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 .
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the prior Office action are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026, see pages 10-11 pertaining to nonobviousness of the claimed probe length range of 3 mm to 7mm have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, as recognized by applicant, the prior art of US 2022/0326280 to Sim et al. (Sim) discloses probes having a length that ranges from 2 mm to 13 mm (Sim, e.g., paragraph 79, last sentence). The claimed range of probe length (“at least one pair of probes having a length ranging between 3 millimeters and 7 millimeters according to a longitudinal development axis”) lies inside of the range discloses by Sim and therefore would be presumed to be prima facie obvious in view of Sim’s disclosure. See MPEP 2144.05.I. Applicant seeks to prospectively rebut this presumption by arguing at page 11 that the claimed range of 3 mm to 7 mm is critical. See, e.g., MPEP 2144.05.III.A (“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range”). In particular, applicant argues that (1) while “Sim explicitly describes its operational frequency range as 800 MHz to 1.2 GHz … [i]n stark contrast, the present invention is designed for high-speed testing exceeding 100 Gbps”, (2) “’[t]he claimed probe length range of 3 mm to 7 mm is a critical parameter selected to optimize return loss and impedance matching in this specific high-frequency domain” and (3) “Sim's broad disclosure of probe lengths (2 mm to 13 mm) for low-frequency applications does not teach or suggest the specific range required for the claimed high-speed performance”. At the outset, the examiner notes that none of the claims as originally present or as presently amended require a particular operational frequency range. The underlying premise of applicant’s criticality argument (e.g., “Sim's broad disclosure of probe lengths (2 mm to 13 mm) for low-frequency applications does not teach or suggest the specific range required for the claimed high-speed performance”) is therefore not persuasive because, contrary to applicant’s argument, no “claimed high-speed performance” actually recited by the claims. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the claims would specify a particular operational frequency range that is higher than that disclosed by Sim’s, the bare assertion that “[t]he claimed probe length range of 3 mm to 7 mm is a critical parameter selected to optimize return loss and impedance matching in this specific high-frequency domain” is merely attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness (see, e.g., MPEP 2144.05.III, “Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies”, citation omitted). For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments as to the criticality of the claimed probe length range of 3 mm to 7 mm are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments pertaining to the alleged failure of Sim to account for mechanical robustness in vertical probe structures, see pages 11-12, are not persuasive. In particular, as set forth at pages 4-5 of the Office action, Sim discloses (see, e.g., Fig. 12a and paragraphs 67-70) “a first guide plate, comprising a pair of first guide holes for a pair of probes of the probe head to pass through and extend according to a longitudinal development axis, and the pair of first guide holes being configured to slidably accommodate the pair of probes” a required by claim 1. Sim further discloses at paragraph 44 that guide plates may be formed from an electrically non-conductive (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as ceramic, plastic, glass, fused silica, and the Azo reference establishes that fused silica is characterized by a dielectric constant not greater than 6. Sim therefore discloses “wherein a first material between the pair of first guide holes in the first guide plate has a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6” as required by claim 1. As recognized by applicant, Sim further discloses “wherein a length of each probe of the pair of probes, measured along the longitudinal development axis, ranges between 3 millimeters and 7 millimeters” (Sim, e.g., paragraph 79, last sentence) as recited by amended claim 1. Sim therefore teaches all structural limitations of claim 1, both as originally presented and currently amended. As explained at page 5 of the Office action, because Sim discloses the entirety of the claimed structure, the claimed properties/functions provided in the recitation “the first material is configured to provide a compensating impedance between the pair of first guide holes, and the compensating impedance is used to improve impedance matching when probing the device under test with the pair of probes, so as to reduce a return loss between the probe head and the device under test” are presumed to be inherent in Sim’s arrangement. Regarding applicant’s argument “[t]hus, Sim's generic material listing (even when combined with AZO's dielectric data) does not establish that Sim necessarily provides, or would inevitably lead a PHOSITA to select, a configuration that satisfies the design considerations underlying the claimed probe- length range”, this argument is vague as to what is meant by “design considerations underlying the claimed probe- length range”, and it is not clear whether the ““design considerations” are actually reflected in the invention as claimed. If the language ““the first material is configured to provide …” is intended by applicant to mean a particular structural configuration beyond the “relative dielectric constant not greater than 6” configuration of the first material, the examiner suggests further amending the claim to clearly identify the nature of the particular structural configuration. The examiner maintains that the rejection of claim 1 under 32 U.S.C. 102, both as originally presented and currently amended, is proper.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, pertaining to Kojima’s alleged deficiencies (e.g., “Accordingly, Kojima provides no teaching or motivation to select a probe length extending beyond 3 mm, let alone within the claimed upper range of 7 mm, when modifying Sim”) are not persuasive because the present Office action does not rely on Kojima’s teachings pertaining to probe length.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-13, 18 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by , with “Silica - Fused Silica (Silicon Dioxide)”, AZO Materials, available at https://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=1387 on 4/5/2022 (AZO) being relied upon to establish inherit properties of fused silica disclosed by Sim.
Regarding claim 1, Sim discloses a guide plate structure of a probe head of a probe system for testing a device under test integrated in a semiconductor wafer, comprising:
a first guide plate, comprising a pair of first guide holes for a pair of probes of the probe head to pass through and extend according to a longitudinal development axis, and the pair of first guide holes being configured to slidably accommodate the pair of probes (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12a and paragraphs 67-70, lower guide plate 8 having pair of first guide holes 8a for a respective pair of probes to pass through and extend according to a longitudinal development axis (z); it is clear from Fig. 12a and the accompanying disclosure that the pair of probes are slidably accommodated in their respective holes in lower guide plate 8), wherein a length of each probe of the pair of probes, measured along the longitudinal development axis, ranges between 3 millimeters and 7 millimeters (Sim, e.g., paragraph 79, last sentence, overall dimension of the probes can range from 2 mm×0.02 mm×0.02 mm (L×B×H) to 13 mm×0.3 mm×0.5 mm (L×B×H);
wherein a first material between the pair of first guide holes in the first guide plate has a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 (Sim, e.g., paragraph 44, guide plates may be formed from an electrically non-conductive (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as ceramic, plastic, glass, fused silica; the examiner notes with reference to AZO that at least fused silica is characterized by a dielectric constant not greater than 6).
Regarding the further claim language the first material is configured to provide a compensating impedance between the pair of first guide holes, and the compensating impedance is used to improve impedance matching when probing the device under test with the pair of probes, so as to reduce a return loss between the probe head and the device under test, the examiner notes where the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In the present case, Sim discloses the entirety of the claimed structure. The claimed properties/functions recited by this further claim language are therefore presumed to be inherent in Sim’s arrangement.
Regarding claim 2, Sim discloses:
a second guide plate, being separated from the first guide plate by a distance along the longitudinal development axis and comprising a pair of second guide holes corresponding to the pair of first guide holes for the pair of probes of the probe head to pass through (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12a and paragraphs 67-70, upper guide plate 6 having pair of first guide holes 6a for a respective pair of probes to pass through and extend according to a longitudinal development axis (z); it is clear from Fig. 12a and the accompanying disclosure that the pair of probes are slidably accommodated in their respective holes in upper guide plate 6);
wherein a second material between the pair of second guide holes in the second guide plate has a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 (Sim, e.g., paragraph 44, guide plates may be formed from an electrically non-conductive (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as ceramic, plastic, glass, fused silica; the examiner notes with reference to AZO that fused silica is characterized by a dielectric constant not greater than 6).
Regarding the further claim language the second material is configured to provide a compensating impedance between the pair of second guide holes, and the compensating impedance is used to improve the impedance matching when probing the device under test with the pair of probes, so as to reduce the return loss between the probe head and the device under test, the examiner notes where the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In the present case, Sim discloses the entirety of the claimed structure. The claimed properties/functions recited by this further claim language are therefore presumed to be inherent in Sim’s arrangement.
Regarding claim 4, Sim discloses wherein two first guide holes in the pair of first guide holes are arranged such that respective shortest sides of the two first guide holes face each other (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12b, noting first guide holes 8a in lower guide plate 8 of Fig. 12a are arranged with the shortest sides of the first guide holes 8a facing each other).
Claim 8 recites wherein the first material with a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 is used to reduce impedance fluctuation caused by the first guide plate at a part between the pair of first guide holes, thereby reducing the return loss between the probe head and the device under test. The examiner notes where the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In the present case, Sim discloses the entirety of the claimed structure of claim 1 from which claim 8 directly depends. Claim 8 adds no further structural limitations to the guide plate structure of claim 1. The claimed properties/functions recited by claim 8 are therefore presumed to be inherent in Sim’s arrangement.
Claim 9 recites wherein the first material with a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 is used to reduce the impedance fluctuation caused by the first guide plate at a part between the pair of first guide holes, and the second material with a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 is used to reduce the impedance fluctuation caused by the second guide plate at a part between the pair of second guide holes, thereby reducing the return loss between the probe head and the device under test. The examiner notes where the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01. In the present case, Sim discloses the entirety of the claimed structure of claim 2 from which claim 9 directly depends. Claim 9 adds no further structural limitations to the guide plate structure of claim 2. The claimed properties/functions recited by claim 9 are therefore presumed to be inherent in Sim’s arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, Sim discloses wherein the entire first guide plate has the same first material (see Sim as applied to claim 1, e.g., paragraph 44, guide plates may be formed from an electrically non-conductive (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as ceramic, plastic, glass, fused silica; the examiner notes with reference to AZO that fused silica is characterized by a dielectric constant not greater than 6).
Regarding claim 11, Sim discloses wherein the entire first guide plate has the same first material and the entire second guide plate has the same second material (see Sim as applied to claim 2, e.g., paragraph 44, guide plates may be formed from an electrically non-conductive (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as ceramic, plastic, glass, fused silica; the examiner notes with reference to AZO that fused silica is characterized by a dielectric constant not greater than 6).
Regarding claim 12, Sim discloses wherein the first material between the pair of first guide holes in the first guide plate has a relative dielectric constant not greater than 4 (see Sim as applied to claim 1, AZO establishes that fused silica is characterized by a dielectric constant less than 4).
Regarding claim 13, Sim discloses wherein the first material between the pair of first guide holes in the first guide plate has a relative dielectric constant not greater than 4, and the second material between the pair of second guide holes in the second guide plate has a relative dielectric constant not greater than 4 (see Sim as applied to claim 2, AZO establishes that fused silica is characterized by a dielectric constant less than 4).
Claim 18 recites a probe head of a probe system for testing a device under test integrated in a semiconductor wafer, comprising:
a plurality of probes, each probe comprising:
a first end, ending at a contact tip and being configured to abut a contact pad of the device under test;
a second end, ending at a contact bottom and being configured to abut a contact pad of a board of the probe system;
wherein the plurality of probes includes at least one pair of probes, each probe of the at least one pair of probes having a length ranging between 3 millimeters and 7 millimeters according to a longitudinal development axis; and
a probe body, extending between the first end and the second end according to a longitudinal development axis; and
a guide plate structure, comprising:
a first guide plate comprising a pair of first guide holes for the pair of probes of the probe head to pass through and extend along the longitudinal development axis, the pair of first guide holes being configured to slidably accommodate the pair of probes;
wherein a first material between the pair of first guide holes in the first guide plate has a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6, the first material is configured to provide a compensating impedance between the pair of first guide holes, and the compensating impedance is used to improve impedance matching when probing the device under test with the pair of probes, so as to reduce a return loss between the probe head and the device under test,
and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Sim as applied to claim 1, noting in Fig. 12(a) of Sim that each of the plurality of probes has (1) a first end ending at a contact tip (distal end 5) and being configured to abut a contact pad of the device under test (contact pad 10a on wafer 10), (2) a second end ending at a contact bottom (proximal end 1) and being configured to abut a contact pad of a board of the probe system (contact pad 9a on PCB or space transformer 9), (3) a probe body, extending between the first end and the second end according to a longitudinal development axis (at least upper portion 2 and lower portion 4 extending between proximal end 1 and distal end 5 along z axis), and (4) a guide plate structure substantially identical to that of claim 1 (see claim 1 as discussed above).
Claim 23 recites wherein the pair of probes is used for transmitting or receiving differential signals. This language relates to a manner of operating the claimed probe head. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See, e.g., MPEP 2114.II. Claim 23 therefore carries no patentable weight and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Sim as applied to claim 18.
Regarding claim 24, Sim as applied to claim 23 discloses wherein the plurality of probes are all straight probes (Sim, Fig. 12(a), the probes are all generally straight). Regarding the further claim 24 language and a probe spacing of each of a plurality of pairs of probes among the plurality of probes is smaller than a center spacing of two corresponding contact pads in the device under test, the plurality of pairs of probes comprising the pair of probes, the examiner notes that claim 24 is directed to only the probe head and does not affirmatively recite a device under test as an element of the claimed invention. Because the probe spacing is claimed only relative to the spacing of contact pads of a DUT with which the probe head is intended to be used, rather than in absolute terms, this language interpreted as merely relating to a manner of operating the claimed probe head (e.g., only using the probe head with DUTs having contact pads with center spacing larger than the spacing of the probes). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See, e.g., MPEP 2114.II. This language therefore carries no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 25, Sim as applied to claim 18 discloses wherein the pair of probes are straight probes or pre-bent probes (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12(a), the probes are all generally straight).
Regarding claim 26, Sim discloses a probe card of a probe system for testing a device under test integrated in a semiconductor wafer, comprising:
a circuit board (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12(a), note that proximal end of each probe contacts a contact pad 9a on PCB or space transformer 9; in the case that contact pad 9a is a space transformer 9, the examiner notes that the opposite (top) side of the space transformer 9 will necessarily be in contact with a circuit board of a subsequent stage of the testing system);
a space transformer arranged on the circuit board (see above); and
a probe head of claim 18, being arranged on the other side of the space transformer opposite to the circuit board, and the second end of each of the plurality of probes in the probe head is configured to be electrically connected with the space transformer (see above, proximal end of each probe contacts a contact pad 9a on bottom side of space transformer 9).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7, 16-17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim.
Regarding claim 5, Sim discloses wherein:
two first guide holes in the pair of first guide holes are arranged such that respective shortest sides of the two first guide holes face each other (see Sim as applied to claim 4).
Regarding the further claim 5 recitation:
two second guide holes in the pair of second guide holes are arranged such that respective shortest sides of the two second guide holes face each other,
Sim discloses in connection with Fig. 12a that during assembly, holes 6a, 7a, 8a, and 13a may be initially vertically aligned and the probes may be raised through holes 13a, 8a, 7a, and 6a. At least this disclosure suggests to one of ordinary skill that the that holes 6a and holds 8a are, or should be, identically dimensioned and oriented so that the proximal end 1 of the probes can be received through the openings in the same manner. Sim therefore at least suggests two second guide holes in the pair of second guide holes are arranged such that respective shortest sides of the two second guide holes face each other).
Regarding claim 6, Sim as applied to claim 5 discloses wherein both of the two first guide holes in the pair of first guide holes are substantially elongated rectangular (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12b, noting holes 8a are elongated rectangular).
Regarding claim 7, Sim as applied to claim 6 discloses wherein each guide hole among the pair of first guide holes and the pair of second guide holes is substantially rectangular (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12b, noting holes 8a are rectangular; also see discussion above in connection with claim 5).
Regarding claim 16, Sim as applied to claim 1 is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the first material with a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 is any one of, or any combination of, ceramic, porous ceramic, ceramic matrix composite, and engineering plastic. Sim nonetheless discloses that the guide plates may be formed from an electrically non-conductive (i.e., electrically insulating) material, such as ceramic, plastic, glass, fused silica, and the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of engineering plastics for applications such as disclosed by Sim was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains at least in view of the improved mechanical and thermal properties of engineering plastics relative to commodity plastics such as used in packaging and household products. Moreover, the examiner takes Official notice of the fact that commonly used engineering plastics such as Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polycarbonates (PC) and Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), for example, each have dielectric constants less than 6. It 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 to modify Sim such that the lower and upper guide plates 8, 6 are formed from any of a number of commonly-used engineering plastics such as ABS, PC and PEEK at least in view of the improved mechanical and thermal properties of such engineering plastics relative to commodity plastics.
Claim 17 recites wherein the first material with a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 is any one of, or any combination of, ceramic, porous ceramic, ceramic matrix composite, and engineering plastic, and the second material with a relative dielectric constant not greater than 6 is any one of, or any combination of ceramic, porous ceramic, ceramic matrix composite, and engineering plastic and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Sim for reasons analogous to those discussed above in connection with claim 16.
Regarding claim 27, Sim discloses a probe system for functional testing of a device under test integrated in a semiconductor wafer, comprising:
a device for supporting the semiconductor wafer (Sim, e.g., Fig. 12(a), it is implicit in Fig. 12(a) that wafer 10 having contact pad 10a is supported by a device during testing);
a testing apparatus, being electrically connected with the device under test for establishing an electrical testing program (it is implicit in Fig. 12(a) that a testing apparatus is used to test the wafer 10 having contact pad 10a by transmitting/receiving electrical signals via the probes in accordance with a predetermined test program; see, e.g., paragraph 4, electrical test signals are transmitted from the tester to the test head, to the prober interface board, to the probe card and then to one or more integrated circuits on the wafer; the integrated circuit response to electrical signals, such as voltage, current, and frequency, are measured, analyzed, and compared by the tester); and
a probe card of claim 26, being provided in the probe system (see Sim as applied to claim 26).
Sim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing that the device for supporting the semiconductor wafer is a chuck. The examiner takes Official notice of the fact that the use of wafer chucks for supporting a wafer during wafer testing was well-known and conventional before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. It 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 to modify Sim such that the supporting device is a wafer chuck in view of the well-known and conventional use of wafer chucks to support a wafer during testing of the wafer.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of DE202018105957U1 to Feinmetall GmbH. (Feinmetall).
Regarding claim 3, Sim discloses wherein the first guide plate and the second guide plate respectively have a thickness along the longitudinal development axis, and the first guide plate is arranged closer to the device under test than the second guide plate (see Siim as applied to claim 1 above, e.g., Fig. 12, lower guide plate 8 and upper guide plate 6 respectively have a thickness along the longitudinal development axis (z), with lower guide plate 8 being arranged closer to the device under test (contact pad 10a on wafer) than the upper guide plate 6). Sim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing the thickness of the first guide plate is not less than that of the second guide plate. In related art, Feinmetall discloses lower and upper guide plates having a same thickness (Feinmetall, e.g., Fig. 2 and page 4, second full paragraph, lower guide plate 14 and upper guide plate 13 have same thickness; also see Fig. 3 and page 4, sixth full paragraph, lower guide plate 14 has a thickness greater than upper guide plate 13). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the recitation that the thickness of the first guide plate is not less than that of the second guide plate does not patentably define over Sim when considered in light of the teachings of Feinmetall.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of US 2017/0122984 to Hsu (Hsu).
Regarding claim 14, Sim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein the first guide plate has a first layer and a second layer with an air layer interposed between the first layer and the second layer, and the pair of probes penetrate through the first layer, the air layer and the second layer. In related art, Hsu discloses a probe head receiver having structures performing the function of a lower guide plate, e.g., Fig. 1, templates 107, 109, with a first gap disposed between templates 107, 109 by virtue of connection element 108, and with probe pins passing through the gap, e.g., Fig. 8. Hsu further discloses the probe head receiver having structures performing the function of an upper guide plate, e.g., Fig. 1, templates 101, 103, with a second gap disposed between templates 101, 103 by virtue of connection element 102, and with probe pins passing through the gap, e.g., Fig. 8. At least in connection with Fig. 8, Hsu discloses that the probe pins may be installed through auto insertion, which establishes that that the first and second gaps comprise empty space, i.e., air, so as to not impede the installation of the probe pins. It 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 to modify Sim such that the first guide plate has a first layer and a second layer with an air layer interposed between the first layer and the second layer, and the pair of probes penetrate through the first layer, the air layer and the second layer at least in view Hsu’s teaching that such structures are suitable for providing adequate alignment and thermal stability of the probe pins in order to ensure proper contact with a device under test (Hsu, e.g., paragraph 58).
Additionally, or in the alternative, the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the claim 14 recitation that the first guide plate has a first layer and a second layer with an air layer interposed between the first layer and the second layer, and the pair of probes penetrate through the first layer, the air layer and the second layer does not patentably define over Sim when considered in light of the teachings of Hsu.
Regarding claim 15, Sim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein each of the first guide plate and the second guide plate has a first layer and a second layer with an air layer interposed between the first layer and second layer, and the pair of probes penetrate through the first layer, the air layer and the second layer. In related art, Hsu discloses a probe head receiver having structures performing the function of a lower guide plate, e.g., Fig. 1, templates 107, 109, with a first gap disposed between templates 107, 109 by virtue of connection element 108, and with probe pins passing through the gap, e.g., Fig. 8. Hsu further discloses the probe head receiver having structures performing the function of an upper guide plate, e.g., Fig. 1, templates 101, 103, with a second gap disposed between templates 101, 103 by virtue of connection element 102, and with probe pins passing through the gap, e.g., Fig. 8. At least in connection with Fig. 8, Hsu discloses that the probe pins may be installed through auto insertion, which establishes that that the first and second gaps comprise empty space, i.e., air, so as to not impede the installation of the probe pins. It 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 to modify Sim such that each of the first guide plate and the second guide plate has a first layer and a second layer with an air layer interposed between the first layer and second layer, and the pair of probes penetrate through the first layer, the air layer and the second layer at least in view Hsu’s teaching that such structures are suitable for providing adequate alignment and thermal stability of the probe pins in order to ensure proper contact with a device under test (Hsu, e.g., paragraph 58).
Additionally, or in the alternative, the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the claim 15 recitation that each of the first guide plate and the second guide plate has a first layer and a second layer with an air layer interposed between the first layer and second layer, and the pair of probes penetrate through the first layer, the air layer and the second layer does not patentably define over Sim when considered in light of the teachings of Hsu.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of US 2005/0225336 to Kojima (Kojima).
Regarding claim 19, Sim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein an interval between the pair of probes ranges from 80 micrometers to 220 micrometers. In related art, Kojima discloses probe needles 20 mounted at a pitch of about 100 µm (Kojima, e.g., paragraph 11). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. For these reasons, the recitations that an interval between the pair of probes ranges from 80 micrometers to 220 micrometers does not patentably define over Sim when consider in light of Kojima’s teachings pertaining to probe pitch.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of US 2009/0201041 to Kister (Kister).
Regarding claims 21-22, Sim is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing wherein a thickness of the contact tip of each of the pair of probes in a corresponding direction of a probe-center-connecting line is greater than a thickness of a remaining part of the first end in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line or a thickness of the probe body in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line (claim 21) and wherein the thickness of the contact tip of each of the pair of probes is greater than the thickness of the remaining part of the first end in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line or the thickness of the probe body in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line by 2% to 20% (claim 22).
In related art, Kister discloses a probe configuration in which a thickness of the contact tip of each of the pair of probes in a corresponding direction of a probe-center-connecting line is greater than a thickness of a remaining part of the end in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line (Kister, e.g., Fig. 4, noting that contact tip of each probe (i.e., bottom end in Fig. 4) is slightly larger than a thickness of a remaining part of the end that is immediately adjacent to the contact tip). Further, as depicted in Fig. 4, the examiner notes that the increase in width would appear to fall within the claimed range of 2-20%.
It 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 to modify Sim such that a thickness of the contact tip of each of the pair of probes in a corresponding direction of a probe-center-connecting line is greater than a thickness of a remaining part of the first end in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line or a thickness of the probe body in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line (claim 21) and such that the thickness of the contact tip of each of the pair of probes is greater than the thickness of the remaining part of the first end in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line or the thickness of the probe body in the direction of a probe-center-connecting line by 2% to 20% (claim 22). In this way, improved probing of closely spaced contact pads can be obtained (Kister, e.g., paragraph 8).
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 DANIEL R MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1964. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lee Rodak, can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DANIEL R MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights