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 03/31/2026 and 01/13/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites a term “the cantilever converting probes” in the last line. Examiner suggests amending the term to recite “the cantilever converting probe” to restore clarity.
Claim 19 recites a term “proving” in line 1. Examiner suggests amending the term to recite “providing” to restore clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11, 13 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The rationale for this finding is explained below:
Claim(s) 2 and 11 recite a limitation "the fixing portion" in lines 5 and 4, respectively, before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s).
Claim 4 recites a limitation "the base" in the last line. It is unclear if it refers to antecedent element “a probe base” or “a base frame”.
Claim 8 recites a limitation "each coaxial cable" in lines 4-5 before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 recite a limitation “the fixed section” before introduction. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s).
Dependent Claim(s) 3 not specifically addressed share the same 112(b) rejection as the rejected base Claim. 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, 4, 9-10, 12-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sasaki et al. (US 20100001748; hereinafter Sasaki).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 a probe card, suitable for conducting a wafer acceptance test on a wafer, the probe card comprising:
a circuit board (84; fig. 11);
a cantilever-type space transformer (82), electrically connected to the circuit board; and
a vertical probe head (81,83), electrically connected to the cantilever-type space transformer (82), the vertical probe head comprising:
a probe base, comprising an upper guide plate unit and a lower guide plate unit, wherein the upper guide plate unit (83) comprises at least one upper guide plate and an upper guide hole penetrating through the at least one upper guide plate, the lower guide plate unit (81) comprises at least one lower guide plate and a lower guide hole penetrating through the at least one lower guide plate, and the upper guide plate unit and the lower guide plate unit respectively have an upper surface and a bottom surface, wherein an accommodating space is formed between the lower surface of the upper guide plate unit and the upper surface of the lower guide plate unit; and
a vertical probe (9), comprising a probe tail, a probe body, and a probe tip, wherein the probe tail passes through the at least one upper guide hole, the probe body is positioned within the accommodating space, and the probe tip passes through the at least one lower guide hole;
wherein the cantilever-type space transformer (82) comprises a mounting base (86,84/8) and a cantilever converting probe (81), the cantilever converting probe comprises a fixed segment (17 cantilever leaf spring on both sides) and an exposed segment (tip side of probe 9), the fixed segment is secured to the mounting base (86/8), the exposed segment is outside the mounting base, and the fixed segment enters from a lateral side of the mounting base and forms a contact on the bottom surface of the mounting base.
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 the probe card according to claim 1, wherein the cantilever-type space transformer (82) is disposed on the circuit board (84), the mounting base (86,84/8) comprises a base frame (86) and a fixing portion (85) , wherein the base frame comprises an upper surface facing the circuit board and a first through-hole, while the fixing portion (85) is positioned within the first through-hole and extends to the upper surface of the base.
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 the probe card according to claim 1, wherein the probe card further comprises a reinforcing member (86), the reinforcing member detachably mounted on the circuit board (84), the mounting base is connected to the reinforcing member.
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 the probe card according to claim 9, wherein the reinforcing member is secured on the circuit board by a fastening element (85).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 the probe card according to claim 1, wherein the material of the cantilever converting probe is beryllium, copper (para. 112 - beryllium copper; 17 fig. 4), rhenium, tungsten, gold, silver, or an alloy selected from at least two of thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 the probe card according to claim 1, wherein the pad of each cantilever converting probe is either an end portion on a probe body of the fixed section, or a pad (para. 3 - robes into contact with electrode pads on the semiconductor wafer) coupled to the end portion of the probe body of the fixed section.
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 the probe card according to claim 1, wherein the fixed section is formed as a conical shape (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 a test method comprising: proving the probe card according to claim 1; making a plurality of probe tips of the vertical probe of the probe card correspondingly contact with a plurality of conductive pads of a device under test (pads of 5; fig. 4); and transmitting a test signal to the device under test through the probe card.
Regarding claim 20, Sasaki discloses in figure(s) 1-11 a testing system, comprising: a carrying chuck (50; fig. 4) suitable for carrying a device under test (5); and a probe card according to claim 1, wherein the probe card is electrically connected to the device under test through a contact between the vertical probe of the probe card and the device under test.
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) 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Sadeghian et al. (US 11029329).
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki teaches in figure(s) 1-11 the probe card according to claim 1,
Sasaki does not teach explicitly wherein a hardness of the cantilever converting probe is greater than 245 MPa, and the resistance of the cantilever converting probe is less than 200 mΩ.
However, Sadeghian teaches in figure(s) 1-7 wherein a hardness of the cantilever converting probe is greater than 245 MPa (col. 6 lines 24-26 :– hardness 1 MPa to 40 GPa; fig. 1), and the resistance of the cantilever converting probe is less than 200 mΩ (col. 8 line 36 - a low resistance coupling).
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 Sasaki by having wherein a hardness of the cantilever converting probe is greater than 245 MPa, and the resistance of the cantilever converting probe is less than 200 mΩ as taught by Sadeghian in order to provide "a method of detecting structures on or below the surface of a sample using a probe including a cantilever and a probe tip… apparatus for enabling detection of structures on or below the surface of a sample, which structures may have one or more characteristic dimensions of only a few nanometers or less, and which may even be covered by one or more overlapping dense or hard layers" (abstract, col. 2 lines 40-50).
Claim(s) 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki in view of Talanov et al. (US 20040100279).
Regarding claim 16, Sasaki teaches in figure(s) 1-11 a method for designing probe card, wherein the probe card comprises a circuit board (84; fig. 11), a cantilever-type space transformer (82), and a vertical probe head (81,83), the cantilever-type space transformer (82) is electrically connected to the circuit board (84), and the vertical probe head (81,83) is electrically connected to the cantilever-type space transformer (82), the cantilever-type space transformer comprises a mounting base (86,84/8) and a plurality of cantilever converting probes (9) comprising a first converting probe and a second converting probe that are adjacent to each other, and the method comprises a step of:
Sasaki does not teach explicitly adjusting an actual coupling capacitance between the first and second converting probes to meet a coupling capacitance threshold based on a distance between ends of the first converting probe and the second converting probe, under a condition that distance between the ends of the first and second converting probes is fixed.
However, Talanov teaches in figure(s) 1-4 adjusting an actual coupling capacitance (CC1,CC2 ; fig. 1) between the first and second converting probes (22,24; fig. 2) to meet a coupling capacitance threshold (para. 56 – equation 3) based on a distance between ends of the first converting probe and the second converting probe (distance control 44), under a condition that distance between the ends of the first and second converting probes is fixed.
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 Sasaki by having adjusting an actual coupling capacitance between the first and second converting probes to meet a coupling capacitance threshold based on a distance between ends of the first converting probe and the second converting probe, under a condition that distance between the ends of the first and second converting probes is fixed as taught by Talanov in order to provide "the microwave capacitance of the test structure is calculated based on measured resonant frequencies of the near field microwave probe for the miniature structure under test and the uniform metallic pad. The distance between the near field microwave probe and the uniform metallic pad is maintained equal to the distance between the near field microwave probe and the test structure by a distance control mechanism during the testing." (para. 3).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pagani et al. (US 20100308855) discloses "a probe card adapted for testing at least one integrated circuit integrated on a corresponding at least one die of a semiconductor material wafer, the probe card including a board adapted for the coupling to a tester apparatus, and a plurality of probes coupled to the said board, wherein the probe card comprises a plurality of replaceable elementary units, each one comprising at least one of said probes for contacting externally-accessible terminals of an integrated circuit under test".
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-8 and 17-18 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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11 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.
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