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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on or before 2024-01-12 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I: Fig 2 encompassing claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 in the reply filed on 2025-12-12 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following ground(s):
Applicant argues the orientation of the layers of Frodis and the orientation of the slots are offset by 90 degrees and as such the adjacent layers overlap and therefore even if Frodis were combined with Park it would not result in the invention as claimed which would mean lack of unity of invention is not established. Additionally, applicant further argues that the PCT application had recognized unity of invention.
This is not found persuasive because the examiner respectfully asserts that the layers of Figure 5A of Frodis have the same orientation as those of Fig. 2B of the instant application, both are arranged in sequence along one axis, including the slots, while the layers themselves extend along another axis which is perpendicular. Additionally, Frodis in view of Park teaches the layers oriented along one direction, while the probe buckles in a direction that is perpendicular to the orientation direction. Additionally, whether unity of invention was recognized in the PCT application is not a consideration for whether unity of invention applies in the instant application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9 and 12 are also withdrawn due to being directed toward non-elected species.
Claim 9 is directed toward non-elected Species D. Claim 9 requires the ordering of the multi-layered part to be the low resistance member, slit, high resistance member, slit, low resistance member. This configuration is the configuration shown in Species D, Figures 7A-7E.
Claim 12 is dependent upon a withdrawn claim 11 and is therefore also withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 contains a typographical error on line 6. The letter ‘c’ is placed before the word “between”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 5, There are grammatical errors which make ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claim very difficult. The examiner cannot determine if the beginning of the claim should read “wherein at least one of the/an end faces in the buckling direction…” or if it should read “wherein at least one end of the probe faces in the buckling direction…” For the purposes of compact prosecution, and because the ending of the limitation contains the phrase “…is equipped with a high resistance member”, the examiner will interpret this claim such that if the ends of the probes contain a high resistance member, then it will read on the claim.
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 1-3, 5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frodis (US-20240103040-A1) in view of Park (US-11408914-B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Frodis teaches A probe pin (Fig 5A) having a contact part at one end of a longitudinal direction (Fig 5A: 1st Tip), for contacting an electrode of a test object, and has a terminal part at the other end of the longitudinal direction (Fig 5A: 2nd Tip), for contacting a circuit board, the probe pin comprising:
a low resistance member consisting of a first metal with a first conductivity (Fig 5A: intermediate arm, is made from a selection of metals that have high conductivity, thus low resistance, Para [0134]), and
a high resistance member consisting of a second metal with a second conductivity (Para 5A: outer arms, made from material with a lower conductivity, Para [0134]), the second metal having a resistivity higher than that of the low resistance member (Para [0134] teaches the metals of the outer arms are those that have a higher resistance than the intermediate arms),
wherein the probe pin has a multi layered part between the contact part and the terminal part (Can be seen in Fig 5A), where the multi layered part is configured in an order of the high resistance member, a slit of air gap, and the low resistance member, in a first direction of the probe pin (Para [0135] teaches an air gap between the outer arm and the intermediate arm) at the time of inspection of the test object.
Frodis does not teach the direction of layers arranged so as not to overlap with each other, when the multi layered part is viewed from the buckling direction.
However, Park teaches the direction of layers arranged so as not to overlap with each other, when the multi layered part is viewed from the buckling direction (Fig 5 shows layers formed by the slots, 222, are not overlapping in the buckling direction). 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 layers of Frodis, to not overlap in the buckling direction as taught in Park. A motivation for doing so is the slots arranged in this way make the elastic deformation portion more durable as taught by Park in col. 5 lines 46-58.
Regarding Claim 2, Frodis further teaches wherein the multi layered part is a five layered part consisting of five layers, which is configured in the order of the high resistance member, the slit, the low resistance member, the slit, and the high resistance member (Fig 5A, the part labeled "central portion" shows this arrangement, Para [0135] teaches the gap between the outer arms and intermediate arm may be an air gap).
Regarding Claim 3, Frodis further teaches wherein the probe pin has a first three layered part at one side of the five layered part in the longitudinal direction and a second three layered part at the other side of the five layered part in the longitudinal direction (Can be seen in Fig 5A, immediate before the air gap at the up of the Figure, and immediately after the air gap at the bottom), each of the three layered parts formed of a low resistance member and two high resistance members, layered in the first direction, where the low resistance member is between the two high resistance members (Can be seen in Fig 5A),
wherein the low resistance member of the five layered part and the low resistance member of the three layered part are connected continuously in the longitudinal direction (Can be seen in Fig 5A),
the high resistance members of the five layered part and the high resistance members of the three layered part are each connected continuously in the longitudinal direction (Can be seen in Fig 5A), and
the contact part and the terminal part are constituted only of the high resistance member (Can be seen in Fig 5A).
Regarding Claim 5, Frodis further teaches wherein at least one of end faces in the buckling direction of the low resistance member of the multi layered part is equipped with a high resistance member (Fig 5A shows the high resistance member, the outer arms and ends, is part of the entire length of the probe so therefore every part is equipped with the high resistance member).
Regarding Claim 7, The combination of Frodis in view of Park, as presented with respect to claim 1, teaches wherein the first direction is a direction which is perpendicular to the buckling direction (Refer to the Annotated Figure 5 of Park). These features are necessarily taught by the combination.
Regarding Claim 10, Frodis further teaches A probe card comprising a plurality of probe pins as claimed in Claim 1 (Para [0135] teaches the pins may be used in a probe card).
PNG
media_image1.png
659
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 of Park
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