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 § 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 1-10 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.
The term “strengthened” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strengthened” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is considered strengthened? Is it a level of durability? Is it a wear rate? Is it a hardness level? Is it corrosion resistance? What defines this term strengthened? Clarification is needed. All subsequent dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected as they are dependent upon a claim rejected under 112 2nd.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Niki et al (U.S. PGPub # 2009/0078451).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Niki teaches:
A test fixture comprising:
a probe layer comprising a plurality of probes (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M. See Paragraph 0026.), wherein the probes are arranged equidistantly in a first direction and extend in a second direction (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M. See Paragraph 0026. Fig. 1B Elements 30L1… M.), the first direction is substantially perpendicular to the second direction (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M. See Paragraph 0026. Fig. 1B Elements 30L1… M.), each of the probes comprises a copper core layer and a strengthened layer (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M. See Abstract & Paragraphs 0009, 0026 & 0103-0104. Fig. 1A-B Elements 30L1… M.), and the strengthened layer encloses an outer surface of the copper core layer (Fig. 1A-B Elements 30L1… M.);
a first resin layer on the probe layer (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N. See Paragraph 0026.), wherein the first resin layer has a plurality of first openings (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N wherein all layers have openings that form vias. See Paragraph 0026.), and the first openings correspond to the probes (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N wherein all layers have openings that form vias. See Paragraph 0026.);
a first circuit layer (Fig. 1A Elements 14L1,1…N,M. See Paragraph 0026.) on at least one portion of the first resin layer and in the first openings (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N & 14L1,1…N,M. wherein the resin layers and circuit layers alternate in the stack. See Paragraph 0026.), wherein the first circuit layer is connected to the probe layer (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M. See Paragraph 0026.);
a second resin layer on the first circuit layer and the first resin layer (Fig. 10L1…N 1A Elements See Paragraph 0026.), wherein the second resin layer has a plurality of second openings (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N wherein all layers have openings that form vias. See Paragraph 0026.);
a second circuit layer (Fig. 1A Elements 14L1,1…N,M. See Paragraph 0026.) on at least one portion of the second resin layer and in the second openings (Fig. 1A Elements 14L1,1…N,M wherein all layers have openings that form vias. See Paragraph 0026.), wherein the second circuit layer is electrically connected to the first circuit layer (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N wherein all layers have openings that form vias that connect all circuit layers. See Paragraph 0026.);
a solder mask layer on the second circuit layer and the second resin layer (See paragraph 0099.), wherein the solder mask layer has a plurality of bonding pad openings (See paragraph 0099.); and
a bonding pad layer comprising a plurality of bonding pads (Paragraphs 0010, 0079, 0134, & 0135.), wherein the bonding pads are in the bonding pad openings and protrude out of the solder mask layer (Paragraphs 0010, 0079, 0134, & 0135.), the bonding pad layer is electrically connected to the second circuit layer (Paragraphs 0010, 0079, 0134, & 0135.), and a first pitch between the bonding pads is greater than a second pitch between the probes (Paragraphs 0010, 0079, 0134, & 0135.).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
366
466
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Niki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Niki teaches a third resin layer (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N. See Paragraph 0026.) and a redistribution circuit layer (Fig. 1A Elements 14L1,1…N,M. See Paragraph 0026.), wherein the third resin layer (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N. See Paragraph 0026.) is on the second circuit layer (Fig. 1A Elements 14L1,1…N,M. See Paragraph 0026.) and the second resin layer (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N. See Paragraph 0026.), the third resin layer has a plurality of third openings (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N wherein all layers have openings that form vias. See Paragraph 0026.), the redistribution circuit layer (Fig. 1A Elements 14L1,1…N,M. See Paragraph 0026.) is on at least one portion of the third resin layer and in the third openings (Fig. 1A Elements 10L1…N. See Paragraph 0026.), and the redistribution circuit layer is connected to the second circuit layer and the bonding pad layer (Fig. 1A Elements 14L1,1…N,M wherein all layers have openings that form vias. See Paragraph 0026.).
Regarding claim 5, Niki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Niki teaches a length of each of the probes is in a range between 0.03 mm and 0.5 mm (See paragraph 0037.).
Regarding claim 8, Niki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Niki teaches the strengthened layer comprises nickel (See paragraphs 0068 & 0112.).
Regarding claim 10, Niki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Niki teaches each of the probes further comprises a connection base (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M wherein all layers have openings that form vias that connect all layers. See Fig. 6A Element BS. See Paragraphs 0044-0045 & 0091-0092.), the connection base is connected to the copper core layer and the first circuit layer (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M wherein all layers have openings that form vias that connect all layers. See Fig. 6A Element BS. See Paragraphs 0044-0045 & 0091-0092.), and an area of the connection base is greater than an area of the copper core layer (Fig. 1A Elements 15L1… M wherein all layers have openings that form vias that connect all layers. See Fig. 6A Element BS. See Paragraphs 0044-0045 & 0091-0092.).
PNG
media_image3.png
546
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 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.
Claims 3-4 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niki et al (U.S. PGPub # 2009/0078451).
Regarding claim 3, Niki teaches all elements of claim 2, upon which this claim depends.
Niki does not explicitly teach a pitch between the third openings is not identical to a pitch between the second openings.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have a pitch between the third openings be not identical to a pitch between the second openings because this is routine optimization wherein the pitch is adjusted for optimal testing of a chip or other device. The MPEP states that “(i)t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See MPEP Section 2144.04 II A.
Regarding claim 4, Niki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Niki does not explicitly teach a pitch between the first openings is not identical to a pitch between the second openings.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have a pitch between the first openings be not identical to a pitch between the second openings because this is routine optimization wherein the pitch is adjusted for optimal testing of a chip or other device. The MPEP states that “(i)t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See MPEP Section 2144.04 II A.
Regarding claim 7, Niki & Brown teach or make obvious all elements of claim 4, upon which this claim depends.
Niki & Brown do not explicitly teach the second pitch is in a range between 0.1 mm and 1 mm.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to have the second pitch is in a range between 0.1 mm and 1 mm openings because this is routine optimization wherein the pitch is adjusted for optimal testing of a chip or other device. The MPEP states that “(i)t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See MPEP Section 2144.04 II A.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niki et al (U.S. PGPub # 2009/0078451) in view of Brown et al (U.S. Pat. # 5,792,594).
Regarding claim 6, Niki teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Niki does not explicitly teach the first pitch is in a range between 0.3 mm and 10 mm.
Brown teaches the first pitch is in a range between 0.3 mm and 10 mm (Column 2 lines 11-31.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Brown to the teachings of Niki such that the first pitch is in a range between 0.3 mm and 10 mm because this is routine optimization and because it is maximizing the space in the system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niki et al (U.S. PGPub # 2009/0078451) in view of Frodis (U.S. PGPub # 2024/0103040).
Regarding claim 9, Niki & Brown teach all elements of claim 6, upon which this claim depends.
Niki & Brown do not explicitly teach the strengthened layer further comprises tungsten or comprises tungsten-nickel alloy.
Frodis teaches the strengthened layer further comprises tungsten or comprises tungsten-nickel alloy (See Paragraphs 0048 & 0134.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Frodis to the teachings of Niki & Brown such that the strengthened layer further comprises tungsten or comprises tungsten-nickel alloy because the material has an acceptable yield strength and an acceptable so that one can maintain “lower contact force, less scrubbing or more controlled scrubbing, while still maintaining high current carrying capacity so that shorts in failed semiconductor devices do not damage the probes. including a material.” See paragraph 0004 of Frodis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights