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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because Applicants' attention is drawn to the fact that the search for method claims requires the identification of processing steps, while the search for apparatus claims requires the identification of structural elements. The method and apparatus claims are differently classified, which introduces additional search burden. Applicants' arguments that the search of one invention must necessarily result in a search for the other one has been considered, but is not found persuasive insofar as the searches are not co-extensive and additional search would of necessity be required for the combination of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 18, 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2002/0190737 to Maekawa et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0138644 to Khandros et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0092365 to Grube and U.S. Patent No. 4,165,251 to Matsumoto et al.
As to claims 1 and 4, Maekawa discloses a maintenance device comprising: a cleaning assembly comprising a cleaning plate and a cleaning material capable of cleaning a probe card (see Maekawa Fig. 3 and paragraph [0033] disclosing base plate 3 and cleaning material 4 and 5) wherein the cleaning assembly is capable of cleaning a surface of the probe card by containing the cleaning material with the surface of the probe card (see Maekawa Figs. 2 and 3 and paragraph [0034]). Maekawa further discloses that a roller can be used to apply the cleaning material in the manufacturing of the cleaning sheet (read as the cleaning material is able to be applied onto a surface of the cleaning plate by rolling and compressing via the flattening roller) (see Maekawa paragraph [0077]).
Maekawa does not explicitly disclose a removal roller wherein the cleaning material is removed from the cleaning plate by the removal roller after the completion of cleaning. Khandros and Grube discloses that it is known in the art that the cleaning material gets dirty and needs to be replaced (see Khandros paragraphs [0053]-[0056]; Grube paragraph [0056]). Matsumoto discloses that it is known to use a removal roller to remove a film from a support base (see Matsumoto col. 4, lines 4-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a removal roller as disclosed by Matsumoto in order to remove the used/dirty cleaning material and replace it with fresh cleaning material as suggested by Khandros/Grube where Maekawa discloses the application of the cleaning material to the base plate as discussed above.
As to claims 2 and 3, the combination of Maekawa, Khandros, Grube and Matsumoto discloses a take-and-release structure for taking and releasing the cleaning material and wherein the surface of the removal roller is provided with a plurality of protrusions for removing the cleaning material (see Matsumoto Fig. 1 disclosing that the roller has bristles and Fig. 7 where the removal roller takes and releases the material from the support; col. 3, lines 4-24 and col. 4, lines 4-34).
As to claim 5, the combination of Maekawa, Khandros, Grube and Matsumoto discloses that the cleaning assembly is capable of moving vertically to make the cleaning plate drive the cleaning material from bottom to top to contact a bottom side of the probe card for cleaning (see Maekawa Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0088]-[0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights