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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2026-01-21 has been entered. Claim(s) 1, and 3-24 remain pending in this application. Claim(s) 1, 4-10, and 20 have been amended. Claim(s) 2 has/have been canceled. No Claim(s) has/have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN-108459181-A, refer to attached machine translation from previous office action for references cited) in view of Ahn et al. (US-20200132756-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a probe head, the probe head comprising:
at least one pogo pin (Fig 2: probe, 206 | Para [0041] teaches the probes may be spring probes);
a slot (Refer to annotated Fig 2 of Li);
a probe board configured to be inserted into the slot (Fig 2: extending part, 201),
a front lid (Refer to annotated Fig 2 of Li).
Li does not teach wherein the probe board comprises a probe chip having at least one probe tip and at least one metal pad or via electrically coupled to the probe tip, and wherein the at least one metal pad or via is configured to contact the at least one pogo pin.
However, Ahn teaches wherein the probe board (Fig 6: Probe Card, 10) comprises a probe chip (Fig 6: space transformer, 500) having at least one probe tip (Can be seen coming out of the top of 500) and at least one metal pad or via electrically coupled to the probe tip (Fig 6: transformer terminals, 510), and wherein the at least one metal pad or via is configured to contact the at least one pogo pin (Fig 6 shows the pins 200 in contact with metal pads, 510). 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 board of Li, to incorporate the probe chip of Ahn. A motivation for this modification is the probe chip may allow a different spacing of pin connections as shown in Ahn in Figure 6.
Regarding Claim 20, Li further teaches wherein the pogo pin is inserted into the front lid and backside of the probe head (Can be seen in Fig 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
1064
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 of Li
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view Ahn in view of Lee et al. (US-20070141877-A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, Li in view of Ahn does not teach wherein the pogo pin has a rotating ball at its apex.
wherein the rotating ball is spring-loaded and translates up and down along a shank of the pogo pin, and wherein the rotating ball is configured to make physical contact with the at least one metal pad or via on the probe board.
However, Lee teaches wherein the pogo pin has a rotating ball at its apex (Fig 2: contact ball, 110).
wherein the rotating ball is spring-loaded and translates up and down along a shank of the pogo pin (Can be seen in Fig 2), and wherein the rotating ball is configured to make physical contact with the at least one metal pad or via on the probe board (probe tips are inherently configured to make contact with metal pads.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pogo pin of the combination to have the rotating ball of Lee. A motivation for this modification is a rotating ball allows for removal of materials adhered to the ball surface as taught by Lee-877 in Para [0031].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view Ahn in view of Nguyen et al. (US-20080030214-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Li further teaches wherein the probe head is configured to be connected to the daughterboard (Fig 2: fan-out structure, 202), wherein the daughterboard is a printed circuit board (Para [0042] teaches the fan-out structure may be a single or multi-layer circuit board), and wherein the daughterboard is configured to be connected to the motherboard (Fig 2: circuit board, 220).
The combination of Li in view of Ahn does not teach wherein a first end of a wire is soldered to the pogo pin and a second end is soldered to a metal pad on the daughterboard. However, Nguyen teaches wherein a first end of a wire is connected to the pogo pin and a second end is connected to a metal pads (Para [0039] teaches using wires to connect a board, 10, to connection terminals, 58, on the transformer, 30, which Para [0035] teaches may be a multi-layer board capable of having circuits printed on it). 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 connections or Li, to incorporate the wires of Nguyen. A motivation for this modification is that wires allows flexibility and ability to move as taught by Nguyen in Para [0039]).
Regarding Claim 6, Li further teaches wherein the daughterboard is configured to be connected to the motherboard by using one or more metal pins (Fig 2: conductive structure, 225) or one or more additional pogo pins.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ahn in view of Nguyen in view of Wang et al. (US-20210305743-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Li further teaches wherein the motherboard is configured to be connected to a stiffener (Fig 2: buffer layer, 222), and wherein the motherboard is a printed circuit board (Fig 2: circuit board, 220).
The combination of Li in view of Ahn in view of Nguyen does not teach wherein the metal pins are designed to press-fit into the motherboard or the daughterboard. However, Wang teaches wherein metal pins are press-fit into a circuit board (Para [0028] teaches a connection that is press-fitted to a 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 pins of the combination to be press-fit as taught in Wang. A motivation for this modification is that press-fitting is a fast connection that does not require heat such as with soldering making it safer as well.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Ahn in view of Nguyen in view of Lou et al. (US-11209462-B1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Li in view of Ahn in view of Nguyen does not teach wherein the daughterboard is configured to be covered with a daughterboard cover,
wherein the daughterboard cover has a slot to allow for a probe board to be inserted into the probe head. However, Lou teaches wherein the daughterboard (Fig 2: second printed circuit board, 4) is configured to be covered with a daughterboard cover (Fig 2: stiffener, 3),
wherein the daughterboard cover has a slot to allow for a probe board to be inserted into the probe head (Fig 2: third through hole, 32 | Can be seen in Fig 5 that the probe board (referred to as probe card in Lou), 5, is inserted into the slot). 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 daughterboard of the combination to incorporate the cover of Lou. A motivation for this modification is that covers provide protection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 cites the limitations “wherein the probe card further comprises a camera, wherein the daughterboard cover has a first opening for inserting at least a finger, a tweezer, or a clamp, wherein the daughterboard cover has a second opening arranged to enable the camera to track a position and a status of the at least one probe tip of the probe chip” in lines 1-5. The inclusion of the camera, first opening and second opening specifically makes this allowable over 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.
Claim 10 is dependent from claim 9 and would therefore contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
The closest prior art is Li in view of Ahn in view of Nguyen in view of Rothaug et al. (US-20050083038-A1). Rothaug teaches a probe card with a camera (Fig 1: optical receiver device, 2). Lou teaches a first opening in the daughterboard cover (Can be seen in Fig 5 that the daughterboard cover, 3, has the opening, 31, (labeled concave portion by Lou)). However, the daughterboard cover does not have a second opening and it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a second opening.
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 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