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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2025 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7-10 and 24-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 7-10 and 24-25 recite a phrase “not completely the same with each other”. Examiner suggests amending the phrase to recite “different from each other” to restore clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by AHN et al. (US 20260086116).
Regarding claim 1, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 a probe for physically contacting an electronic device under test, comprising
a head portion (120a; figs. 2a,9a), a tail portion (110a) and a body portion (130a), wherein: the head portion includes a contact area, which is configured to make contact with a corresponding contact pad (para. 62 - 120a is a region connected to the external terminal of a semiconductor wafer) on the electronic device under test during testing;
the body portion (130a) is located between the head portion and the tail portion and extends according to a longitudinal development axis (Y-axis);
a transverse cross-section (A-A’) of the body portion is perpendicular to the longitudinal development axis, wherein the transverse cross-section has a wide edge (width along X; fig. 2A) and a thick edge (thickness along Z; figs. 2B,9B), the wide edge represents a width of the body portion, while the thick edge represents a thickness of the body portion (130a);
a length of the probe is greater than the thickness of the body portion (figs. 2A,9A); and
the body portion (130a) has a multilayer structure which comprises a plurality of layers (131a) and at least one slit (132a; abs. - body region includes at least two beam portions spaced apart by a slit and comprises a functional layer inside the slit), wherein the plurality of layers are separated along the wide edge (width along X; fig. 2A), the at least one slit divides the plurality of layers (131a), and the thickness of the body portion is greater than or equal to the width of the body portion (fig. 9B).
Regarding claim 3, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to Claim 1, wherein: when the contact area of the head portion (120a) is pressed against the electronic device under test (para. 3 - electrically conductive contact pins and the external terminals are brought into contact), the plurality of layers are bent into an arch shape (figs. 2,9); and a bending direction of the plurality of layers (131a) is a direction corresponding to the wide edge (X-direction).
Regarding claim 4, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to Claim 3, wherein the plurality of layers (131a) are also arched even when the contact area of the head portion is not pressed against the electronic device under test (figs. 2,9).
Regarding claim 5, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to any of Claims 1, wherein the transverse cross-section of the body portion is substantially rectangular (figs. 2B,9B) or substantially trapezoidal.
Regarding claim 6, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to any of Claims 1, wherein a transverse cross-section of at least one of the plurality of layers is substantially rectangular (figs. 2B,9B) or substantially trapezoidal.
Regarding claim 7, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to Claim 1, wherein the probe comprises a plurality of slits (132a; figs 9), and a plurality of widths corresponding to the plurality of slits are not completely the same with each other.
Regarding claim 8, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to Claim 1, wherein a plurality of widths corresponding to the plurality of layers (131a; figs 9) are not completely the same with each other.
Regarding claim 9, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the areas and cross-sectional shapes of a plurality of transverse cross-sections of at least one of the plurality of layers on the longitudinal development axis are not completely the same with each other (fig. 9F).
Regarding claim 10, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-16 the probe according to Claim 1, wherein at least one of the areas and cross-sectional shapes of a plurality of transverse cross-sections corresponding to the plurality of layers on the longitudinal development axis are not completely the same with each other (fig. 9F).
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-13, 19-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by AHN et al. (US 12618870; hereinafter AHN).
Regarding claim 1, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 a probe for physically contacting an electronic device under test, comprising
a head portion (125,127; fig. 6b), a tail portion (110) and a body portion (130,140,160), wherein: the head portion includes a contact area (127), which is configured to make contact with a corresponding contact pad (WP; fig. 2) on the electronic device under test (W) during testing;
the body portion (125,127) is located between the head portion and the tail portion and extends according to a longitudinal development axis (along 7/Y; figs. 2,6,7);
a transverse cross-section (A-A’; fig. 9) of the body portion is perpendicular to the longitudinal development axis, wherein the transverse cross-section has a wide edge (H) and a thick edge (137/130), the wide edge represents a width of the body portion, while the thick edge represents a thickness of the body portion;
a length of the probe (100,7; fig. 13) is greater than the thickness of the body portion; and
the body portion (130,140,160) has a multilayer structure which comprises a plurality of layers (multiple layers 160 between 180) and at least one slit (180), wherein the plurality of layers are separated along the wide edge, the at least one slit divides the plurality of layers (160), and the thickness (137/130) of the body portion is greater than or equal to the width (H) of the body portion.
Regarding claim 2, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe according to Claim 1, wherein: a length of each layer (160) among the plurality of layers is greater than a thickness (137/130) of the same layer; the thickness of the same layer is greater than a width (H) of the same layer; and the thickness of the body portion is equal to the thickness of at least one of the plurality of layers (figs. 6-7).
Regarding claim 12, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe according to Claim 1, wherein a transverse cross-section of the head portion is substantially rectangular (figs. 6,8).
Regarding claim 13, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 a probe head of a probe system for testing an electronic device under test integrated on a semiconductor wafer (W; fig. 1), comprising an upper guide plate unit (5), a lower guide plate unit (6) and a plurality of probes (100,7; figs. 1,13), wherein:
each of the probes (100; figs. 5-6) comprises a head portion (125,127; fig. 6b), a tail portion (110) and a body portion (130,140,160), wherein the head portion comprises a contact area (127) and the contact area is configured to make contact with a corresponding contact pad (WP; figs. 1,13) on the electronic device under test (W) during testing;
each of the upper guide plate unit (GP1,5; figs. 13) and the lower guide plate unit (GP2,6) comprises a plurality of guide holes, each of the guide holes in the upper guide plate unit is sized to accommodate the tail portion of each probe, each of the guide holes in the lower guide plate unit is sized to accommodate the head portion of each probe, and each probe passes through one of the plurality of guide holes included in the upper guide plate unit and one of the plurality of guide holes included in the lower guide plate unit simultaneously (figs. 13);
the body portion (125,127) of each probe is located between the head portion and the tail portion of the same probe and extends according to a longitudinal development axis (along 7/Y; figs. 2,6,7);
a transverse cross-section of the body portion (125,127) of each probe is perpendicular to the longitudinal development axis, wherein the transverse cross-section has a wide edge (H) and a thick edge (137/130), the wide edge represents a width of the body portion, while the thick edge represents a thickness of the body portion;
the body portion (130,140,160) has a multilayer structure which comprises a plurality of layers (multiple layers 160 between 180) and at least one slit (180), wherein the plurality of layers are separated along the wide edge, the at least one slit divides the plurality of layers (160); and
a length of each probe (100,7) is greater than the thickness of the body portion of the same probe, and the thickness (137/130) of the same body portion is greater than or equal to the width (H) of the same body portion.
Regarding claim 19, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13, wherein a transverse cross-section of each guide hole is substantially rectangular (figs. 6,8).
Regarding claim 20, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13, wherein: among the plurality of layers (160) included in each probe (100,7), a length of each layer is greater than a thickness (137/130) of the same layer, the thickness of the same layer is greater than a width (H) of the same layer, and the thickness of the body portion includes a plurality of thicknesses corresponding to the plurality of layers (160).
Regarding claim 21, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13, wherein: the plurality of layers (160) included in each probe are bent into an arch shape (figs. 7,13) when the contact area of the head portion (125,127) of the same probe is pressed against the electronic device under test (W); and a bending direction of the plurality of layers included in each probe is a wide edge direction (X) corresponding to the body portion of the same probe.
Regarding claim 22, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 21, wherein the plurality of layers (160) included in each probe are also arched even when the contact area of the head portion of the same probe is not pressed against the electronic device under test (figs. 6,8).
Regarding claim 23, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13, wherein the transverse cross-section of the body portion of each probe is substantially rectangular (figs. 8-9) or substantially trapezoidal.
Regarding claim 24, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13, wherein the number of the at least one slit included in each probe is plural, and a plurality of widths corresponding to the plurality of slits (180) included in each probe are not completely the same with each other (figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 25, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13, wherein a plurality of widths corresponding to the plurality of layers (160) included in each probe are not completely the same with each other (figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 27, AHN discloses in figure(s) 1-13 a probe card (1) of a probe system for testing an electronic device under test integrated on a semiconductor wafer, comprising:
a circuit board (2);
a space transformer (3), being arranged on the circuit board; and the probe head (100,7) according to Claim 13, being arranged on the other side of the space transformer opposite to the circuit board (2), and the tail portion of each probe among the plurality of probes in the probe head is configured to be electrically connected to the space transformer (3).
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 of this title, 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) 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN in view of KIM et al. (US 20180299490).
Regarding claim 11, AHN teaches in figure(s) 1-13 the probe according to Claim 1,
AHN does not teach explicitly wherein a first interval exists between a body geometric center line of the body portion and a head geometric center line of the head portion in a direction corresponding to the wide edge of the body portion, and a second interval exists between the body geometric center line and the head geometric center line in a direction corresponding to the thick edge of the body portion.
However, KIM teaches in figure(s) 1-8 wherein a first interval exists between a body geometric center line of the body portion and a head geometric center line of the head portion in a direction corresponding to the wide edge of the body portion, and a second interval exists between the body geometric center line and the head geometric center line in a direction corresponding to the thick edge of the body portion (body and head having different centers in fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of AHN by having wherein a first interval exists between a body geometric center line of the body portion and a head geometric center line of the head portion in a direction corresponding to the wide edge of the body portion, and a second interval exists between the body geometric center line and the head geometric center line in a direction corresponding to the thick edge of the body portion as taught by KIM in order to provide "beam has a larger width that exceeds a sum of widths of the at least two tips in a width direction of the beam such that the probe has an improved current carrying capacity and is prevented from being damaged due to overcurrent" (abstract).
Regarding claim 18, AHN teaches in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13,
AHN does not teach explicitly wherein a body geometric center line and a head geometric center line of each probe have a first interval therebetween in a wide edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe, and have a second interval therebetween in a thick edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe.
However, KIM teaches in figure(s) 1-8 wherein a body geometric center line and a head geometric center line of each probe have a first interval therebetween in a wide edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe, and have a second interval therebetween in a thick edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of AHN by having wherein a body geometric center line and a head geometric center line of each probe have a first interval therebetween in a wide edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe, and have a second interval therebetween in a thick edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe as taught by KIM in order to provide "beam has a larger width that exceeds a sum of widths of the at least two tips in a width direction of the beam such that the probe has an improved current carrying capacity and is prevented from being damaged due to overcurrent" (abstract).
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN in view of MORI et al. (US 20230266365).
Regarding claim 14, AHN teaches in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13,
AHN does not teach explicitly wherein two ends of each probe are offset by a first distance through the upper guide plate unit and the lower guide plate unit in a thick edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe.
However, MORI teaches in figure(s) 1-17 wherein two ends of each probe are offset by a first distance through the upper guide plate unit and the lower guide plate unit in a thick edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of AHN by having wherein two ends of each probe are offset by a first distance through the upper guide plate unit and the lower guide plate unit in a thick edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe as taught by MORI in order to provide "a probe card that enables probes to be arranged at a narrow pitch while causing the probes being inserted through guide holes of a guide plate to be locked to the guide plate so as not to fall out." (abstract).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN in view of Perego et al. (US 20180052190).
Regarding claim 16, AHN teaches in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13,
AHN does not teach explicitly wherein the plurality of probes comprise at least one probe pair, and a body pitch of each probe pair is smaller than a head pitch of the same probe pair.
However, Perego teaches in figure(s) 1-7 wherein the plurality of probes comprise at least one probe pair, and a body pitch of each probe pair is smaller than a head pitch of the same probe pair (23A vs. 22A in figs. 2,4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of AHN by having wherein the plurality of probes comprise at least one probe pair, and a body pitch of each probe pair is smaller than a head pitch of the same probe pair as taught by Perego in order to provide "fine pitch devices require realizing, in those ceramic guides, guide holes having a probe-hole tolerance reduced by 20-40% with respect to the commercially available devices " (para. 23).
Regarding claim 17, AHN teaches in figure(s) 1-13 the probe head according to Claim 13,
AHN does not teach explicitly wherein the plurality of probes comprise at least one probe pair, and a body pitch of each probe pair is smaller than a center pitch of two contact areas of two head portions of the same probe pair.
However, Perego teaches in figure(s) 1-7 wherein the plurality of probes comprise at least one probe pair, and a body pitch of each probe pair is smaller than a center pitch of two contact areas of two head portions of the same probe pair (variable pitches of 21* and 24* figs. 2,4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of AHN by having wherein the plurality of probes comprise at least one probe pair, and a body pitch of each probe pair is smaller than a center pitch of two contact areas of two head portions of the same probe pair as taught by Perego in order to provide "at least one of the lower guide and upper guide is equipped with at least one recessed portion formed at a plurality of those guide holes and realizing lowered portions thereof adapted to reduce a thickness of the plurality of those guide holes. " (abstract).
Claim(s) 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN in view of NAGASHIMA et al. (US 20180252765).
Regarding claim 28, AHN teaches in figure(s) 1-13 a probe system for functional testing of an electronic device under test integrated on a semiconductor wafer, comprising: probe card according to Claim 27,
AHN does not teach explicitly a chuck, being configured to support the semiconductor wafer; a test apparatus, being configured to be electrically connected with the electronic device under test for establishing an electrical test procedure; and the probe card being arranged in the test apparatus.
However, NAGASHIMA teaches in figure(s) 1-14 a chuck (16; fig. 10A), being configured to support the semiconductor wafer (W); a test apparatus (20; fig. 1), being configured to be electrically connected with the electronic device under test for establishing an electrical test procedure; and the probe card (18) being arranged in the test apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of AHN by having a chuck, being configured to support the semiconductor wafer; a test apparatus, being configured to be electrically connected with the electronic device under test for establishing an electrical test procedure; and the probe card being arranged in the test apparatus as taught by NAGASHIMA in order to provide "a prober and a probe contact method for bringing electrode pads on a wafer held by a wafer chuck into contact with probes provided on a probe card." (para. 2).
Claim(s) 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AHN in view of Miller et al. (US 20050225382).
Regarding claim 29, AHN teaches in figure(s) 1-13 An electronic device under test, on which a high-frequency test procedure is performed using the probe card according to Claim 27,
AHN does not teach explicitly wherein the high-frequency test procedure uses a high- frequency signal for testing, and the high-frequency test procedure is a loopback test procedure.
However, Miller teaches in figure(s) 1-10 wherein the high-frequency test procedure uses a high- frequency signal for testing, and the high-frequency test procedure is a loopback test procedure (para. 15 - a DC path is provided from a “loop-back” connection between pads of an IC to test circuitry without substantially degrading the high frequency characteristics of the interconnect between the IC pads; figs. 1,6-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of AHN by having wherein the high-frequency test procedure uses a high- frequency signal for testing, and the high-frequency test procedure is a loopback test procedure as taught by Miller in order to provide "circuitry enabling transmission of high frequency signals through a connection, while simultaneously providing a DC path from the connection to an attached circuit with the high frequency AC signals to the attached circuit blocked." (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 15 and 26 are 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 15, the prior arts of record do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein: the two ends of each probe are further offset by a second distance through the upper guide plate unit and the lower guide plate unit in a wide edge direction corresponding to the body portion of the same probe; and the second distance is greater than the first distance” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 26, the prior arts of record do not fairly teach or suggest “wherein: each probe takes a plane formed by the thick edge of the transverse cross-section of the body portion included in the probe and a long edge of the same probe as a buckling surface; the plurality of probes comprise at least one probe pair, and two probes in each probe pair have the same buckling direction; and the two probes in each probe pair face each other with a plane formed by the wide edge of the transverse cross-section of the respective body portion and a long edge of the same probe, and the buckling direction of the two probes is perpendicular to a connecting line direction of the two head portions of the two probes, thereby shortening a minimum allowable pitch between the body portions of the two probes” including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HSIEH et al. (US 20220170960) discloses " A probe card device and a dual-arm probe".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKM ZAKARIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0664. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-5 PM (PST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Judy Nguyen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKM ZAKARIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights