DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims as amended/presented in the response received 3/3/2026, is as follows:
- Claims 1-15 are pending.
- No claims have been amended.
- No claims have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 with regards to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/9/2025 have been fully considered. Each argument is addressed below:
The examiner has carefully considered the presented arguments and believes the main disagreement circles the interpretation of the recitation “wherein the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the support layer..”. The applicant argues (emphasis added):
“Furuta does not disclose a test barrel axially mounted to a recessed portion of a support layer. The claimed invention requires a test barrel that is axially mounted to a recessed portion, such that the barrel is retained axially while being rotatable around the longitudinal axis of the support layer. Furuta's main tip member 31 is simply inserted into a cylindrical hole 41 in the housing block. There is no axial mounting to a recessed portion, no ring portion retaining the barrel, and no structure enabling rotation. The main tip member is fixed in place and does not rotate. Furuta's disclosure of a static cylindrical hole receiving a sharpened tip member bears no structural resemblance to the claimed axial mounting of a barrel to a recessed portion of a support layer.” - Arguments page 8, second paragraph.
“Furuta also fails to disclose a double-barrel housing. The claimed double-barrel housing is a unified component comprising a test barrel and a reference barrel, each barrel defining a socket or receptacle, and the entire housing being rotatable as a unit around the longitudinal axis of the support layer. In contrast, Furuta discloses two independent tip members-main tip member 31 and sub-tip member 32-each inserted into separate cylindrical holes in a static housing block. These tip members are not barrels, do not form a unified housing, and do not rotate as a unit. The housing 33 itself is fixed and non-rotatable. The Examiner's characterization of Furuta's housing as a "double-barrel housing" is therefore incorrect.” - Arguments, page 7, last paragraph.
“Furuta does not disclose a rotatable test barrel. The Examiner's assertion that Furnta's "test block" is rotatable around a longitudinal axis is incorrect. The only rotating element in Furuta is the sub-tip member 32, which rotates around its own pivot axis within hole 42. Furuta explicitly states that "sub-tip member 32 can turn round 360 degrees," referring to rotation about its own pivot, not rotation of a barrel around a longitudinal axis of a support layer. The main tip member 31 is fixed and non-rotatable. Furuta contains no disclosure of any component rotating around a longitudinal axis, nor any structure enabling such rotation. The claimed rotatable test barrel is therefore absent.” - Arguments, page 8, third paragraph.
“Yang also fails to disclose a double-barrel housing. The claimed invention requires a single, unified housing comprising a test barrel and a reference barrel, each defining a socket or receptacle, and the entire housing being rotatable as a unit around the longitudinal axis of the support layer. Yang discloses no such structure. Yang's probe includes a single semi-rigid coaxial cable forming a probing tip 100 and a separate ground probing tip 110 mounted adjacent to it. These are not barrels, do not form a unified housing, and are not part of any rotatable assembly. Yang's housing merely encloses the coaxial cable and pressure sensor; it does not define any barrels, sockets, or receptacles. The Examiner's characterization of Yang's structure as a double-barrel housing is therefore incorrect.” -Arguments, page 11, second paragraph.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the characterization of the claim language as requiring the test barrel being retained axially while being rotatable around the reference barrel. The claim requires the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the support layer. Contrary to what the applicant appears to argue, the claim doesn’t necessitate the test barrel being rotatable with respect to the reference barrel. It only requires the test barrel being rotatable with respect to the longitudinal axis of the support layer. The examiner’s position is not that the test barrel is rotatable while the reference barrel remains static, that’s not what the claim requires. The examiner’s position is that the test barrel is rotatable with respect to the longitudinal axis of the support layer. Both Furuta and Yang teaches this because the entire structure can be rotated around the longitudinal axis. The fact the reference barrel or the support layer do not remain static while the test barrel is rotated is immaterial, insofar as the claim doesn’t require it.
To illustrate the examiner’s position, consider a popular children’s toy: a “hand helicopter” shown in Figure I below. The toy includes a center portion that the user rotates with both hands. The center portion is integrally connected to blades. The blades are rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the center portion during operation. Again, the blades can’t be said to be rotatable with respect to the center portion, but they are rotatable around the longitudinal axis of the center portion. Similarly, with respect to the instant application, the claim doesn’t necessitate the test barrel being rotatable with respect to the support layer or while the support layer is static, but rather describes the test barrel being rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the support layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
537
1043
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure I
The Applicant also argues that neither portions 62+61 in Furuta, or portion 84 in Yang can be considered a support layer. The applicant argues (emphasis added):
“Furuta does not disclose, teach, or suggest a support layer having a recessed portion as required by the claims. The structure identified by the Examiner as a "recessed portion" (element 62 in Fig. 6) is not a recessed portion of a support layer at all, but rather part of a coaxial connector interface used to attach the probe body to an SMA connector. Furuta's housing 33 is a solid block through which two cylindrical holes 41 and 42 are drilled, as expressly described: "there are two portions defining cylindrical holes 41 and 42 which pass through the housing 33." Nothing in Furuta indicates the presence of a recessed portion configured to receive a barrel in an axially mounted fashion, nor any ring portion that would retain such a barrel. The claimed recessed portion is a structural feature that enables axial mounting and rotational engagement of a double-barrel housing. Furuta contains no such structure, and the Examiner's mapping of Furuta's connector interface to the claimed recessed portion is unsupported by the reference.” - Arguments, page 7, second paragraph.
“Yang does not disclose, teach, or suggest a support layer having a recessed portion as required by the claims. The structure in Yang consists of two plastic housing halves (82 and 84) that form a rectangular enclosure for a spring-loaded coaxial probe assembly and a pressure sensor. Yang's housing is not a conductive support layer, does not include any recessed portion, and does not provide any structural interface for mounting a barrel. Instead, Yang's housing is a molded plastic shell with internal channels sized to receive the coaxial cable and pressure sensor components. There is no recessed portion analogous to the ringed recess of the present invention, no axial mounting interface, and no structural feature that would allow a barrel to be retained or rotated. The Examiner's mapping of Yang's molded plastic channels to the claimed recessed portion is unsupported by the reference.” - Arguments, page 10, first paragraph.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First the examiner notes that the claim doesn’t necessitate the presence of a ring portion. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the presence of a ring portion) 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).
Second, the examiner notes that recitations must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. The recitation “support layer” is not described in a way that precludes its interpretation as a structure that provides support as anticipated by Furuta and Yang. The examiner interprets the recitation to mean “a foundational component or system that provides the necessary structure, stability, and functionality for the rest of a system to operate effectively.” Thus, the examiner believes that Furuta’s and Yang’s portions are indeed support layers as they meet the interpretation and functionality above mentioned.
Lastly, the arguments that neither of Furuta’s or Yang’s layer would allow a barrel to be retained or rotated revolve around the argument addressed above, with respect to the test barrel being rotatable around the longitudinal axis of the support layer. Accordingly, the argument is unpersuasive and the rejection considered proper.
In response to the argument that Furuta’s system fails to a double barrel-housing, the applicant argues (emphasis added):
“Furuta also fails to disclose a double-barrel housing. The claimed double-barrel housing is a unified component comprising a test barrel and a reference barrel, each barrel defining a socket or receptacle, and the entire housing being rotatable as a unit around the longitudinal axis of the support layer. In contrast, Furuta discloses two independent tip members-main tip member 31 and sub-tip member 32-each inserted into separate cylindrical holes in a static housing block. These tip members are not barrels, do not form a unified housing, and do not rotate as a unit. The housing 33 itself is fixed and non-rotatable. The Examiner's characterization of Furuta's housing as a "double-barrel housing" is therefore incorrect.” - Arguments, page 7, last paragraph.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes the claim doesn’t necessitate the double-barrel housing being a “unified component” or that the “entire housing” be rotatable as a unit around the longitudinal axis of the support layer. The claim requires that the test barrel (not the entire housing) is rotatable around the longitudinal axis of the support layer. The examiner believes the interpretation regarding the ability of the test barrel to rotate around a longitudinal axis of the support layer is proper for the reasons explained above.
Furthermore, it’s not clear why the applicant believes Furuta’s portions 31 and the lower cylindrical portion of 32 (see Figure II below) are not equivalent to barrels. The portions are cylindrical and indeed house a unit (for example, the probe tip labeled 35 in figure 3). The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
711
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure II
Regarding the argument that Furuta’s support layer doesn’t include a recessed portion, the examiner disagrees. As shown in Figure III below, Furuta’s support layer includes a multiple recessed portions joined together around the circumference of the layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
289
590
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure III
Regarding the arguments with respect to claim 2, the applicant argues (emphasis added):
“Claim 2 was rejected as obvious over Furuta in view of Masaki. The §103 rejection combining Furuta with Masaki is improper because Masaki's disclosure bears no structural or functional relationship to the claimed invention and cannot remedy the deficiencies of Furuta. Masaki is directed to a soldering iron heater sleeve that includes a longitudinal slit for the purpose of allowing radial thermal expansion and contraction of the sleeve during heating cycles. The slit in Masaki is expressly described as a thermal-expansion feature that enables a ceramic heater to be press-fitted into a metal sleeve. This structure has nothing to do with the mechanical snap-fit retention, axial mounting, or rotational engagement required by the claimed double-barrel housing. Furuta, for its part, contains no recessed portion, no ring portion, no barrel, and no structure capable of receiving or interacting with a slit of any kind. Furuta's housing is a solid block with two drilled holes, and introducing a slit into this block would deform the cylindrical holes and destroy the pivoting function of the sub-tip member, which is the core of Furuta's operation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Furuta in a way that compromises its only functional mechanism, nor would such a person look to a soldering-iron heater sleeve to solve a problem in probe-tip mechanical design. Even if Furuta and Masaki were combined, the resulting structure would not include a double-barrel housing, a recessed portion, a ring portion, axial mounting, rotational engagement, or any of the other features required by the claims. The rejection therefore lacks factual and legal support.” Arguments page 12, last paragraph.
In response the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As explained in the Non-Final Office Action, Masaki teaches the use of slits for securing removable/replaceable heads. The examiner’s position is not that Masaki teaches an electrical probe, or that any portion of Masaki’s device can be bodily incorporated into Furuta’s device, but rather that Masaki teaches to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the use of slits for securing removable/replaceable heads. Further, the examiner’s position is that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of slits as securing means as taught by Masaki in the device of Furuta.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 6, the applicant argues (emphasis added):
“Claim 6 was rejected as obvious over Furuta in view of Campbell. The § 103 rejection
combining Furuta with Campbell is likewise improper because Campbell's teachings relate to
external probe adapters containing compensating networks, not to internal probe-tip
structures. Campbell's attenuator device is located on a flexible tab-board adapter external to
the probe and is designed to compensate for parasities introduced by the adapter itself.
Campbell does not disclose or suggest placing an attenuator inside a conductive support layer,
nor does it disclose an internal insulation layer separating the attenuator from a reference path.
Furuta, on the other hand, has no internal cavity, no support layer, no insulation layer, and no
signal path of any kind. Furuta's structure consists solely of a housing block and two
sharpened tip members. There is no location within Furuta where an attenuator could be
placed, and no structural relationship between Furuta's components that resembles the
claimed support-layer architecture. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Furuta's mechanical pivoting probe with Campbell's external compensation adapter, as the two references address entirely different problems in entirely different fields. Even if one attempted to combine them, the result would not yield the claimed invention, which requires an attenuator device positioned inside a conductive support layer and insulated from the reference path by an internal insulation layer. The rejection therefore fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” - Arguments page 13, second paragraph.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner points out that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner’s position is not that Campbell’s device or any portion thereof may be bodily incorporated into the structure of Furuta. Rather, the examiner’s position is that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the teachings of attenuation means as taught by Campbell in order to optimize the bandwidth performance of Furuta’s probe tip. Whether or not Furuta’s system includes a location that may house an attenuator doesn’t prevent a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Furuta’s system in a way to add said attenuator in order to gain the advantage mentioned above.
Also, in response to applicant's argument that Campbell is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). As explained above, Campbell is reasonable pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 7-15 over Furuta in view of Lucas, the applicant argues (emphasis added):
“Claims 1, 5, and 7-15 were rejected as obvious over Furuta in view of Lucas. The § 103 rejection combining Furuta with Lucas is also improper because Lucas is directed to a robotic positioning system for placing probe leads on a circuit board, not to the structure of a probe tip. Lucas discloses motors, encoders, robotic arms, and polar-coordinate positioning mechanisms, none of which relate to the mechanical architecture of a probe tip. Lucas's "probe leads" are simple pogo pins mounted on a robotic arm and do not include barrels, sockets, recessed portions, ring portions, axial mounting, rotational engagement, or any of the structural features required by the claims. Lucas cannot supply any of the missing elements in Furuta, because Lucas does not disclose any probe-tip structure at all. Combining Furuta with Lucas would not only fail to produce the claimed invention but would also destroy the operation of Furuta by replacing its hand-held pivoting mechanism with a robotic positioning system. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine a hand-held pivoting probe with a robotic arm, as the two devices serve fundamentally different purposes and operate in incompatible ways. The references are not analogous art, do not address the same problem, and cannot be combined in any meaningful way to yield the claimed structure. The rejection therefore lacks factual support and must be withdrawn.” - Arguments, page 14, second paragraph.
The applicant’s arguments are persuasive. The examiner notes that the Office Action characterizes the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 7-15 as rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of Lucas. This is an oversight on the examiner’s part.
Paragraph 14 in the Non-Final Office Action was meant describe claims 1, 5 and 7-15 as rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas. Furuta was not meant to be relied upon. In fact, Furata is not mentioned in the body of the rejection. Similarly, the rejection of claim 5 presented in the Non-final Action incorrectly identifies the reference barrel as “31” and not “the lower cylindrical portion of 32”.
Accordingly, in light of this oversight and to give the applicant the chance to consider the proper grounds of rejection, the corrected rejection is presented below.
Accordingly, this Action is made Non-Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 6,271,673 by Furuta et al., (Furuta hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 1, Furuta teaches in Figure(s) 5-6 and 9, an adjustable probe tip, comprising:
a. a support layer (61+62 in Figure 6) having a recessed portion (62) and
b. a double-barrel housing (30) comprising a test barrel (31) and a reference barrel (lower cylindrical portion of 32 in figure 9),
wherein the test barrel (31) of the double-barrel housing is axially mounted to the recessed portion of support layer, and
wherein the test block of the double-block housing is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the support layer (the test block is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the support layer 61+62 and thus able to rotate around said axis), and the reference barrel orbits the longitudinal axis in an adjustment angle at a distance equal to a pitch (As shown in Figure 9, 32 is positioned at a distance or “pitch” from the test barrel. Rotating the test block about the longitudinal axis, has the effect of making the reference barrel orbit said longitudinal axis).
** Please refer to the response to Arguments section above for an explanation of the examiner’s interpretation of support layer and “rotatable around a longitudinal axis”.
As to claim(s) 5, Furuta teaches in Figure(s) 5, the reference barrel (lower cylindrical portion of 32 in Figure 9) of the double barrel housing comprises a reference socket (hole 42 in the body of 33, shown in Figure 4 that receives the reference barrel), on a proximal end of the adjustable probe tip, wherein the reference socket establishes a reference signal path to the support layer (it provides a path for ground, as explained for example in col. 3, lines 57-64).
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US Patent US 6,734,689 by Yang (Yang hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 1, Yang teaches in Figure(s) 5-6, an adjustable probe tip, comprising:
a. a support layer (84) having a recessed portion (positioning unit 94) and
b. a double-barrel housing (112) comprising a test barrel (100) and a reference barrel (110), wherein the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is axially mounted to the recessed portion of support layer (110 is positioned in the center, along the longitudinal axis of the support layer), and
wherein the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the support layer (the test block is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the support layer and thus able to rotate around said axis), and the reference barrel (110) orbits the longitudinal axis in an adjustment angle at a distance equal to a pitch (110 is positioned at a distance or “pitch” from the 100. Rotating the test barrel about the longitudinal axis, has the effect of making the reference barrel orbit said longitudinal axis).
As to claim(s) 3, Yang teaches in Figure(s) 5-6, the adjustable probe tip of claim 1, further comprising an insulated housing (82) covering the conductive double-barrel housing (82 partially covers 112).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang.
In terms of claim(s) 1 and 4, Yang teaches in Figure(s) 5-6, an adjustable probe tip, comprising:
a. a support layer (84) having a recessed portion (positioning unit 94) and
b. a double-barrel housing (112) comprising a test barrel (100) and a reference barrel (110), wherein the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is axially mounted to the recessed portion of support layer (110 is positioned in the center, along the longitudinal axis of the support layer), and
wherein the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the support layer (the test block is aligned with the longitudinal axis of the support layer and thus able to rotate around said axis), and the reference barrel (110) orbits the longitudinal axis in an adjustment angle at a distance equal to a pitch (110 is positioned at a distance or “pitch” from the 100. Rotating the test barrel about the longitudinal axis, has the effect of making the reference barrel orbit said longitudinal axis), the adjustable probe tip comprising an electrically insulating outer layer (82).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of the US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2004/0232132 by Masaki et al., (Masaki hereafter).
As to claim 2, Furuta shows in Figure 2, the double-barrel housing (30) further comprises a structure (33+51) that allows it to be removably secured to the recessed portion (62) of the support layer. However, Furuta is silent about the structure comprising a “slit” or that said securing involves elastic deformation. Nevertheless, the use of said arrangement (slit) on removable units is common knowledge in the art. For example, Masaki shows in Figures 5C-5E, an arrangement where a removable/replaceable head (4) in a soldering tool is secured to the heater body (2) using a barrel (3) that includes a slit (3c) so that the head may be secured via the elastic deformation of the barrel (3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of slits as securing means for repleaceable/removable heads as taught by Masaki, in the device/system/method of Furuta (for example, by including a slit to portion 33 in Furuta’s device), in order to secure the double barrel housing (removable probe head 30) in a simple, cost-effective manner.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuta in view of the US Patent US 9,404,940 by Campbell et al. (Campbell hereafter).
In terms of claim(s) 6, Furuta substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the support layer comprises an internal insulation layer and an attenuator device.
Campbell teaches in figure 16, a probe tip including an attenuation means (resistive means within compensating network 112, see col. 16, lines 43-58) connected to the probe and insulated from other elements in the probe housing, in order to optimize bandwidth performance of the testing point.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, to apply the teaching of attenuation means as taught by Campbell, and include an attenuation means insulated from other portions of the probe in the device/system/method of Furuta, in order to gain the advantage of optimizing the bandwidth performance of the probe tip, as suggested by Campbell.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US Patent US 5,99 by Lucas et al., (Lucas hereafter).
As to claim(s) 1, 5, 7-15, Lucas teaches in Figure(s) 1-2, an adjustable probe tip, comprising:
a. a support layer (114+206) having a recessed portion (space within which 116 moves) and
b. a double-barrel housing (portion holding 120 and portion 116) comprising a test barrel (portion holding probe 120) and a reference barrel (116), wherein the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is axially mounted to the recessed portion of the support layer, and
wherein the test barrel of the double-barrel housing is rotatable around a longitudinal axis of the support layer (along axis 122), and the reference barrel orbits the longitudinal axis in an adjustment angle at a distance equal to a pitch (116 is positioned at a distance or “pitch” from 122. Rotating the test barrel about the longitudinal axis, has the effect of making the reference barrel orbit said longitudinal axis),
wherein the adjustable probe tip is connected to a probe tip cable of a probe head adapter at a distal end of the adjustable probe tip (cable transmitting signal between 120 and 142 as illustrated in Figure 1), and
wherein the test barrel comprises a test pin (122) configured to receive a test signal of a DUT, and
wherein the reference barrel (116) comprises a reference pin (126) configured to receive a reference signal pin of a DUT, the test signal pin and the reference signal pin establishing a shielded electrical connection between the DUT and the adjustable probe tip.
Lucas substantially teaches all of the elements disclosed above, except for explicitly mentioning the double-barrel housing is coupled to a recessed portion of the support layer, the use of sockets receiving holding pins 122 and 126, or the presence of a beveled reference opening leading to said sockets. However, the choice of mechanical means relied upon to couple 206 and 114 do not appear to be critical to the inventive idea disclosed. Furthermore, the use of sockets securing connectors is known in the art. Lucas indeed teaches the double-barrel housing is connected to the support layer, and further teaches pins that performs the functions as recited regardless of the absence of the recited sockets, insulated caps or beveled reference opening. Official notice is taken that the missing limitations are old and well-known expedients in the art. Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1385, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1092, 165 USPQ at 421.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Isla whose telephone number is (571)272-5056. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a - 5:30p.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571 272-7924. 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.
/RICHARD ISLA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights