Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/669,800

PROBE HEAD STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 21, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, TUNG X
Art Unit
2858
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
627 granted / 715 resolved
+19.7% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§112
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 715 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 6,773,938 B2, hereinafter “Wood”), in view of Pagani (US 2010/0164526 A1, hereinafter “Pagani”). As to claim 1, Wood discloses in Figs. 9-10B, 12-16a probe head structure (probe card assembly; FIG. 16), comprising: a flexible substrate having a top surface and a bottom surface (substrate 200, front face 202 as top surface, back face 204 as bottom surface; FIGS. 4-16); a first probe pillar passing through the flexible substrate (conductor 222 filling hole 210 in substrate 200; FIGS. 9-16); wherein the first probe pillar has a first protruding portion protruding from the bottom surface (exposed pin length P forming pin 226 protruding beyond etched back face 206; FIGS. 12-16), the first protruding portion has an end surface, a first sidewall, and a second sidewall (pin 226 has contact surface 224 at tip and sidewalls shown in cross-section; FIGS. 12-16), the end surface is a planar surface facing away from the flexible substrate and connected between the first sidewall and the second sidewall (contact surface 224 planar/flat, facing away from substrate, connected between sidewalls; FIGS. 12-16); a redistribution structure on the top surface of the flexible substrate and the first probe pillar (patterned overburden on front face 202 forming redistribution traces extending from conductors 222; FIGS. 9-10B), wherein the redistribution structure is in direct contact with the flexible substrate and the first probe pillar (patterned overburden directly on front face 202 and on conductors 222; FIGS. 9-10B; top layer contacting substrate 202 and pillars 222); FIGS. 9-10B.wiring substrate over the redistribution structure (backing member/wiring substrate attached over redistribution; FIG. 16; shown over redistribution in FIG. 16).and a first conductive bump connected between the wiring substrate and the redistribution structure(solder balls/bumps connecting backing to redistribution traces; FIG. 16; shown between backing and redistribution in FIG. 16). Wood does not disclose a distance between the first sidewall and the second sidewall increases toward the flexible substrate. However, Pagani discloses in Figs. 10A-B, a distance between the first sidewall and the second sidewall increases toward the flexible substrate (130; probe 135 with tapered sidewalls widening toward substrate/pillars 130; FIGS. 10A-10B); Element 135 (probe beam), sidewalls (unlabeled, widening toward pillars 320/355 and substrate 130) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wood’s protruding pin 226 with Pagani’s tapered geometry for enhancing mechanical stability, improving elastic deformation during contact, and reducing misalignment risk in fine-pitch probing. As to claim 2, Wood discloses in Figs. 9-10B, wherein the redistribution structure is softer than the substrate (patterned overburden thinner/softer on flexible substrate 200; FIGS. 9-10B). As to claim 3, Wood discloses in Figs. 9-10B, wherein the redistribution structure is thinner than the substrate (patterned overburden thin vs. thicker substrate 200; FIGS. 9-10B). As to claim 4, Wood discloses in Figs. FIGS. 10A-10B, 12-16, further comprising: a second probe pillar passing through the substrate, wherein the second probe pillar has a second protruding portion protruding from the bottom surface, the second probe pillar is adjacent to the first probe pillar (multiple adjacent conductors 222 with protruding pins 226; FIGS. 12-16), the redistribution structure has a first conductive pad and a second conductive pad adjacent to the first conductive pad, and a first distance between the first conductive pad and the second conductive pad is greater than a second distance between the first probe pillar and the second probe pillar (fan-out traces/pads wider than pillar spacing; FIGS. 10A-10B). As to claim 5, Wood discloses in Figs. 9-10B, wherein an end surface of the first probe pillar is substantially level with the top surface of the substrate (conductor 222 end level with front face 202; FIGS. 9-10B). As to claim 8, Wood discloses in Figs. 12-16 wherein the entire first probe pillar has a straight-line shape in a cross-sectional view of the first probe pillar (straight conductors 222/pins 226; FIGS. 12-16). As to claim 9, Wood discloses further comprising: a circuit board over the wiring substrate; and a second conductive bump connected between the wiring substrate and the circuit board (backing connects to larger test circuit board via additional bumps; FIG. 16). Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Pagani, and further in view of Yamagishi et al (US 2004/0239349 A1, hereinafter “Yamagishi”). As to claim 6, Wood in view of Pagani discloses the probe head structure of claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising: a device bonded with the redistribution structure and electrically connected to the first probe pillar through the wiring structure of the redistribution structure. However, Yamagishi discloses in Figs. 3-4, further comprising: a device bonded with the redistribution structure and electrically connected to the first probe pillar through the wiring structure of the redistribution structure (thin-film capacitor 20 embedded/bonded in build-up redistribution layer 14, connected to probes 16; FIGS. 3-4). It would have been obvious to incorporate Yamagishi’s embedded capacitor in Wood’s redistribution to minimize inductance and noise in high-speed testing. As to claim 7, the combination discloses wherein the first conductive bump is thicker than the device (solder bumps thicker than thin-film capacitor 20; FIG. 16 in Wood; FIG. 3 in Yamagishi). 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) 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood. As to claim 10, Wood discloses a probe head structure (probe card assembly; FIG. 16), comprising: a substrate having a top surface and a bottom surface (substrate 200, front 202, back 204; FIGS. 4-16). a probe pillar passing through the substrate (conductor 222 in hole 210; FIGS. 9-16), wherein the probe pillar has a protruding portion protruding from the bottom surface (pin 226; FIGS. 12-16), and the probe pillar comprises a conductive pillar and a seed layer between the conductive pillar and the substrate and surrounding the conductive pillar (conductive metal 220/222 with intermediate layer 215 on hole walls for seeding/adhesion/barrier, surrounding pillar; FIGS. 5-9). a redistribution structure over the top surface of the substrate and the probe pillar (patterned overburden/redistribution traces; FIGS. 9-10B), wherein a first sidewall of the redistribution structure is substantially level with a second sidewall of the substrate (sidewalls aligned after singulation; FIG. 16); a wiring substrate over the redistribution structure (backing member; FIG. 16); and a conductive bump connected between the wiring substrate and the redistribution structure (solder balls; FIG. 16). As to claim 11, Wood discloses in Figs. 9-10B, wherein the seed layer is between the conductive pillar and the redistribution structure (intermediate layer 215 extends to front face contacting overburden; FIGS. 9-10B). As to claim 12, Wood discloses in Figs. 9, wherein an end surface of the seed layer is substantially level with a third sidewall of the conductive pillar (seed layer end level with pillar sidewall at front; FIGS. 9). As to claim 13, Wood discloses in Figs. 12-16, further comprising: a conductive layer covering the end surface of the seed layer and the third sidewall of the conductive pillar (additional coating on exposed pin end/side; FIGS. 12-16). As to claim 14, Wood discloses in Figs. 12-16, wherein the conductive layer continuously and conformally covers the end surface of the seed layer and the third sidewall of the conductive pillar (conformal coating on protruding surfaces; FIGS. 12-16). As to claim 15, Wood discloses in Figs. 5-9, wherein the seed layer has a U-like shape in a cross-sectional view of the probe pillar (intermediate layer 215 on hole walls forms U-shape; FIGS. 5-9). As to claim 16, Wood discloses in Figs. 16, further comprising: an underfill layer between the redistribution structure and the wiring substrate and surrounding the conductive bump (encapsulant/underfill surrounding bumps; FIG. 16). Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood. As to claim 17, Wood discloses a probe head structure (probe card assembly; FIG. 16), comprising: a substrate having a top surface and a bottom surface (substrate 200, front 202, back 204; FIGS. 4-16). a probe pillar passing through the substrate (conductor 222; FIGS. 9-16), wherein the probe pillar has a protruding portion protruding from the bottom surface (pin 226; FIGS. 12-16). a conductive layer covering the protruding portion and in contact with the protruding portion and the substrate (additional coating on pin 226 contacting pillar and etched substrate face; FIGS. 12-16). and a redistribution structure over the top surface of the substrate and the probe pillar (patterned overburden; FIGS. 9-10B), wherein a first sidewall of the redistribution structure is substantially level with a second sidewall of the substrate (aligned after singulation; FIG. 16). As to claim 18, Wood discloses wherein the conductive layer has a U-like shape in a cross-sectional view of the conductive layer (coating conforms to exposed end/sides; FIGS. 12-16). As to claim 19, Wood discloses wherein the conductive layer has a planar bottom surface facing away from the substrate (flat contact surface 224; FIGS. 12-16). Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood in view of Pagani.As to claim 20, Wood discloses the probe head structure of claim 19.Wood does not disclose wherein the conductive layer has a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite to the first sidewall, the planar bottom surface is connected between the first sidewall and the second sidewall, and a distance between the first sidewall and the second sidewall increases toward the substrate. Pagani discloses wherein the conductive layer has a first sidewall and a second sidewall opposite to the first sidewall, the planar bottom surface is connected between the first sidewall and the second sidewall, and a distance between the first sidewall and the second sidewall increases toward the substrate (tapered probe 135 with planar tip 230 and sidewalls widening toward substrate; FIGS. 10A-10B). It would have been obvious to modify Wood’s conductive coating with Pagani’s taper for enhancing mechanical stability, improving elastic deformation during contact, and reducing misalignment risk in fine-pitch probing. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am-6:30pm 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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-2258. 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. /TUNG X NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 12/19/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 21, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601766
APPARATUS FOR MEASURE OF QUANTITY AND ASSOCIATED METHOD OF MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12578360
JIG AND METHOD FOR GRINDING PROBE PINS OF PROBE CARD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566193
WAFER TESTING APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560647
CONTACTOR FOR MULTI DEVICE SOCKETS AND RELATED
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554034
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING DIELECTRIC CONSTANT AND RESISTIVITY WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC PROPAGATION MEASUREMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
88%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+3.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 715 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