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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0271693) in view of TAKENA (US PGPUB 2012/0042516).
Regarding claim 1, AHN et al. teaches a composite probe, comprising: a probe body (20) housed in a guide unit (10) of a probe card (1) including a first guide plate (120) and a second guide plate (110) arranged apart from each other (as shown in fig. 1), and supported by a first guide hole (122) of the first guide plate (120) and a second guide hole (112) of the second guide plate (110); wherein the probe body (20) includes a first rod (section of 20 located in 122) having a substantially straight shape and supported by the first guide hole (122) (as shown in fig. 1), a second rod (section of 20 located in 112) having a substantially straight shape and supported by the second guide hole (112) (as shown in fig. 1), and a curved portion (section of 20 located between the guide plates) disposed between the first guide plate (120) and the second guide plate (112) (as shown in fig. 1), and connecting the first rod and the second rod.
ANH et al. fails to specifically teach a leader rod, one end of which is connected to the probe body, having a substantially straight shape, inserted through the first guide hole ahead of the probe body, further passing through the second guide hole, and detachable from the probe body after passing through the second guide hole; wherein the leader rod is connected to a tip of the second rod coaxially with the second rod, and a total length of the leader rod and the second rod is greater than a distance between non-facing surfaces of the first guide plate and the second guide plate. TAKENA teaches a leader rod (46), one end of which is connected to the probe body (26), having a substantially straight shape (as shown in fig. 5), inserted through the first guide hole (68) ahead of the probe body, further passing through the second guide hole (34), and detachable from the probe body (26) after passing through the second guide hole (34) (as shown in fig. 5-6 and disclosed in 0073); wherein the leader rod (46) is connected to a tip of the second rod (42) coaxially with the second rod, and a total length of the leader rod (46) and the second rod (42) is greater than a distance between non-facing surfaces of the first guide plate (50) and the second guide plate (24) (as shown in fig. 5, the total length (down vertical direction) of 46 and 42 is greater than a distance (horizontal width of guide holes 68 and 34) between non-facing surfaces of 68 and 34).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the leader rod, one end of which is connected to the probe body, having a substantially straight shape, inserted through the first guide hole ahead of the probe body, further passing through the second guide hole, and detachable from the probe body after passing through the second guide hole; wherein the leader rod is connected to a tip of the second rod coaxially with the second rod, and a total length of the leader rod and the second rod is greater than a distance between non-facing surfaces of the first guide plate and the second guide plate as taught by TAKENA with the invention of ANH et al. in order to reduce the overall installation time.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of ANH et al. and TAKENA teaches the limitations of claim 1, in addition, TAKENA teaches wherein a length (down vertical direction) of the leader rod (46) is greater than the distance (horizontal width of guide holes 68 and 34) between the non-facing surfaces (guide holes surfaces) of the first guide plate (50) and the second guide plate (24).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and have the length of the leader rod is greater than the distance between the non-facing surfaces of the first guide plate and the second guide plate as taught by TAKENA with the invention of ANH et al. in order to have easy access to the leader rod and detach it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to specifically teach a method for attaching a probe to a guide unit of a probe card including a first guide plate and a second guide plate arranged apart from each other, comprising: inserting a leader rod through a first guide hole of the first guide plate ahead of probe body by using a composite probe constituted by the probe body and the leader rod, further inserting the leader rod, inserted through the first guide hole, through the second guide hole of the second guide plate, before the curved portion is inserted through the first guide hole; and detaching the leader rod from the probe body while the probe body is supported by the first guide hole and the second guide hole, in combination with all the limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depending from claim 11 is allowed for the same reasons in conjunction to the limitations of the dependency.
Claims 5-8, and 14-17 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO VELEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8597. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-3:30pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (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 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.
/ROBERTO VELEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858