plate, 50, with 4 sections where the 4th or bottom section is farther from the top guide plate, 40, than any other section). 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 guide plates of the combination to be at a different distance from each other as taught in Perego. A motivation for this modification is adjusting the position of the guide plate can add stability to the probe when different probes are used in the different probe sets.
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