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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 2/27/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/27/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-8 as follows:
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested: -- METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING CONTACT TIP FOR
ELECTROCONDUCTIVE PIN--
“Proposed are a” (abstract line 1) should be deleted.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claims clearly directed to the making of “contact tip “as indicated in preamble of the claims. Therefore, the Examiner presumes that the claims directed to the “contact tip” rather than the intended use of the contact tip and claims will be rejected accordingly.
The following method preamble formats is suggested:
-- A method for manufacturing a contact tip operatively associated with an electroconductive pin for inspecting electrical properties of an inspection object, the method comprising steps of:”—
The following changes to the body of the claims (see lines 4-13) is/are also suggested to reflect the changes as suggested above.
-- preparing a contact member to be processed;
forming an end portion by cutting a longitudinal surface of the contact member;
forming a flat portion by cutting the longitudinal surface to form a flat surface to which the end portion is connected; and
forming a contact tip includes forming an exterior of the contact tip by processing a side surface of the contact member” --. For clarity of the method claim without repeating the terms “step of” which already mentioned in the preamble of base claim 1.
“in the end forming step, “(claim 2, lines 1-2) should be updated to: --in the forming the end portion includes subjecting “—
“are subjected” (claim 2, lines 2-3) should be deleted, to reflect changes taken place in lines 1-2 above.
“in the end forming step, “(claim 3, lines 1-2) should be updated to: --"in the forming the end portion” --.
“is formed” (claim 3, line 2) not positively method limitation.
“in the end forming step, “(claims 4-5, lines 1-2) should be updated to: --in the forming the end portion” --.
“in the contact tip forming step, “(claims 6-7, lines 1-2) should be updated to: --in the forming the contact tip” --.
“a plating layer forming step of” (claim 8, line 2) should be deleted, to reflect changes as suggested in the base claim 1 preamble line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
many terms or phrases is/are vague, indefinite and unclear the following are “examples”
The scope of the claim 1 is unclear and confusing in that it is not known of the invention drawn to “a contact tip” alone or in combination with “an electroconductive pin”. In formulate the rejection on the merits the Examiner presumes that claims directed to the making of the “contact tip” of the electroconductive pin” and claims will be rejected accordingly.
whether or not “a contact tip” (claim 1, line 11) as same as that in claim 1, line 1?
a second occurrence of “an end portion” (claim 1, line 6) appear to be redundant should be deleted (see under section of claim objection to above).
“are subjected” (claim 2, lines 2-3); “is formed” (claim 3, lines 2); “is formed” (claim 4, line 4); “is processed” (claims 6- 7, line 2) is/are not positively method limitations. The use of active method claims format such as “subjecting; forming; processing” is suggested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ishizuka (US 20070200582).
Ishizuka discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a contact tip used for an electroconductive pin for inspecting electrical properties of an inspection object, the method comprising:
a preparation step of preparing a contact member to be processed (¶¶ [0001, 0062], as bar shaped base member 3 is fixed in position by using a jig).
an end portion forming step of forming an end portion by cutting a longitudinal surface of the contact member (see discussion in ¶ [0062], for the forming a first groove portion 7 by cutting from A1-B1 by grindstones 40, as shown in Fig. 6);
PNG
media_image1.png
422
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a flat portion forming step of cutting the longitudinal surface to form a flat surface to which the end portion is connected (see discussion in ¶ [0063], also Fig. 6 depicts the process of forming flat portion 9); and
a contact tip forming step of forming an exterior of a contact tip by processing a side surface of the contact member (see discussion in ¶¶ [0013 and 0062] depicts that the contact tip is formed by processing the side surface when forming the bar shaped material 3, respectively).
As applied to claims 2, 6-7 do not appear to further define the claimed method since no active inventive method features (see also 112 above).
As applied to claims 3-5, refer to Fig. 4A and discussion in ¶ [0002] for the teaching of separate pyramid shaped.
As applied to claim 8, refer to ¶ [0007] of the Ishizuka for the teaching of plating layer forming step.
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, 6 and 7 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizuka.
The Ishizuka as relied and applied above is in silent regarding:
Claim 2, wherein in the end portion forming step, surfaces constituting the end portion are subjected to mirror surface finishing. Regarding to this it is a matter of design choice, since a person having an ordinary skill in the art could perform mirror surface processing on the surface constituting the contact portion by utilizing the known and available polishing process without exercising any inventive skills (see also 112 issues above).
As applied to claims 6-7, Similar to the discussion above no inventive effort would have been required for claims above. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had the necessary technological capabilities to have incorporated such processes (e.g., process so that an edge of the flat surface makes contact with the contact tip, and/or other process to remove a part of the contact tip on the flat surface). Therefore, not inventive when departing from over Ishizuka and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
7/6/26
Prosecution Insights