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 Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito USPG Pub. No.: US 2020/0182907 in view of Mathieu et al. US Patent No.: US 6,509,751.
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches a space transformer support structure that supports a space transformer interposed between a printed circuit board and a probe head (see [0025] and figure 1 in which the space transformer 30 and support 70 is interposed between PCB 50 and probe head 20), comprising:
a guide plate having a flat plate shape and having an upper surface provided on a side of the probe head of the space transformer and supporting a first surface of the space transformer (figure 1, the guide plate can be interpreted as support structure 70; the portions of guide 70 that protrude laterally to make point contact with space transformer 30, i.e. the smaller portions of the L-shapes created by 70 are interpreted as the upper surface of the flat plate); and
connecting members that fix the guide plate to the printed circuit board (see figure 1, in which connecting members 100A, 110, and 120 each serve a purpose in fixing the guide plate to the PCB),
Ito is silent in explicitly disclosing wherein a plurality of protrusions in point contact with the first surface of the space transformer is provided on the upper surface of the guide plate and the plurality of protrusions are protruded from the upper surface of the guide plate toward the first surface of the space transformer. However, Mathieu teaches wherein a plurality of protrusions in point contact with the first surface of the space transformer is provided on the upper surface of the guide plate and the plurality of protrusions are protruded from the upper surface of the guide plate toward the first surface of the space transformer (see Mathieu figure 2, in which protrusions 226 sit between the upper surface of a support structure, comprised of 220, 222 and 224, and the space transformer 210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ito with those of Mathieu in order to better control the space transformer (as discussed in Mathieu col.5, lns.7-27).
Regarding Claim 2, Ito and Mathieu teach the space transformer support structure according to claim 1, further comprising positioning pins that connect the space transformer and the probe head (see Ito figure 1, in which 100A, 110, and 120 can also be considered positioning pins connecting the space transformer and probe head).
Regarding Claim 3, Ito and Mathieu teach the space transformer support structure according to claim 1, but is silent in teaching that wherein each protrusion is hemispherical in shape at a tip end. However, Shinde teaches wherein each protrusion is hemispherical in shape at a tip end (see Mathieu figure 2 in which the protrusions are spherical).
Regarding Claim 4, Ito teaches the space transformer support structure according to claim 1, wherein the connecting members are bolts connected to the guide plate through the printed circuit board and arranged on an outer peripheral side of the protrusions (seen in Ito figure 1 in which this would apply in the instance of a modification from Mathieu).
Regarding Claim 5, Ito teaches the space transformer support structure according to claim 4, wherein the bolts are provided in the same number as the protrusions (seen in Ito figure 1 in which this would apply in the instance of a modification from Mathieu).
Regarding Claim 6, Ito teaches an electrical connection device, comprising:
a printed circuit board (see figure 1, PCB 50);
a probe head that holds a plurality of probes (see figure 1, probe head 20 with a plurality of probes 10), each of the probes having a base end electrically connected to the printed circuit board and a tip end contacted with an object to be inspected (see [0026]-[0029] and figure 1, teaching that the electrical connections are connected to PCB 50, as well as DUT 2 during testing);
a space transformer interposed between the printed circuit board and the probe head and converting a wiring pitch of each of the probes (see [0025] and figure 1 in which the space transformer 30 and support 70 is interposed between PCB 50 and probe head 20);
a guide plate having a flat plate shape and having an upper surface, provided on a side of the probe head of the space transformer and supporting a first surface of the space transformer (figure 1, the guide plate can be interpreted as support structure 70; the portions of guide 70 that protrude laterally to make point contact with space transformer 30, i.e. the smaller portions of the L-shapes created by 70 are interpreted as the upper surface of the flat plate); and
connecting members that fix the guide plate to the printed circuit board (see figure 1).
Ito is silent in explicitly disclosing wherein a plurality of protrusions in point contact with the first surface of the space transformer is provided on the upper surface of the guide plate and the plurality of protrusions are protruded from the upper surface of the guide plate toward the first surface of the space transformer. However, Mathieu teaches wherein a plurality of protrusions in point contact with the first surface of the space transformer is provided on the upper surface of the guide plate and the plurality of protrusions are protruded from the upper surface of the guide plate toward the first surface of the space transformer (see Mathieu figure 2, in which protrusions 226 sit between the upper surface of a support structure, comprised of 220, 222 and 224, and the space transformer 210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the teachings of Ito with those of Mathieu in order to better control the space transformer (as discussed in Mathieu col.5, lns.7-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ito USPG Pub. No.: US 2020/0182907 in view of Mathieu et al. US Patent No.: US 6,509,751 under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights