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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 20, Applicant argues that “neither Lesnikoski nor Nakayama describe a signal probe or a power probe that includes an insulative coating. Rather each of Lesnikoski and Nakayama are silent with regard to the pins including an insulative coating and instead describe a bushing or member that is inserted into the holes and then the pins are inserted into the insulative bushing or member. Accordingly, claim 1 is submitted to be patentable over Lesnikoski in view of Nakayama.” The Examiner disagrees because rejection as stated and explained below Lesnikoski disclose a signal probe or a power probe [PWR/LSS pin] that includes an insulative coating 250. With respect to claim 14, Applicant argues that “Neither Lesnikoski nor Nakayama describe a shielding probe that extends from the first surface and does not extend from the second surface. Accordingly, claim 14 is submitted to be patentable over Lesnikoski in view of Nakayama.” Jeong at fig. 3 discloses plurality of the shielding probe 500 that does not extend from the second surface [surface of 100 towards 10]. Therefore, modified Lesnikoski discloses a shielding probe that extends from the first surface and does not extend from the second surface. Regarding claims 1 and 20, Applicant argues that “Neither Zhou nor Nakayama describe a signal probe or a power probe that includes an insulative coating. Rather they are silent with regard to the pins including an insulative coating and instead describe an insulation ring or member that is inserted into the holes and then the pins are inserted into the insulation ring or member. Accordingly, claim 1 is submitted to be patentable over Zhou in view of Nakayama.” The Examiner disagrees because Zhou discloses a signal probe or a power probe 790 that includes an insulative coating 122. With respect to claim 14, Applicant argues that “Neither Zhou nor Nakayama describe a shielding probe that extends from the first surface and does not extend from the second surface. Accordingly, claim 14 is submitted to be patentable over Zhou in view of Nakayama.” The Examiner disagrees because Jeong at fig. 3 discloses plurality of the shielding probe 500 that does not extend from the second surface [surface of 100 towards 10]. Therefore, modified Zhou discloses a shielding probe that extends from the first surface and does not extend from the second surface.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the power probe comprising an insulative coating of claims 1 and 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 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) 1, 3-5 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesnikoski (US 2017/0059611 A1) and in view of Nakayama (US 2010/0041251 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lesnikoski at fig. 1-3, claims 1-3 and Abstract discloses a test socket 140 for coupling an integrated circuit (IC) chip [IC, see ¶0012] to a printed circuit board (PCB) 120, said test socket comprising: a conductive body [110 as an example, ¶0014] having a first surface [surface toward 120] configured to face the PCB and a second surface [surface toward IC] configured to face the IC chip, said conductive body defining a signal cavity [cavity for HSS pin e.g. 220, see fig. 3], a ground cavity [cavity for GND pin e.g. 205, see fig. 2A] and a power cavity [cavity for PWR/LSS pin, e.g. 207], the signal cavity, the ground cavity, and the power cavity extending from the first surface to the second surface [as shown, claim 2]; a signal probe [HSS pin, fig. 3, claim 1: a conductive metal IC socket body comprising a plurality of holes; and a coaxial pin assembly installed in a first of the holes and comprising: a conductive high-speed signal (HSS) pin comprising a HSS probe disposed in a spring-loaded HSS barrel; and an insulative bushing disposed in the first hole and surrounding the HSS pin in such a way as to form a controlled spacing between an outer surface of the HSS pin and an inner surface of the first hole.] disposed in the signal cavity, said signal probe configured to electrically connect to a signal conductor of the PCB and to a signal pad of the IC chip [¶0024, ¶0013]; and a ground probe [claim 3: a ground pin assembly comprising a conductive ground pin having a ground probe disposed in a spring-loaded ground barrel, wherein the ground pin assembly is installed in a second of the holes in such a way as to form substantial electrical contact between an outer surface of the ground pin and an inner surface of the second hole.], disposed in the ground cavity, said ground probe configured to electrically connect to a ground conductor of the PCB and to a ground pad of the IC chip [¶0022]; a power probe [PWR/LSS pin] disposed in the power cavity, said power probe configured to electrically connect to a power conductor of the PCB 120 and to a power pad of the IC chip [IC], wherein at least one of said signal probe or said power probe comprises an insulative coating 250.
Lesnikoski is silent about said conductive body is configured to be electrically connected to the ground conductor of the PCB. Rather, at ¶0017 discloses “the socket body 110 is made of a conductive metal, such as aluminum. As such, the socket body 110 can act as a ground plane and/or signal return path.” Nakayama in similar environment at fig. 3-4 discloses conductive body 71 is configured to be electrically connected [as shown at fig. 4 via 25] to the ground conductor 2G of the PCB 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify grounding as taught by Nakayama to transmits high-frequency signals, with excellent in strength and durability so a conductive contact unit (test socket) for a circuit structure (IC) that is driven at high frequency, an impedance matching to match the characteristic impedance of the conductive contact, so the characteristic impedance of the circuit structure can be to be performed with good accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Lesnikoski at fig. 2A/2B and ¶0019 discloses the test socket of claim 1, wherein at least one of said signal probe said ground probe, or said power probe comprises a spring probe [spring-loaded barrel 233 or 235].
Regarding claim 4, Modified Lesnikoski at fig. 2B and 3 and ¶0019 discloses the test socket of claim 1, wherein said conductive body further defines a recess extending inward [step recess for HSS probe 220 at fig. 3 facing 120 and step recess for insulative coating 250 at fig. 2B facing 120, ¶0027] from the first surface, and wherein at least one of the signal cavity or the power cavity [cavities for barrel 230 (fig. 3) and cavity for barrel 235 fig. 2B] opens into said recess.
Regarding claim 5, Modified Lesnikoski, particularly Lesnikoski at fig. 2B and 3 and ¶0019 discloses the test socket of claim 4. They are silent about the recess has a depth in a range from 0.02 millimeters to 0.1 millimeters. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date to have certain thickness/depth e.g. a range from 0.02 millimeters to 0.1 millimeters of the recess for bushing 240/250 (see Lesnikoski) in order to form a full coaxial pin with controlled impedance characteristics (see last line of Abstract). This is because “[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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Lesnikoski, particularly Nakayama at fig. 4 discloses the test socket of claim 1 including the ground probe (32), further comprising a shielding probe [another ground probe 32] extending from the first surface and configured to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB. Adding shielding probe as taught by Nakayama can modify the modified Lesnikoski for the same purpose as mentioned above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify grounding as taught by Nakayama to transmits high-frequency signals, with excellent in strength and durability so a conductive contact unit (test socket) for a circuit structure (IC) that is driven at high frequency, an impedance matching to match the characteristic impedance of the conductive contact, so the characteristic impedance of the circuit structure can be to be performed with good accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Lesnikoski, particularly Nakayama at fig. 4 discloses the test socket of claim 9, wherein said shielding probe comprises a spring probe [32 on right at fig. 4].
Regarding claim 11, Modified Lesnikoski, particularly Lesnikoski at fig. 3 and 0026 discloses the test socket of claim 1, further comprising an insulation member 240 disposed on said signal probe, said insulation member configured to electrically insulate said signal probe from said conductive body.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Lesnikoski, particularly Lesnikoski at fig. 3 and 0026 discloses the test socket of claim 11, wherein said insulation member comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Lesnikoski, particularly Lesnikoski at fig. 3 and 0026 discloses the test socket of claim 11, wherein said insulation member is annular in shape [as shown].
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2020/0088763 A1), hereafter Zhou and in view of Nakayama (US 2010/0041251 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a test socket (Fig.1) for coupling an integrated circuit (Fig.1; 110) chip toa printed circuit board ([0029]: "FIG. 7 illustrates a test system 100, which can provide an electrical connection between an electronic device 110 (which can be an IC chip, and can also be referred to as a “Device Under Test,” or “DUT”) and a printed circuit board (PCB) 190."), said test socket comprising: a conductive body (Fig.2B and [0031] - "the socket body 120 can comprise a metal structure 124 and a body insulation layer 122.") having a first surface configured to face the PCB and a second surface configured to face the IC chip (Fig.2B, bottom and top surfaces), said conductive body defining a signal cavity, a ground cavity and a power cavity [cavity for 790 as an example], the signal cavity and the ground cavity extending from the first surface to the second surface; a signal probe disposed in the signal cavity (claim 1: "a signal contact probe located within the signal cavity' e.g. cavies 130 [0029]), said signal probe configured to electrically connect to a signal conductor of the PCB and to a signal pad of the IC chip; and a ground probe disposed in the ground cavity (claim 2: "a ground contact probe located within the ground cavity"), said ground probe configured to electrically connect to a ground conductor of the PCB and to a ground pad of the IC chip, wherein said conductive body is configured to be electrically connected to the ground conductor of the PCB ([0062] - "The socket cavity inner surface of the ground cavity 462 may either not be covered by any material, or may be covered by a conductive layer. In particular, the socket body 402 of the ground cavity 462 may have a socket body conductive layer 405 and the socket retainer 406 of the ground cavity 462 may have a socket retainer conductive layer 409."); and a power probe [790] disposed in the power cavity, said power probe configured to electrically connect to a power conductor of the PCB 190 and to a power pad of the IC chip [110], wherein at least one of said signal probe or said power probe comprises an insulative coating 122.
Zhou is silent about said conductive body is configured to be electrically connected to the ground conductor of the PCB. Rather, at ¶0062 discloses "The socket cavity inner surface of the ground cavity 462 may either not be covered by any material, or may be covered by a conductive layer. In particular, the socket body 402 of the ground cavity 462 may have a socket body conductive layer 405 and the socket retainer 406 of the ground cavity 462 may have a socket retainer conductive layer 409." Nakayama in similar environment at fig. 3-4 discloses conductive body 71 is configured to be electrically connected [as shown at fig. 4 via 25] to the ground conductor 2G of the PCB 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify grounding as taught by Nakayama to transmits high-frequency signals, with excellent in strength and durability so a conductive contact unit (test socket) for a circuit structure (IC) that is driven at high frequency with an impedance matching to match the characteristic impedance of the conductive contact, so the characteristic impedance of the circuit structure can be to be performed with good accuracy.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Zhou, particularly Zhou at fig. 3A, 3B and ¶0132 discloses the test socket of claim 1, wherein at least one of said signal probe said ground probe, or said power probe comprises a spring probe [spring probe 300 or 320].
Regarding claim 4, Modified Zhou, particularly Zhou at fig. 2B and ¶0032 discloses the test socket of claim 1, wherein said conductive body further defines a recess extending inward [see 164 as shown for 162 in 124] from the first surface, and wherein at least one of the signal cavity or the power cavity 130 opens into said recess.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Zhou, particularly Nakayama at fig. 4 discloses the test socket of claim 1 including the ground probe (32 on left), further comprising a shielding probe [another ground probe 32] extending from the first surface and configured to electrically connect said conductive body 71 to the ground conductor of the PCB. Adding shielding probe as taught by Nakayama can modify the modified Zhou for the same purpose as mentioned above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify grounding as taught by Nakayama to transmits high-frequency signals, with excellent in strength and durability so a conductive contact unit (test socket) for a circuit structure (IC) that is driven at high frequency, an impedance matching to match the characteristic impedance of the conductive contact, so the characteristic impedance of the circuit structure can be to be performed with good accuracy.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Zhou, particularly Nakayama at fig. 4 discloses the test socket of claim 9, wherein said shielding probe comprises a spring probe [32 on right at fig. 4].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhou and Nakayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa et al. (US 2004/0212383 A), hereafter Yanagisawa.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhou and Nakayama discloses the test socket of claim 1. They are silent about a conductive elastomer disposed adjacent to the first surface and configured to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB. Yanagisawa in similar environment and at fig. 7A and ¶0100-0102 discloses a conductive elastomer 8 disposed adjacent to the first surface [surface of 2/24 towards 5] and configured to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB [modified Zhou]. Adding the conductive elastomer to modified Zhou obtains advantages that Yanagisawa have to offer e.g. reduction in pitch between the electrode terminals of the IC. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add conductive elastomer as taught by Yanagisawa to modified Zhou so electrically earth IC and PCB 5 so terminals of IC can be arranged at narrow pitches.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lesnikoski and Nakayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yanagisawa et al. (US 2004/0212383 A), hereafter Yanagisawa.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lesnikoski and Nakayama discloses the test socket of claim 1. They are silent about a conductive elastomer disposed adjacent to the first surface and configured to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB. Yanagisawa in similar environment and at fig. 7A and ¶0100-0102 discloses a conductive elastomer 8 disposed adjacent to the first surface [surface of 2/24 towards 5] and configured to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB [modified Zhou]. Adding the conductive elastomer to modified Lesnikoski to obtains advantages that Yanagisawa have to offer e.g. reduction in pitch between the electrode terminals of the IC. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add conductive elastomer as taught by Yanagisawa to modified Lesnikoski so electrically earth IC and PCB 5 so terminals of IC can be arranged at narrow pitches.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Zhou and Nakayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 2019/0018045 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhou and Nakayama discloses all the elements, they are silent about a gold foil disposed on the first surface and configured to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB. Jeong at ¶0028 discloses “the elastic grounding member 200 may be made of conductive rubber where conductive particles are mixed into an elastic material. To improve conductivity, the surface of the elastic grounding member 200 may be coated with a conductive material. For example, the elastic grounding member 200 may be coated with gold, silver, copper, etc.” Jeong therefore discloses a gold foil 200 disposed on the first surface to electrically connect the conductive body 100. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add gold foil as taught by Jeong to the modified Zhou to reduce cross talk (¶0042, ¶0044). Modified Zhou discloses a gold foil disposed on the first surface to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB.
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 2019/0018045).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou as rejected above at claim 9 discloses a method for manufacturing a test socket, the test socket configured to couple an integrated circuit (IC) chip to a printed circuit board (PCB), said method comprising: forming, in a conductive body having a first surface configured to face the PCB and a second surface configured to face the IC chip, a signal cavity and a ground cavity, the signal cavity and the ground cavity extending from the first surface to the second surface; positioning a signal probe in the signal cavity, the signal probe configured to electrically connect to a signal conductor of the PCB and to a signal pad of the IC chip; and positioning a ground probe in the ground cavity, the ground probe configured to electrically connect to a ground conductor of the PCB and to a ground pad of the IC chip, wherein the conductive body is configured to be electrically connected to the ground conductor of the PCB; and positioning a shielding probe to extend from the first surface, the shielding probe configured to electrically connect the conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB. Modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou are silent about the shielding probe does not extend from the second surface. Jeong at fig. 3 discloses plurality of the shielding probe 500 that does not extend from the second surface [surface of 100 towards 10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use teaching of Jeong to modify the combination modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou, in order to obtain advantages that Jeong has to offer i.e. to make socket 100 be grounded (see ¶0034).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou as rejected above at claim 2 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising: forming, in the conductive body, a power cavity extending from the first surface to the second surface; and positioning a power probe in the power cavity, the power probe configured to electrically connect to a power conductor of the PCB and to a power pad of the IC chip.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou as rejected above at claim 4 discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising forming, in the conductive body, a recess extending inward from the first surface, wherein at least one of the signal cavity or the power cavity opens into the recess.
Regarding claim 17, modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou as rejected above at claim 7 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising positioning a conductive elastomer adjacent to the first surface, the conductive elastomer configured to electrically connect said conductive body to the ground conductor of the PCB.
Regarding claim 19, modified Lesnikoski as rejected above at claim 11 discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising positioning an insulation member on the signal probe, the insulation member configured to electrically insulate the signal probe from the conductive body.
Regarding claim 20, modified Lesnikoski or Modified Zhou as rejected above at claim 1 above discloses all the elements including an integrated circuit (IC) test assembly comprising: an IC chip comprising a signal pad and a ground pad; a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a signal conductor and a ground conductor; and a test socket comprising: a conductive body having a first surface configured to face the PCB and a second surface configured to face the IC chip, said conductive body defining a signal cavity, a ground cavity and a power cavity, the signal cavity, the ground cavity and the power cavity extending from the first surface to the second surface, said conductive body configured to be electrically connected to said ground conductor; a signal probe disposed in the signal cavity, said signal probe configured to electrically connect to said signal conductor and to said signal pad; a ground probe disposed in the ground cavity, said ground probe configured to electrically connect to said ground conductor and to said ground pad; and a power probe disposed in the power cavity, said power probe configured to electrically connect to a power conductor of the PCB and to a power pad of the IC chip, wherein at least one of said signal probe or said power probe comprises an insulative coating.
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 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
April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights