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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 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. Applicant disclosed prior art fig. 5 and 7-8 i.e. ADPA, ADPA in view of Su and ADPA in view Hsieh discloses all the limitations.
Drawings
Figures 5 and 7-8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 5 and 7-8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because comparative example is old as described (see ¶0044, ¶0047 of published specification). See MPEP § 608.02(g) i.e. Figures showing the prior art are usually unnecessary and should be canceled. Ex parte Elliott, 1904 C.D. 103, 109 OG 1337 (Comm'r Pat. 1904). However, where needed to understand applicant's invention, they may be retained if designated by a legend such as "Prior Art.". Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 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 Applicant disclosed prior art fig. 5, 7, 8, hereafter ADPA.
Regarding claim 1, ADPA at fig. 5, 7, 8 and ¶0044, ¶0047, ¶0011, ¶0013-0014 (from ¶0013-0014 it is clear that fig. 7-8 are modified version of fig. 5 i.e. probe 10M of fig. 5 with coating 12a to name the probe 10) discloses a probe card 20M for inspecting electrical characteristics of an inspection object, comprising: a plurality of probes [probes 10M or 10 i.e. without coating 12a is 10M and with coating 12a is 10]; and 22, 21, each of the guide plates formed with through-holes [holes as shown for 10M/10] into which the probes penetrate, wherein each of the probes is inserted into [[corresponding through-holes of the two guide plates and held in a curved state [see fig. 5] between the two guide plates, wherein each of the probes comprises: a columnar conductor 11 having a rectangular shape [see square shape at ¶0047] in a cross-section perpendicular to a central axis direction [see x, Y, Z directions at fig. 7-8] thereof, the conductor having a first surface that is one of two opposed bending surfaces in four surfaces in the curved state and a second surface that is the other of the two bending surfaces [fig. 5 has two opposed bending surfaces, fig. 7-8 has four surfaces of a square conductor]; and an insulating coating material [12a because insulation is implicit material to 12 i.e. modified shape as explained for fig. 9, particularly see last line of ¶0047 and whole ¶0048] arranged the first surface [surface of 11 for 12a as shown] of the conductor 11 between the two guide plates [fig. 5 with 10 of fig. 7-8 (see ¶0011 and ¶0013)], [see fig. 8] ,wherein in adjacent probes of the plurality of probes penetrating the two guide plates [see fig. 5], the insulating coating material 12a arranged on the first surface of the conductor of one probe is arranged so as to face the second surface of the conductor of the other probe [fig. 5 with 10, (see ¶0011 and ¶0013)].
Regarding claim 12, the ADPA discloses probe card according to claim 1. ADPA is silent about wherein the insulating coating material is arranged on three surfaces of the conductor other than the second surface. Change in shape is not patentable. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (COPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date to use desired shape i.e. the insulating coating material is arranged on three surfaces of the conductor in order to obtain claim invention and for the same purpose and advantages that ADPA has to offer i.e. prevent the probe from falling outside the range of the probe card.
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) 2-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADPA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Su et al. (US 2019/0086443 A1), hereafter Su.
Regarding claim 2, ADPA discloses the probe card according to claim 1. ADPA is silent about a cross-sectional area perpendicular [see shape of 2 of Hsieh] to the central axis direction, of an end surface of the coating material that faces at least one end of the conductor becomes gradually wider as a distance from a portion closest to the end increases along the central axis direction. Su at fig. 5 discloses wherein a cross-sectional area perpendicular [see shape of 2 of Hsieh] to the central axis direction, of an end surface of the coating material that faces at least one end of the conductor becomes gradually wider as a distance from a portion closest to the end increases along the central axis direction [see shape of 32 (insulated gel protrusion 323) of Su]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the insulating coating material as taught by Su to arranged on a surface as claimed on the conductor so modified ADPA can also prevent the probe from falling outside the range of the probe card through the first thru-hole during the assembly of the probe. Modified ADPA discloses the insulating coating material arranged on the first surface of the conductor of one probe is arranged so as to face the second surface of the conductor of the other probe.
Regarding claim 3, modified Hsieh discloses the probe card according to claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional area of the each end surface facing two ends of the conductor becomes gradually wider [because of round shape of 32 of Su] as the distance from the portion closest to the end increases along the central axis direction.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hsieh discloses the probe card according to claim 2, wherein an outer shape of the end surface of the coating material has a curved shape when viewed from a direction normal to a plane of the first surface [because of round shape of 32 of Su].
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Hsieh discloses the probe card according to claim 2, particularly Su discloses wherein the portion closest to the end, of the end surface of the coating material is an apex of a polygonal shape (plurality of polygons are combined for claim 8) when viewed from a direction normal to a plane of the first surface on which each coating material is arranged.
Su at ¶0030 discloses “the structure of the insulating latch 32 can be changed according to designer demands, and the following description discloses some possible structures thereof, but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.” Su at fig. 1-2, 5 and ¶0030 discloses the end surface of each coating material has a curved shape 32 when viewed from a direction normal to a plane of the surface [surface of 31] on which each coating material is arranged. Change in shape is not patentable. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (COPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date to use desired shape i.e. an apex of a polygonal shape for the same purpose and advantages that Su have to offer i.e. prevent the probe from falling outside the range of the probe card. Modified Hsieh discloses claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, modified Hsieh discloses the probe card according to claim 2, particularly Su disclose wherein the portion closest to the end, of the coating material 32 comes into contact with the first surface [modified Hsieh], and a thickness of the coating material at the end surface gradually increases [see the spherical shape of 32 of Su] as a distance from the end of the conductor increases.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADPA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsieh rt al. (US 2019/0227101 A1) hereafter Hsieh.
Regarding claim 11, ADPA discloses all the elements. ADPA is silent about wherein the insulating coating material includes a plurality of insulating coating materials that is arranged spaced apart from each other along the central axis direction. Hsieh at fig. 3C discloses probe card 100 for inspecting electrical characteristics of an inspection object, comprising: a plurality of probes 2: and at least two guide plates 11,12, each of the guide plates formed with through-holes 111, 121 into which the probes penetrate, wherein the insulating coating material 23 includes a plurality of insulating coating materials [plurality of 23 as shown at fig. 3c] that is arranged spaced apart from each other along the central axis direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ADPA with plurality of insulating coating as claimed to obtain the claim invention for the purpose and advantages that Hsieh have to offer i.e. for design requirement (¶0033).
Regarding claim 13, ADPA discloses all the elements including the first surface of the conductor between the two guide plates includes. ADPA is silent about said the first surface of the conductor between the two guide plates includes: at least two covered portions where the insulating coating material covers the first surface, and at least one uncovered portion exposing a conductive surface of the conductor, wherein the at least one uncovered portion is located between the at least two covered portions along the central axis direction of the conductor. Hsieh discloses at least two covered portions [plurality of 23 as shown at fig. 3C] where the insulating coating material covers the first surface [as shown]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify ADPA with two covered portion as claimed to obtain the claim invention for the purpose and advantages that Hsieh have to offer i.e. for design requirement (¶0033). Modified ADPA discloses at least one uncovered portion exposing a conductive surface [surface of 11 of ADPA] of the conductor, wherein the at least one uncovered portion is located between the at least two covered portions along the central axis direction of the conductor.
Regarding claim 14, modified ADPA discloses the probe card according to claim 13, wherein the second surface of the conductor is an exposed conductive surface along an entire length of each of the probes between the two guide plates [see surface of 11 on opposite of 12a/12].
Regarding claim 15, modified ADPA discloses the probe card according to claim 13, wherein the first surface includes a plurality of uncovered portions [modified ADPA has three uncovered portions on first surface] exposing the conductive surface of the conductor, and wherein the covered portions and the uncovered portions are arranged alternately along the central axis direction of the conductor [modified ADPA has three uncovered and two covered portions alternate on the first surface].
Regarding claim 16, modified ADPA discloses the probe card according to claim 13, wherein the insulating coating material is arranged discontinuously [because of space between two covered portions] on the first surface along the central axis direction of the conductor.
Regarding claim 17, modified ADPA discloses the probe card according to claim 13. They are silent about wherein the insulating coating material at each of the at least two covered portions is arranged on the first surface from a first side surface to a second side surface of the conductor. Change in shape is not patentable. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (COPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date to use desired shape i.e. the insulating coating material at each of the at least two covered portions is arranged on the first surface from a first side surface to a second side surface of the conductor, in order to obtain claim invention and for the same purpose and advantages that ADPA has to offer i.e. prevent the probe from falling outside the range of the probe card.
Regarding claim 18, modified ADPA, particularly ADPA discloses the probe card according to claim 13, wherein the conductor comprises a metallic material including at least one of nickel, iron, cobalt, and an alloy containing at least one of nickel, iron, and cobalt [11 made of Ni as an example, see ¶0053].
Regarding claim 19, modified ADAP as explained above at rejection of claim 14 discloses a probe card for inspecting electrical characteristics of an inspection object, comprising: a plurality of probes; and two guide plates, wherein each of the guide plates is formed with through-holes through which the probes penetrate, wherein each of the probes is inserted into the corresponding through-holes of the two guide plates and held in a curved state between the two guide plates, wherein each of the probes comprises a columnar conductor having a rectangular shape in a cross-section perpendicular to a central axis direction thereof, the conductor having a front surface facing an adjacent probe and a rear surface opposite to the front surface and facing another adjacent probe, wherein, between the two guide plates, the front surface of the conductor includes: at least two covered portions where an insulating coating material covers the front surface, and at least one uncovered portion exposing a conductive surface of the conductor, wherein the at least one uncovered portion is located between the at least two covered portions along the central axis direction of the conductor, and wherein the rear surface of the conductor is an exposed conductive surface.
Regarding claim 20, modified ADAP as explained above at rejection of claim 15 discloses the probe card according to claim 19, wherein the front surface includes a plurality of uncovered portions exposing the conductive surface of the conductor, and wherein the covered portions and the uncovered portions are arranged alternately along the central axis direction of the conductor.
Regarding claim 21, modified ADAP as explained above at rejection of claim 17 discloses the probe card according to claim 19, wherein the insulating coating material at each of the at least two covered portions is arranged on the front surface from a first side surface to a second side surface of the conductor, the first side surface and the second side surface each connecting to the front surface and the rear surface.
Regarding claim 22, modified ADAP with Su as explained above at rejection of claim 2 discloses the probe card according to claim 19, wherein a cross-sectional area perpendicular to the central axis direction, of an end surface of the insulating coating material that faces at least one end of the conductor becomes gradually wider as a distance from a portion closest to the end increases along the central axis direction.
Regarding claim 23, modified ADAP as explained above at rejection of claim 18 discloses the probe card according to claim 19, wherein the conductor comprises a metallic material including at least one of nickel, iron, cobalt, and an alloy containing at least one of nickel, iron, and cobalt.
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
February 3, 2026