DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 7-13 are 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 7, the recitation: “the proximal end” appears to lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examining the claims, the examiner will consider the recitation: “a proximal end”.
Claim(s) 8-13 inherit the issues/deficiencies noted above and is/are thus also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation: “the test socket” appears to lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examining the claims, the examiner will consider the recitation: “a test socket”.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation: “the insulated double-barrel housing” appears to lack antecedent basis. For the purpose of examining the claims, the examiner will consider the recitation: “the double-barrel housing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (36) 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).
As to claim(s) 5, Furuta teaches in Figure(s) 5, the reference barrel (31) of the double barrel housing comprises a reference socket (portion that holds the contact tip, as illustrated in Figure 9), on a proximal end of the adjustable probe tip, wherein the reference socket establishes a reference signal path to the support layer.
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 Furuta in view of the US Patent US 5,997,909 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- The US Patent US 7,091,730 by Parshotam et al., specifically Figure 2, showing a dual probe including an orbiting tip that orbits around a test probe tip.
- The US Patent US 6,281,690 by Frey et al., specifically Figure 1, showing a dual probe arrangement including an orbiting tip (12) and a test tip (16) connected to testing equipment (19).
- The US Patent Application Publication PGPub 2024/0329083 by Chou et al., specifically the arrangement of Figure 9B, including dual probe tips that are replaceable/removable from the main probe body.
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 September 5, 2025