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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 07/12/2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-10 and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Dependent Claims 2-10 disclose the preamble “The contacting member as claimed in claim…” while Independent Claim 1 discloses the preamble “A contacting member of a contact probe for a probe system for performing a functionality test to a device under test…”. In order to maintain consistency, please change the preamble of Dependent Claims 2-10 so that they match the preamble of Independent Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 14-16 disclose the preamble “The method as claimed in claim…” while Independent Claim 13 discloses the preamble “A method of manufacturing a contacting member for a contact probe for performing a functionality test to a device under test…”. In order to maintain consistency, please change the preamble of Dependent Claims 14-16 so that they match the preamble of Independent Claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 discloses the limitation “…the contacting member comprising: a body…” in lines 2-3 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “contacting member of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “contacting member”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the contacting member of the contact probe”.
Claim 1 discloses the limitation “…wherein the contacting member comprises a top side and a bottom side; when the contacting member performs the functionality test to the device under test, the bottom side of the contacting member faces toward the device under test; the bottom side of the contacting member comprises a lower surface located at the body, a tip bottom surface located at the contact tip…” in lines 6-10 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “contacting member of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “contacting member”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the contacting member of the contact probe”.
Claim 2 discloses the limitation “…wherein the contacting member is formed from a substrate having the height difference by a cutting process.” in lines 1-2 of Claim 2. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “contacting member of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “contacting member”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the contacting member of the contact probe”.
Claim 5 discloses the limitation “…the lower surface is located at the relatively thinner section; the bottom side of the contacting member further comprises a body bottom surface located at the relatively thicker section of the body…” in lines 3-6 of Claim 5. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “contacting member of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “contacting member”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the contacting member of the contact probe”.
Claim 8 discloses the limitation “…wherein the contacting member further comprises an extending section located between the body and the tip transition section…” in lines 1-3 of Claim 8. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “contacting member of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “contacting member”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the contacting member of the contact probe”.
Claim 10 discloses the limitation “…wherein the top side of the contacting member comprises an upper surface located at the body, and a tip top surface located at the contact tip…” in lines 1-3 of Claim 10. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “contacting member of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “contacting member”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the contacting member of the contact probe”.
Claim 11 discloses the limitation “…the top side of each of the contacting members comprising an upper surface located at the body, the upper surface of each of the contacting members being partially fixed to the coaxial cable so that the body of each of the contacting members extends from where the body is fixed to the coaxial cable and passes over an end of the coaxial cable in a way that each of the contacting members comprises a cantilever section extending from the end of the coaxial cable, the contact tip of each of the contacting members is located at an end of the cantilever section, and the tip bottom surfaces of the contacting members are coplanar with each other…” in lines 5-13 of Claim 11. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 11; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe”.
Claim 11 discloses the limitation “…wherein the contacting members comprise a first contacting member and at least one second contacting member…” in lines 14-15 of Claim 11. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 11; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe”.
Claim 12 discloses the limitation “…the top side of each of the contacting members comprising an upper surface located at the body, the upper surface of each of the contacting members being partially fixed to the conductive circuit of the circuit board in an electrically connected manner so that the body of each of the contacting members extends from where the body is fixed to the circuit board and passes over an end of the circuit board in a way that each of the contacting members comprises a cantilever section extending from the end of the circuit board, the contact tip of each of contacting members is located at an end of the cantilever section, and the tip bottom surfaces of the contacting members are coplanar with each other…” in lines 4-12 of Claim 12. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 12; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe”.
Claim 13 discloses the limitation “…defining a plurality of said contacting members by removing partial material of the substrate…” in lines 12-13 of Claim 13. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 13; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “a plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe”.
Claim 13 discloses the limitation “…the step of defining the contacting members comprising defining a contact tip of each of the contacting members in the relatively thicker region of the substrate, defining a body of each of the contacting members in the relatively thinner region of the substrate, and performing a cutting process to the substrate in correspondence with a contour of the contacting members …” in lines 13-18 of Claim 13. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 13; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members of the contact probe”.
Claim 14 discloses the limitation “…wherein the method further comprises the step of: sharping the contact tip of each of the contacting members to provide each of the contact tips a tip top surface…” in lines 3-6 of Claim 14. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 13; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claim 14 discloses the limitation “…sharping the contact tip of each of the contacting members to provide each of the contact tips (of each of the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe?) a tip top surface…” in lines 3-6 of Claim 14. It is not clear if the underlined limitations in question refer to the same “contact tip of each of the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” and “contact tips of each of the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”; respectively disclosed earlier in Claim 13; or if they refer to different “contact tips”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the contact tip of each of the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” and “the contact tips of each of the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”; respectively.
Claim 15 discloses the limitation “…the step of defining the contacting members comprises defining the contact tip of each of the contacting members in one of the two relatively thicker regions, and defining the body of each of the contacting members in the relatively thinner region and another of the two relatively thicker regions.” in lines 6-9 of Claim 15. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 13; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claim 16 discloses the limitation “…the surface lowering process is performed prior to the step of defining the plurality of contacting members by removing the partial material of the substrate.” in lines 5-7 of Claim 16. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claim 13; or if it refers to a different “plurality of contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claim 17 discloses the limitation “…a contact probe comprising a plurality of the contacting members as claimed in claim 1 for contacting the contact pads of the device under test by the contact ends of the contacting members so that the contact…” in lines 5-7 of Claim 17. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 17; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claim 17 discloses the limitation “the probe system comprising…” in line 3 of Claim 17. It is not clear if the limitation in question refers to the same “probe system for performing the functionality test to the device under test” disclosed earlier in Claim 17 or if it refers to a different “probe system”. If this is the case, then change the limitation in question to “the probe system for performing the functionality test to the device under test”.
Claim 18 discloses the limitation “…making the contacting members mechanically and electrically contact a plurality of contact pads of an unpackaged semiconductor device…” in lines 5-6 of Claim 18. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 18; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claim 19 discloses the limitation “…making the contacting members mechanically and electrically contact a plurality of contact pads of an unpackaged semiconductor device…” in lines 5-6 of Claim 19. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 19; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claim 19 discloses the limitation “…making the contacting members mechanically and electrically contact a plurality of contact pads of an unpackaged semiconductor device…” in lines 5-6 of Claim 19. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 19; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claim 20 discloses the limitation “…the testing process being performed by the contact ends of contacting members contacting the contact pads.” in lines 5-6 of Claim 20. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe” disclosed earlier in Claims 1 and 20; or if it refers to a different “contacting members”. If this is the case, then please change the limitations in question to “the plurality of the contacting members for the contact probe”.
Claims 2-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 13 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.
Claims 2, 5, 8 and 10-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1,
“…wherein the contacting member comprises a top side and a bottom side; when the contacting member performs the functionality test to the device under test, the bottom side of the contacting member faces toward the device under test; the bottom side of the contacting member comprises a lower surface located at the body, a tip bottom surface located at the contact tip, and a tip transition surface located at the tip transition section; the contact end is located on a front side of the tip bottom surface; a rear side of the tip bottom surface and the lower surface have a height difference therebetween; the tip transition surface extends from the lower surface to the rear side of the tip bottom surface in a way of gradually changing in height.”
Claims 2-12 and 17-20 are also allowed as they further limit allowed claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 13,
“…and at least one transition surface located at the at least one transition region, the second surface being higher than the first surface, the transition surface extending upwardly from the first surface to the second surface in a way of gradually changing in height; and defining a plurality of said contacting members by removing partial material of the substrate, the step of defining the contacting members comprising defining a contact tip of each of the contacting members in the relatively thicker region of the substrate, defining a body of each of the contacting members in the relatively thinner region of the substrate, and performing a cutting process to the substrate in correspondence with a contour of the contacting members.”
Claims 14-16 are also allowed as they further limit allowed claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayden et al. US 2008/0042673 - A direct current and a modulation signal are simultaneously applied to contact pads on a device under test, such as a laser diode, with a probe that reduces signal distortion and power dissipation by transmitting a modulated signal through an impedance matching resistor and transmitting of a direct current over a second signal path that avoids the impedance matching resistor.
Crippa et al. US 2017/0122980 - A contact probe for a testing head of an apparatus for testing electronic devices is described comprising a body extending between a contact tip and a contact head, that contact probe comprising at least one first section and one second section made of at least two different materials and joined together in correspondence of a soldering line.
Crippa et al. US 2024/0044940 - A contact probe is disclosed having a first contact end portion adapted to abut onto a contact pad of a device under test, a second contact end portion adapted to abut onto a contact pad of a PCB board of a testing apparatus, and a rod-shaped probe body extended between the first and second contact end portions according to a longitudinal direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights