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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 and 12/18/2024 are considered by the examiner.
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, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR100972662B1), hereinafter ‘Lee’.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a test socket for integrated circuit (IC) testing (Abstract), comprising: an insulating support structure (Fig. 1, insulating part 112; Fig. 5, insulating portion 32) comprising a plurality of through-holes (Fig. 1, holes filled by conductive particles 111; Fig. 5, conductive particles 31a); and a plurality of conductive columns embedded within the insulating support structure and extending through the through-holes (Fig. 1, holes filled by conductive particles 111), each conductive column comprising a first part located below the insulating support structure and a second part located above the insulating support structure (Fig. 5, upper side of the conductive part 31 protrudes from the insulating part 32 and the diameter of the protruded upper side 311 of the conductive part 31 is inserted into the insulating part 32 Is larger than the diameter of the conductive part; Fig. 5, further shows conductive part 31 below structure 32, into member 33); wherein the insulating support structure further comprises a plurality of grooves adjacent to the through-holes, portions of the conductive columns being embedded within these grooves (Fig. 5, conductive part 31 comprising protruding upper side 311 supported by grooves of structure 32; The reason why the diameter of the upper portion 311 of the conductive portion 31 is increased as described above is to stably contact the semiconductor device. Specifically, when the semiconductor device is lowered for testing and is mounted on the test socket, even if the position on the test socket is shifted from the desired position, the upper side diameter of the conductive portion is large).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee further discloses wherein the insulating support structure is made of materials selected from a group consisting of polyimide, PCB materials, and ceramic materials (insulating portion 32 is made of an elastic material such as silicone rubber; More specifically, it is preferable to use materials such as FR-5, polyimide, engineering plastic and ceramic. However, it is needless to say that any material can be used as long as the elasticity is lower than that of the conductive part 31).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee further discloses wherein the conductive columns comprise conductive particles and silicone (Fig. 4, configured to contain a plurality of conductive particles (31a) in an elastic material (31b) such as silicone rubber, and has a shape extending in the vertical direction).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee further discloses wherein the conductive particles are selected from a group consisting of metal powders, metal alloy powders, graphite powders, conductive compounds, and conductive plastics (The conductive particles 31a are preferably made of iron, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, copper and alloys of two or more thereof, which are excellent in conductive performance, It is also possible to have a surface coated with at least one metal selected from gold, silver, copper, tin, palladium, rhodium, zinc and chromium.).
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.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR100972662B1), hereinafter ‘Lee’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bottoms et al. (US 20060186906), hereinafter ‘Bottoms’.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the insulating support structure comprises a hard support and a soft support, the soft support located on the upper surface of the hard support, and the hardness of the hard support is greater than that of the conductive columns and wherein the hard support comprises a plurality of layers composed of different materials.
Bottoms teaches a interconnect systems for IC packages and assemblies (Abstract) wherein the insulating substrate is hard or soft insulating materials and fabricated from multi-layers composed of different materials for the benefit of choosing the best material best suited for a particular application (Para [0175]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the insulating support structure comprises a hard support and a soft support, the soft support located on the upper surface of the hard support, and the hardness of the hard support is greater than that of the conductive columns and wherein the hard support comprises a plurality of layers composed of different materials for the benefit of choosing the best material best suited for a particular application as taught by Bottoms in Para [0175].
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR100972662B1), hereinafter ‘Lee’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20210293880), hereinafter ‘Oh’.
Regarding Claim 5, Lee fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a plurality of anti-short-circuit brackets located adjacent to the conductive columns, wherein the anti-short-circuit brackets are made of insulating material.
Oh discloses a test socket having an insulating member (Fig. 6, 222) adjacent to conductive columns (Fig. 6, electrically-conductive part 216 and body 217) which functions to prevent short-circuits (Para [0096]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide a plurality of anti-short-circuit brackets located adjacent to the conductive columns, wherein the anti-short-circuit brackets are made of insulating material for the benefit of preventing short-circuits in the event of a support or housing coming into contact with an electrode.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Oh disclose the test socket according to Claim 5 above. Oh fails to explicitly disclose wherein the height of the anti-short-circuit brackets is between 0.7 to 4 times the height of the second part of the conductive columns.
Nonetheless, modifying the height of the anti-short-circuit brackets to have the relative dimensions as recited in the claims would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR100972662B1), hereinafter ‘Lee’.
Regarding Claims 7-9, Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein the height of the first part ranges from 10 to 100 micrometers, wherein the height of the second part is 2 to 10 times the height of the first part, and wherein the diameter ratio of the first part to the second part ranges from 5/6 to 6/5.
Nonetheless, modifying wherein the height of the first part ranges from 10 to 100 micrometers, wherein the height of the second part is 2 to 10 times the height of the first part, and wherein the diameter ratio of the first part to the second part ranges from 5/6 to 6/5 to have the relative dimensions as recited in the claims would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 4, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the insulating support structure comprises a hard support and a soft support, the soft support located on the upper surface of the hard support, and the hardness of the hard support is greater than that of the conductive columns wherein the grooves are located within the hard support” in combination with all other limitations of the claim and base claims renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Claims 13-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claim 13, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “forming a layered structure comprising a first sacrificial layer, an insulating support layer, and a second sacrificial layer; forming a plurality of through-holes in the layered structure; forming a plurality of grooves within the through-holes of the insulating support layer; filling the through-holes and grooves with a conductive gel to form a plurality of conductive columns; and removing the first and second sacrificial layers” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 16, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “ forming a layered structure comprising a first sacrificial layer, an insulating support layer, an anti-short circuit layer, and a second sacrificial layer; forming a plurality of through-holes in the layered structure; forming a plurality of grooves within the through-holes of the insulating support layer; filling the through-holes and grooves with a conductive gel to form a plurality of conductive columns; and removing the first and second sacrificial layers” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858