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 .
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species of aligning the probes i.e. A) using fig. 3 (claim 5 as an example) and B) using fig. 4 (claim 3 as an example). The species are independent or distinct because of different structure and predetermined vertical distance as disclosed. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 appears to be generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least one of the following reason(s) apply:
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
A telephone conversation with Robert Lodenkamper made on 01/14/2026. He made provisional election on 01/16/2026 with traverse to prosecute the invention of fig. 3, claim 5 via message. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 2-3 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 will be Examined here.
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 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.
The drawings are objected to because at fig. 3A, the reference numeral 302c and 302b should read 302b and 302c respectively. At fig. 3B, 302c should read 302b. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show three co-axial sections 302a, 302b, and 302c along its length, with sections 302a and 302c sandwiching section 302b along the length of the roller as described in the specification (see ¶0021 of published specification). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 § 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 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the 100 or more probes comprise 10,000 or more probes" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
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, as best understood by the Examiner, the combination of ADPA and Hauge discloses the method of claim 4. They are silent about wherein the 100 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.
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 on a probe array to modify ADPA to align the probes in one direction by applying parallel mechanical stress as further taught by Nomura.
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 4. They are silent about wherein the 100 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.
Conclusion
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
January 14, 2026