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 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
2a. Applicant argues that the claim element of "a resulting aligned vertical probe array has all probe tips in the same plane" is not taught or suggested by this combination of references. i.e. ADPA in view of Hauge. The Examiner disagrees because replacing flexible shim (brush) 204 of ADPA (fig. 2) with roller 103 of Hauge results in aligned vertical probe array has all probe tips in the same plane as claimed, since 1) flexible shim (brush) vertically aligns the probes and 2) the roller of Hauge is used to flatten/compress vertical carbon nanotubes in the same plane. Therefore, modified ADPA discloses all the elements of claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Hauge is non-analogous 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). In this case, roller 103 of Hauge is used to flatten/compress the vertical probes as mentioned above (also see rejection below) to obtained desired thickness of a probe head. Therefore, Hauge is not non-analogous reference.
2b. With respect to ADPA in view of Nomura reference, Applicant argues that ”Regarding claim 1, the preceding amendments and arguments are also responsive to this rejection based on combining ADPA with Nomura. Nomura is a carbon fiber reference where a roller is used to flatten an originally vertical array of carbon fibers. There is no substantial difference between flattening carbon nanotubes in Hauge and flattening carbon fibers in Nomura.” The Examiner again disagrees because replacing flexible shim (brush) 204 of ADPA (fig. 2) with roller 8/9 of Nomura results in aligned vertical probe array has all probe tips in the same plane as claimed, since 1) flexible shim (brush) vertically aligns the probes and 2) the roller of Nomura is used to flatten/compress vertical carbon nanotubes in the same plane (predetermined vertical distance). Modified ADPA discloses all the elements of claim 1.
Drawings
Applicant failed to respond to a drawing objections as follows. 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 length of the roller and radiuses of sections A, B, C are rA, rB, rC, respectively of claim 5 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 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant disclosed Prior art fig.2, hereafter ADPA in view of Nomura et al. (EP 1 612 586 A2), hereafter Nomura.
Regarding claim 1, ADPA at fig, 2 and ¶0004-0008 disclose a method of aligning probes in a vertical probe array 104, the method comprising: disposing two or more vertical probes in a probe head including an upper guide plate 108, and a lower guide plate 106, wherein each of the two or more vertical probes passes through corresponding holes in the upper and lower guide plates [¶0004]; aligning the vertical probes by making mechanical contact between tips of the two or more vertical probes [¶0008]. ADPA is silent about a roller as the roller is rolled over said vertical probe array at a predetermined vertical distance from the lower guide plate. Rather discloses “a flexible shim with a brush and manual action leads to nonuniform results and has a high risk of damage to probe tips. FIG. 2 illustrates this problem. Here 202 is the flexible shim and 204 is the brush. The top panel shows applying force with the brush to align probes, and the bottom panel shows the poor alignment results typical of this method.” Nomura at fig. 5 discloses “As shown in FIG. 5, the silicon dioxide layer 9 of about 6 um thickness may be provided around both ends of the roller 8 as a spacer layer. The layer 9 can roll on the carbon-nanotube layer 1 to tilt the carbon-nanotube layer 1 in one direction. The silicon dioxide layer 9 may be formed of the same material as the roller 8. The method shown in FIG. 5 can orient the carbon nanotube without the silicon dioxide layer 6 provided on the substrate 2, thereby causing higher productivity.” Nomura therefore at fig. 5 (see below) discloses a roller 8/9 as the roller is rolled over said vertical probe array 1 at a predetermined vertical distance [distance between 8 and 9]. Modified ADPA discloses the roller is rolled over said vertical probe array at a predetermined vertical distance from the lower guide plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use roller as taught by Nomura to replace brush on the probe array of ADPA to modify ADPA to align the probes in one direction by applying parallel mechanical stress as further taught by Nomura. Modified ADPA discloses a resulting aligned vertical probe array has all probe tips in the same plane.
Regarding claim 4, Nomura discloses the predetermined vertical distance is determined by mechanical features [e.g. radiuses of mechanical 8 and 9] of the roller.
Regarding claim 5, Nomura discloses the roller has three co-axial sections A, B, C along its length, with sections A and C sandwiching section B along the length of the roller [section on left 9, section on middle 8 and section of right 9], wherein radiuses [radiuses of 9, 8 and 9 respectively] of sections A, B, C are rA, rB, rC, respectively, wherein rA = rC, wherein rA > rB, and wherein the predetermined vertical distance is rA − rB [as shown].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADPA and Nomura as applied to claims 1 and 4 respectively above, and further in view of Aksu (US 5,511,304).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of ADPA and Nomura discloses the method of claim 1. They are silent about wherein the two or more probes comprise 1,000 or more probes. Aksu discloses a probe head can contain 10,000 probes for testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of probes of the probe array of ADPA as taught by Aksu to test PCB.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of ADPA and Nomura discloses the method of claim 6. They are silent about wherein the 1000 or more probes comprise 10,000 or more probes. Aksu discloses a probe head can contain 10,000 probes for testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of probes of the probe array of ADPA to test PCB as taught by Aksu.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant disclosed Prior art fig.2, hereafter ADPA in view of Hauge et al. (US 2011/0262772 A1), hereafter Hauge.
Regarding claim 1, ADPA at fig, 2 and ¶0004-0008 disclose a method of aligning probes in a vertical probe array 104, the method comprising: disposing two or more vertical probes in a probe head including an upper guide plate 108, and a lower guide plate 106, wherein each of the two or more vertical probes passes through corresponding holes in the upper and lower guide plates [¶0004]; aligning the vertical probes by making mechanical contact between tips of the two or more vertical probes [¶0008]. ADPA is silent about a roller as the roller is rolled over said vertical probe array at a predetermined vertical distance from the lower guide plate. Rather ADPA at fig.2 discloses “a flexible shim with a brush and manual action … The top panel shows applying force with the brush to align probes, and the bottom panel shows the poor alignment results typical of this method.” Hauge at fig. 1 and 10 discloses roller 103 to create a carbon nanotube layer/film by compressing a single/multi-wall carbon nanotube array i.e. Compressing the array comprises passing a roller over the array (see ¶0008). Carbon nanotubes possess a number of beneficial properties, such as exceptional strength and electrical conductivity. Use of carbon nanotube films are old and well-known in the art i.e. in electronic and nanoelectronic fields to obtain exceptional strength and electrical conductivity. Since roller is used to compress carbon-nanotubes to create a carbon nanotube layer to obtain the film with a thickness (see ¶0035 “One skilled in the art will recognize that the thickness and density of the carbon nanotube layer produced following the compressing step will depend both on the height and spacing of the carbon nanotubes comprising the array.“) it can be used to compress vertical probe array of ADPA to obtain thickness of a probe head by replacing the brush. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to replace brush with roller to press the probe array in order to obtain proper thickness of probe head. Modified method discloses the roller is rolled over said vertical probe array at a predetermined vertical distance from the lower guide plate to obtain uniform thickness of the probe head. Modified ADPA discloses a resulting aligned vertical probe array has all probe tips in the same plane.
Regarding claim 4, Modified ADPA , particularly Hauge implicitly discloses roller having mechanical features i.e. length, diameter and radius. Therefore, modified ADPA discloses wherein the predetermined vertical distance is determined by mechanical features of the roller.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADPA and Hauge as applied to claims 1 and 4 respectively above, and further in view of Aksu (US 5,511,304).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of ADPA and Hauge discloses the method of claim 1. They are silent about wherein the two or more probes comprise 1,000 or more probes. Aksu discloses probe head can contain 10,000 probes for testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of probes of the probe array of ADPA as taught by Aksu to test PCB.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of ADPA and Hauge discloses the method of claim 6. They are silent about wherein the 1000 or more probes comprise 10,000 or more probes. Aksu discloses probe head can contain 10,000 probes for testing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date to modify the number of probes of the probe array of ADPA to test PCB as taught by Aksu.
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
June 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights