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 Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are objected to because of informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the claim introduces “a plurality of probes” but subsequently variously refers to “at least one said probe,” “each said probe,” “said probe,” and “in each said probe.” These expressions are inconsistent with the previously introduced plurality. Appropriate correction is required to consistently refer to, as applicable, “at least one of said plurality of probes,” “each of said plurality of probes,” or the particular probe intended by the respective limitation.
Claim 1 further introduces “at least one signal processing unit” but subsequently variously refers to “each said signal processing unit” and “said signal processing unit.” Appropriate correction is required to consistently identify whether the respective limitation applies to each signal processing unit, a particular signal processing unit, or the corresponding signal processing unit.
Claim 1 further recites “one surface of said functional layer” followed by “the other surface of said functional layer.” Appropriate correction is required for consistent identification of the respective surfaces, such as “a first surface” and “a second surface,” if intended.
Claim 1 further recites that “each said signal processing unit corresponds to at least one said probe” and subsequently recites “send said probe control signal to the corresponding probe.” Appropriate correction is required to maintain consistent singular/plural terminology as to the corresponding probe or probes.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein said probe comprises” and “in each said probe” after previously introducing “a plurality of probes.” Appropriate correction is required to consistently identify whether the needle, cantilever beam, needle tip, control input terminal, and signal output terminal are associated with each of the plurality of probes or a particular probe.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-6, appropriate conforming corrections are required to maintain consistent terminology inherited from claim 1, including references to the probe or probes and signal processing unit or units, as applicable.
Regarding claim 7, the claim uses expressions including “Nth said data processing layer,” “N−1th said data processing layer,” and “N+1th said data processing layer.” Appropriate correction is required for grammatical and mathematical notation, such as “Nth data processing layer,” “(N−1)th data processing layer,” and “(N+1)th data processing layer,” as applicable.
Claim 7 further introduces a plurality of signal processing units and subsequently variously refers to “said signal processing unit” and “said signal processing units.” Appropriate correction is required to consistently identify the particular signal processing unit or units intended by the respective limitations.
Regarding claims 8-10, expressions such as “a M-th said data processing layer” are grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required, such as “the M-th data processing layer,” as applicable. Appropriate conforming corrections are also required to maintain consistent terminology for the signal processing unit or units and data processing layer or layers.
Regarding claims 11-12, appropriate correction is required to maintain consistent terminology when referring to the plurality of functional layers and individual functional layers. Expressions such as “two adjacent said functional layers” should be corrected, for example, to “two adjacent functional layers” or “two adjacent ones of said plurality of functional layers,” as applicable.
Regarding claim 13, the claim variously uses “conductive substances” and “conductive materials” with respect to the conductive material provided in the through-holes. Appropriate correction is required to use consistent terminology unless different materials are intended.
Claim 13 further uses expressions including “a Nth said data processing layer” and “the N+1th said data processing layer.” Appropriate correction is required, such as “an Nth data processing layer” and “the (N+1)th data processing layer,” as applicable.
Regarding claim 14, expressions including “a Nth said data processing layer” and “a N+1th said data processing layer” are grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required, such as “an Nth data processing layer” and “an (N+1)th data processing layer,” as applicable.
Claim 14 further refers to “said functional layer” although the claim ultimately depends from claim 7, which recites a plurality of functional layers. Appropriate correction is required to consistently identify the particular functional layer or layers intended.
Regarding claims 15-16, appropriate correction is required to maintain consistent singular/plural terminology with respect to the positioning marks, positioning holes, functional layers, and data processing layers. In particular, the expression “said positioning holes are corresponding one-to-one with said positioning marks” is grammatically improper and should be corrected, for example, to “said positioning holes correspond one-to-one with said positioning marks.”
Regarding claim 17, expressions including “a Nth said data processing layer” and “a N+1th said data processing layer” are grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required, such as “an Nth data processing layer” and “an (N+1)th data processing layer,” as applicable.
Regarding claims 18-19, appropriate conforming corrections are required to maintain consistent singular/plural terminology for the functional layers, data processing layers, signal processing units, probes, and corresponding or target components inherited from the preceding claims.
Regarding claim 20, the expression “A probe control apparatus wherein it comprises” is grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required, such as “A probe control apparatus comprising.” Appropriate conforming corrections are also required to maintain consistent terminology for the probe or probes and signal processing unit or units recited or incorporated therein.
Applicant is required to make appropriate conforming corrections throughout the claims for similar informalities involving the use of “a,” “at least one,” “each,” “said,” “corresponding,” singular/plural terminology, and N-th layer notation, so that subsequently recited elements are consistently identified.
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 7-19 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that “said signal processing unit on the Nth said data processing layer of M said data processing layers corresponds to at least one said signal processing unit on the N−1th said data processing layer, and said signal processing unit on the Nth said data processing layer corresponds to and is electrically connected to one said signal processing unit on a N+1th said data processing layer, wherein 1≤N≤M.” However, when N=1, the recited N−1th data processing layer would constitute a 0th data processing layer, and when N=M, the recited N+1th data processing layer would constitute an (M+1)th data processing layer, although the claim provides only M data processing layers.
The specification does not resolve these boundary conditions. Rather, the specification describes one probe layer 11 and M data processing layers 12 stacked sequentially from bottom to top (see [0066]) and describes the first data processing layer as adjacent to the probe layer (see [0067]). Thus, neither a 0th data processing layer nor an (M+1)th data processing layer is defined. Therefore, the scope of the claimed correspondence and electrical connection between the signal processing units is unclear.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites that “when 1≤N<M” a signal processing unit on the Nth data processing layer is electrically connected to a target signal processing unit in the N+1th data processing layer and further recites “When N=1” that a signal processing unit on the first data processing layer is electrically connected to a target probe on the probe layer. Because N=1 falls within 1≤N1, it is unclear whether both connection requirements apply simultaneously to the first data processing layer or whether one condition was intended to be an exception to the other.
The specification does not resolve this ambiguity. The specification describes the first data processing layer as corresponding to the probes on the probe layer (see [0067]) and also describes correspondence between signal processing units on successive data processing layers (see [0068]). Moreover, the through-hole embodiment described in paragraph [0100] uses different boundary terminology for the probe connection. Therefore, the scope of the claimed electrical connection arrangement is unclear.
Regarding claim 14, the claim similarly recites that “when 1≤N<M” a signal processing unit on the Nth data processing layer is electrically connected by leads to a target signal processing unit in the N+1th data processing layer, and further recites “When N=1” that a signal processing unit on the first data processing layer is electrically connected by leads to a target probe on the probe layer. Because N=1 falls within 1≤N1, it is unclear whether both connections are required for the first data processing layer or whether one condition was intended to exclude the other.
The specification describes both the connection of the first data processing layer to the probe layer (see [0067]) and the connection between successive data processing layers (see [0068]). Paragraph [0101] similarly describes the overlapping N conditions and therefore does not resolve the ambiguity. Therefore, the scope of the claimed lead-based electrical connection arrangement is unclear.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites a relationship between a signal processing unit in an Nth data processing layer and a corresponding signal processing unit in an N+1th data processing layer but does not clearly define the permissible range of N for this limitation. If N=M, the limitation would require an (M+1)th data processing layer, although only M data processing layers are recited. The specification describes only M data processing layers stacked sequentially from bottom to top (see [0066]) and therefore does not resolve this boundary condition.
Claim 17 further recites that the signal processing unit sends the received probe data signal to a corresponding signal processing unit in a “target functional layer,” wherein “said target functional layer is said data processing layer previous to said data processing layer in which said signal processing unit is located.” The expression “previous to” does not clearly identify whether the target is the immediately lower layer, the immediately upper layer, the preceding layer in the bottom-to-top stacking order, or the preceding layer in the direction of signal transmission. The specification describes the data processing layers as stacked from bottom to top (see [0066]), while probe control signals and probe data signals are transmitted through the layers in different directions (see [0074] and [0077]). Therefore, the specification does not resolve which data processing layer is encompassed by “previous to said data processing layer,” and the scope of the claimed target functional layer is unclear.
Claims 8-12, 15-16, and 18-19, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least the same reasons set forth above because they incorporate the indefinite limitations of claim 7. Claims 13, 14, and 17 are additionally indefinite for the respective reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 & 5-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7-19 were previously indicated as allowable in the Office Action mailed 05/12/2026.
Applicants’ amendments and arguments have overcome the rejections of the independent claims set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/12/2026. In the response filed 08/11/2026, Applicant incorporated the limitations of previously objected-to claim 4 into independent claim 1 and canceled claim 4.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 20, which variously depend from claim 1, are allowable for at least the same reasons set forth above.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 8,479,308 B2 to Nishimura et al. disclose a scanning probe microscope includes: a first and second probes for scanning a sample while maintaining the distance to the sample surface; crystal oscillators holding each of the first and second probes; and a modulation oscillator for providing the first probe with a vibration of a specific frequency which is different from the resonant frequency of each crystal oscillator. A control unit monitors the vibration of the specific frequency of the first and second probes, detects proximity of the first probe and the second probe based on the change of the specific frequencies, and controls the drive of the first and second probes.
U.S. 2009/0300807 A1 to Jahnke et al. disclose in Fig. 1 a method for providing a measuring probe (1, 1a, 2) for a probe microscopic examination of a sample in a probe microscope, in particular a scanning probe microscope, in which the measuring probe (1), which has a probe base (1a) and a probe extension (2) formed thereon, is held on a carrier device and the measuring probe (1) is processed before or after a measurement by detaching a section of the probe extension (2). The invention further relates to an arrangement having a probe microscope for the probe microscopic examination of a sample, in particular a scanning microscope.
U.S. 7,337,656 B2 to Shirakawabe et al. disclose in Fig. 1 processing techniques capable of making multi-tip probes with sub-micron intervals and provide such microscopic multi-tip probes, there is provided an outermost surface analysis apparatus for semiconductor devices etc. provided with a function for enabling positioning to be performed in such a manner that there is no influence on measurement in electrical measurements at an extremely small region using this microscopic multi-tip probe, and there are provided the steps of making a cantilever 1 formed with a plurality of electrodes 3 using lithographic techniques, and forming microscopic electrodes 6 minute in pitch by sputtering or gas-assisted etching a distal end of the cantilever 1 using a focused charged particle beam or using CVD
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
/GIOVANNI ASTACIO-OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858 9/1/2026
Prosecution Insights