DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/24/2025 and 3/3/2026 were considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A Test Socket”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2003/0011393 (Farnworth).
Regarding claim 1, Farnworth teaches a device (the device of Figs. 4-8) comprising:
a first member (base 41; see Figs. 4-8);
a second member held by the first member (plate 71 is formed on base 41; see Figs. 4-8); and
a removal portion provided in the first member (retaining elements 35A,B, tong activating frame 33, and closing springs 45; see Figs. 4-8),
wherein the second member holds an object to be held that is brought close to the first member by movement of a pressing member in a first direction (plate 71 holds die 37 and the plate 71 and die 37 are brought closer to base 41 when probe 77 presses in a downward direction; see Figs. 4-10),
wherein the removal portion moves in a second direction that is different from the first direction in conjunction with the movement of the pressing member in the first direction (retaining elements 35A,B move in a second direction by rotating over the die 37 when probe 77 is pressing the die 37 and plate 71; see Figs. 5-7; see [0036]-[0037]), and
wherein, when the object to be held moves away from the first member, at least a part of the removal portion overlaps at least a part of the object to be held when viewed in the first direction (when probe 77 is withdrawn plate support springs urge the plate 71, die contact 47, and die 37 away from base 41 with the tongs 35A,B overlapping a portion of die 37; see Figs. 7-8; see [0038]).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Farnworth further teaches wherein the removal portion includes a movement portion, a link, and a latch that moves in the second direction in conjunction with the movement of the pressing member in the first direction (a removal portion comprises a spring 45, a tong activating frame 33 and a tong 35A,B that moves in a second direction in conjunction with the movement of the probe 77 in the first direction; see Figs. 4-8),
wherein the movement portion moves in the first direction in conjunction with the movement of the pressing member in the first direction (spring 45 is compressed downward in the same direction of the probe 77; see Figs. 4-8),
wherein the link moves the latch in the second direction when the movement portion moves in the first direction (tong activating frame 33 moves the tongs 35A,B in the second direction; see Figs. 4-8; see [0036]-[0037]), and
wherein at least a part of the latch is located inside a peripheral edge portion of the second member or located outside the peripheral edge portion of the second member when viewed from the first direction by the movement portion and the link (the tongs 35A,B are located outside the peripheral edge portion as claimed; see Figs. 4-8).
Regarding claim 4, Farnworth teaches wherein the removal portion includes two removal mechanisms, and wherein the two removal mechanisms sandwich the second member when viewed from the first direction (the device includes two removal portions in the form of tongs 35A,B wherein the tongs 35A,B sandwich the plate 71 as claimed; see Figs. 4-8).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0011393 (Farnworth) in view of US 6,292,003 (Fredrickson).
Regarding claim 2, Farnworth teaches wherein the object to be held is electrically connected to a third member when the object to be held is brought close to the first member by the movement of the pressing member in the first direction (die 37 is brought into contact with balls 55 which connect to a die contact insert 47 when the probe 7 presses the die down toward the base 41; see Figs. 6-7).
Farnworth fails to teach wherein the third member is stored in the first member.
Fredrickson teaches wherein the third member is stored in the first member (a vertical probe card 940 is formed on a PCB 910 below an alignment plate 980 which holds an IC under test; see Fig. 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Fredrickson into Farnworth in order to gain the advantage of a alternative probe configuration for testing an IC having a ball grid array after wafer dicing without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Farnworth fails to teach wherein, after the object to be held moves away from the first member and is separated from the pressing member, a state of the device is changed from a state in which at least a part of the removal portion overlaps at least a part of the object to be held when viewed from the first direction to a state in which the removal portion does not overlap the object to be held when viewed from the first direction, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Note: the Written Opinion of the ISA identifies JP 2017-120738 and JP 2022-72245 as teaching the limitations of claims 1-5, however, the rejections fail to teach, either alone or combined, all the elements of claim 1 as best understood by the examiner. For example, the translation of the Written states JP 2017-120738 teaches:
Document 1 discloses a configuration in which a substrate 10 of an electronic component 100 is housed in a guide part 40, and when a cover 20 is opened, a shaft 50 becomes overlapped with the substrate 10, thereby preventing the electronic component 100 from sticking.
Furthermore, the guide part 40 disclosed in document 1 corresponds to a second member, but does not approach a first member in a first direction in accordance with the movement of the cover 20.
As best understood by the examiner, “a first member” corresponds to the element 10 of Fig. 8 and is defined as “a base 10” of the socket 1 in the translation, not “a susbtrate 10 of an electronic component 100” as stated in the Written Opinion. See [0024] of the translation filed 2/24/2025. While the Written Opinion states, “the guide part 40 … corresponds to a second member”, the guide part 40 would not reasonably be interested as a member which “holds an object to be held that is brought close to the first member by movement of a pressing member in a first direction” as recited in the claim. The electronic component 100 correspond to the electronic component to be measured (see [0025] of translation), which is supported in the recess 101.
Further, the Written Opinion seems to rely on shaft 50 as equivalent to the claimed removal portion and the cover 20 as equivalent to the “pressing member”. As best understood by the examiner, the shaft 50 rotates in conjunction with the cover 20 about an axis 151 of the hinge 150. See [0036]-[0039], [0063]. Therefore, the reference further fails to teach “wherein the removal portion moves in a second direction that is different from the first direction in conjunction with the movement of the pressing member in the first direction,” as recited in the claim.
Further, no modification of JP 2017-120738 in view of JP 2022-72245 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. While JP 2017-120738 teaches the limitations as recited in claim 5, it does not teach the limitation of claim 5 in combination with all other limitations of parent claim 1. Further, it would not be obvious to combine JP 2017-120738 and primary reference Farnworth to arrive at the limitations as claimed.
For these reasons, the examiner objects to claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights