Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/608,459

PORTABLE PROBE CARD ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Examiner
FORTICH, ALVARO E
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Celadon Systems Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
483 granted / 565 resolved
+17.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
598
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§103
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 565 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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 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. Title Objection 1. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Double Patenting 2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761(CCPA1982); in re Vogei, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644(CCPA1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321 (d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b). 3. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 11-15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 22-25 are Non-provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 1, 7 and (10+1), respectively, of Patent No. 11,933,816 (hereinafter mentioned as “Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 1, 7 and (10+1) of the Patent encompass the limitations of the claims 1 and 1, 4, 5, 6, 11-15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 22-25 in the instant application. It is noted that those claims, despite a slight difference in wording, are so close in content that they both cover the same thing. 4. This is a Non-provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented 5. The next tables are presented for the purpose of a comparison between the claims on the application and the Patent. Instant Application Patent Claim 1 - A test assembly for testing a device under test, comprising: a base plate including a test site; a top plate; and Claim 1 - A test assembly for testing a device under test, comprising: a base plate including a test site; a top plate; and a probe card, the probe card secured to the top plate and extending through the top plate, the probe card being configured to contact the device under test disposed on the test site, wherein the base plate includes a flexible member and one or more pockets disposed in the flexible member, a probe card, the probe card secured to the top plate and extending through the top plate … ... to contact the device under test disposed on the test site, wherein the base plate includes a flex ring, pockets disposed in the flex ring, and apertures, the test site is disposed within a perimeter of the flexible member, and the test site is configured to support the device under test, and the test site is disposed within a perimeter of the flex ring, and the test site is configured to support the device under test, the flexible member is configured to provide Z positioning and control. the flex ring is configured to provide Z positioning and control, and ... Instant Application Patent Claim 22 - A method of assembling a test assembly, the method comprising: installing a probe card onto a top plate; installing the top plate including the probe card onto a base plate; Claim 10 - A method comprising: installing the top plate including the probe card onto the base plate; supporting a device under test on a test site that is disposed within a perimeter of a flexible member of the base plate, Claim 1 the test site is disposed within a perimeter of the flex ring, and the test site is configured to support the device under test … inserting fasteners through adjustable rigid stops included in the top plate and aligning the fasteners with one or more apertures in the flexible member of the base plate, to provide Z positioning and control Claim 1 the top plate includes adjustable rigid stops and pins, fasteners are configured to be insertable through the adjustable rigid stops and align with the apertures, to provide Z positioning and control, tightening fasteners to secure the test assembly having the top plate and the base plate. Claim 10 tightening the fasteners to secure the test assembly. Examiner’s Note 6. claims 2-3 and 7-10 were cancelled via preliminary amendments on the same day filing date. Allowable Subject Matter 7. Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 11-22 would be allowable if overcoming the “Double Patenting" Rejection above. 8. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the allowable subject matter: 9. Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein: wherein the base plate includes a flexible member and one or more pockets disposed in the flexible member, the test site is disposed within a perimeter of the flexible member, and the test site is configured to support the device under test, and the flexible member is configured to provide Z positioning and control. 10. Claim(s) 4-6 and 11-25 would also be allowable because they further limit and depend on claim 2. 11. Regarding claim 22, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein: supporting a device under test on a test site that is disposed within a perimeter of a flexible member of the base plate; inserting fasteners through adjustable rigid stops included in the top plate and aligning the fasteners with one or more apertures in the flexible member of the base plate, to provide Z positioning and control. 12. Claim(s) 23-25 would also be allowable because they further limit and depend on claim 22. 13. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims. Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. Reasons for Allowability / Allowable Subject Matter 14. Claim 26 is allowed. 15. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: 16. Regarding claim 26, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the below underlined limitations incorporated together with the other claimed limitations not mentioned herein: inserting fasteners through adjustable rigid stops included in a top plate and aligning the fasteners with one or more apertures in a cleaning plate, to provide Z positioning and control; scrubbing the probe tip of the probe card against the cleaning plate. 17. The prior art of record does not anticipate the limitations of the independent claims. Furthermore, there is not any obvious motivation for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine some and/or all of the features of the prior art of record to achieve the features of the independent claim(s). In addition, it will further require substantial structural modification of the components that will also require substantial modification of the measurements, and configurations to achieve the features of the allowable subject matter. 18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. a) Yamada (Patent No.: US 9,568,501) teaches “A probe card attaching method makes it easy to attach/detach a probe card to/from a transfer stage. In a wafer inspection apparatus 10, a reference position is determined by moving a transfer stage 18 to align a stage-side camera 28 with a tester-side camera 16 in a tester 15, a first di stance from the reference position to a center of a pogo frame 19 in the tester 15 is determined by checking a pin mark 24 in the tester 15 with the stage-side camera 28” (Abstract). b) Yamada (Pub. No.: US 2010/0001752) teaches the “A parallelism adjusting mechanism of a probe card is provided. The parallelism adjusting mechanism can bring probes held by a probe card into uniform contact with a wafer even if a parallelism between a mounting reference surface for the probe card and the wafer as a test object is lost” (Abstract). c) CHEN (Pub. No.: US 2014/0306729) teaches “A position adjustable probing device adapted for being mounted to a circuit board includes a frame, a probe head, a space transformer module and an elevation adjusting structure. The frame has a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a first opening penetrating through the first and second surfaces. The probe head is coupled to the frame.” (Paragraph [0026]). d) KIM (Pub. No.: US 2018/0224481) teaches “A probe card assembly is provided as follows. A tile fixing substrate is disposed on a printed circuit board. A plurality of ceramic tiles is detachably attached to the tile fixing substrate. Each of the plurality of ceramic tiles comprises a plurality of probes. A plurality of alignment marks is fixed to the tile fixing substrate” (Abstract). e) DUNKLEE (Pub. No.: US 2019/0235018) teaches “systems, apparatuses, and methods herein can provide a multi-site positioning mechanism suitable for long-term testing of a device(s) under test (DUT) (e.g. semiconductor wafers) across a range of temperatures with or without a controlled environment” (Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 18, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601699
FLUID CONDITION SENSING SYSTEM AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596140
DETECTION DEVICE FOR EVALUATING INTERNAL ELECTRONIC ELEMENTS OF A TEST OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596156
Spare part system for maintaining availability of spare parts for an electric power supply system
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591022
Multifunctional Line Finder for Miniature Circuit Breaker
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584978
MAGNETIC SENSOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 565 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month