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 5/22/2025, 11/26/2025, and 4/13/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, please establish an antecedent basis for a pressure sensor which performs the limitation “measuring a second stress…” as claimed. The claim is identified below as allowable, subject to an amendment establishing a pressure sensor.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-6, 8, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,990,695 (Daugherty).
Regarding claim 1, Daugherty teaches a supporting structure of a membrane probe card, wherein the supporting structure is disposed between a substrate and a membrane fixed to the substrate to support a test area of the membrane (test probe 10 includes a supporting structure comprising components 20, 22, 24, 26 arranged between substrate 28 and a membrane 16 having a testing area corresponding to contacts 18; see Fig. 1; see col. 3, lines 9-21), the supporting structure comprising:
a frame body, configured to contact with the membrane (a frame body comprises 20, 24, 26 which makes contact with membrane 16; see Fig. 1);
a fixture, configured to fixate the frame body on the substrate and confine the frame body to be movable along a direction perpendicular to the substrate, wherein the fixture has a plurality of through holes (adjustment ring 22 includes through holes accommodating adjustable plunger 44 and allows the rigid pressure pad 20 to be moveable perpendicular to and substrate 28; see Fig. 4);
a plurality of adjustment mechanisms, movably and tightly disposed in the through holes, respectively (plunger 44 are arranged in the through holes; see Fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 15-26); and
a plurality of first elastic structures, disposed in a first space of the frame body and corresponding in position to the adjustment mechanisms (springs 46 are arranged in a space of plunger pad 38 of the lever ring 24 of the frame body; see Fig. 1), respectively,
wherein the adjustment mechanisms are configured to adjust elastic forces of the first elastic structures (“Each coil spring 46 has one end in a blind hole in plunger pad 38 and an opposite end in threaded hole 50 and abutting the lower end of the set screws 48. Set screws 48 are turned or screwed individually in threaded holes 50 to locate glass pressure plate 20 in a desired plane (usually parallel to test circuit 19 and level) and to tension membrane 16 in a precise manner.” See Fig. 1; see col. 4, lines 8-26).
Regarding claim 5, Daugherty teaches wherein the through holes have threads, and the adjustment mechanisms are screws engaging with the threads and rotate relative to the threads to move in the direction perpendicular to the substrate (the set screws 48 screw into threaded holes 50; see col. 4, line 15-26; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Daugherty teaches wherein each of the adjustment mechanisms is configured to adjust the elastic force of the corresponding one of the first elastic structures (plungers 44 comprise set screws 48 and springs 46, wherein the set screws 48 adjust compression of the springs 46; see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Daugherty teaches wherein the elastic forces of the first elastic structures being adjusted make the test area of the membrane be kept at a predetermined flatness (the set screws are adjusted to keep pressure plate 20 in a desired plane; see col. 4, lines 15-26; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Daugherty teaches wherein, from a top-view perspective, the adjustment mechanisms are aligned in a straight line extending in a first direction; and wherein, from a top-view perspective, the adjustment mechanisms are arranged in an N×M matrix, where N and M are positive integers (any two of the plungers 44 may be interpreted as in a straight line and four plungers are interpreted as being in a 2x2 matrix; see Fig. 4).
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,990,695 (Daugherty) in view of US 5,461,326 (Woith).
Regarding claims 2-4, Daugherty teaches wherein the first elastic structures each comprises: a first end; and a second end, in contact with the frame body (see Fig. 1); and wherein the first elastic structures are springs (springs 46 of Fig. 1), and a distance between the first end and the second end correlates with elastic forces of the first elastic structures (this is an inherent physical property of springs), wherein the adjustment mechanisms are configured to adjust the distance between the first end and the second end (see Fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 8-26).
Daugherty fails to teach further comprising: a plurality of plates, each disposed between a corresponding one of the adjustment mechanisms and a corresponding one of the first elastic structures; and wherein the first elastic structures each comprises: a first end, in contact with a corresponding one of the plates; and wherein the adjustment mechanisms are configured to adjust positions of the plates so as to adjust the distance between the first end and the second end.
Woith teaches comprising: a plurality of plates, each disposed between a corresponding one of the adjustment mechanisms and a corresponding one of the first elastic structures; and wherein the first elastic structures each comprises: a first end, in contact with a corresponding one of the plates; and wherein the adjustment mechanisms are configured to adjust positions of the plates so as to adjust the distance between the first end and the second end (Disc 52 is positioned between the set screw 56 and spring 50 with spring 50 arranged between disc 52 and pressure plate 30 and changing the set screw changes the compression of each spring 50. The limitations of claims 2-4 would be achieved by placing disc 52 as disclosed between screw 56 and spring 50 of Woith between set screws 48 and springs 46 of Daugherty. See col. 4, lines 19-21; and col. 5, line 55 – col. 6, line 1; see Fig. 1).
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 Woith into Daugherty in order to gain the advantage of a disc positioned between each set screw and spring as claimed of Daugherty whereby a threaded adjustment of the set screw adjusts the force of the spring and wherein using discs of different thickness allows for adjustment of spring length and membrane tension.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,990,695 (Daugherty).
Regarding claim 7, Daugherty fails to explicitly teach wherein the elastic forces of the first elastic structures being adjusted make probes of the membrane have equalized contact stress to a device under test, however Daugherty teaches wherein the set screws are set to locate the pressure plate 20 in a desired plane (usually parallel to test circuit 19 and level) which would require equalized contact stress when the plane is parallel to the test circuit.
Regarding claim 9, Daugherty fails to teach further comprising: a plurality of second elastic structures, disposed in a second space of the frame body and corresponding in position to the adjustment mechanisms, respectively, wherein the adjustment mechanisms are configured to adjust elastic forces of the second elastic structures, respectively, however, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations amount to a mere duplication of parts as disclosed in Daugherty which would allow for the test frame to hold multiple probe cards in order to test multiple test circuits.
Regarding claim 10, Daugherty fails to teach wherein the adjusted elastic forces of the second elastic structures being adjusted make probes of the membrane have equalized contact stress to a device under test, however, Daugherty teaches wherein the set screws are set to locate the pressure plate 20 in a desired plane (usually parallel to test circuit 19 and level) which would require equalized contact stress when the plane is parallel to the test circuit. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include multiple probe cards for testing multiple test circuits, wherein each probe card is adjusted such that the pressure plate of each card is in a desired plane parallel to a respective test circuit.
Regarding claim 11, Daugherty fails to explicitly teach wherein the elastic forces of the first elastic structures being adjusted are equal to or not equal to the elastic forces of the second elastic structures being adjusted, however, the limitations as claimed encompasses all physical possibilities. Since claim 11 amounts to a mere duplication of parts, duplicating the elastic structures would inherently require the elastic structures to be equal or not equal. MPEP 608.01(n)III. states:
Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. For example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. A dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) simply because there is a question as to the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim.
Claim 11 states wherein the elastic forces “are equal to or not equal to”. This would seemingly be inherent to claim 10 as it incorporates all physical possibilities which begs the question whether claim 11 further limits claim 10. The examiner proposes incorporating the amendments of claim 11 into claim 10 in order to avoid concerns regarding 35 US 112(d).
Claim(s) 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,990,695 (Daugherty) over EP 0999451 (herein reference “Kasukabe” and provided by applicant in the IDS filed 11/26/2025).
Regarding claim 12, Daugherty fails to explicitly teach wherein the membrane comprises a plurality of probes thereon, wherein the second elastic structures each corresponds in position to at least one of the probes, and the elastic forces of the second elastic structures being adjusted cause a contact stress exerted by at least one of the probes on a device under test to be not equal to a contact stress exerted by at least another one of the probes on the device under test.
Kasukabe teaches wherein the membrane comprises a plurality of probes thereon, wherein the second elastic structures each corresponds in position to at least one of the probes, and the elastic forces of the second elastic structures being adjusted cause a contact stress exerted by at least one of the probes on a device under test to be not equal to a contact stress exerted by at least another one of the probes on the device under test (Fig. 13 teaches wherein multiple supporting structures 91 each comprise multiple elastic structures in the form of springs and contact probes 47 on a membrane (multilayer wiring film 44). As best understood by the examiner, the limitations as claimed would be obvious by duplicating the test probe disclosed in Fig. 1 of Daugherty on the membrane in an equivalent manner as illustrated in Fig. 13 of Kasukabe).
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 Kasukabe into Daugherty in order to gain the advantage of a thin film wiring sheet is pressed by a plurality of holding members thereby to apply contact pressure as taught in Kasukabe with each holding member adjusted to apply the holding members in a desired plane parallel to the test circuit and to tension the membrane in a precise manner.
Regarding claim 16, Daugherty fails to teach further comprising: an elastomer, disposed between the frame body and the membrane.
Kasukabe teaches further comprising: an elastomer, disposed between the frame body and the membrane (a buffer layer 46 made from an elastomer is arranged between the holding member 43 and the multilayer wiring film 44; see Fig. 2; see [0069], [0116]).
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 Kasukabe into Daugherty in order to gain the advantage of alleviating the whole shick generated when the tip of a multiplicity of the contact terminals come into contact with the electrodes arranged on the semiconductor wafer to absorb by local deformation the variations of the height of the tips of individual contact terminals to ensure contact by uniform bite conforming with the variation of the height of the contacted members arranged on the silicon wafer.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,990,695 (Daugherty) over US 2022/0357362 (Kaida).
Regarding claim 15, Daugherty fails to teach wherein, from a top-view perspective, the adjustment mechanisms are arranged in a plurality of rows each extending in a first direction, wherein the adjustment mechanisms in each one of the rows are equidistant, and the adjustment mechanisms arranged in any two adjacent ones of the rows are in a staggered arrangement in a second direction, with the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction.
Kaida teaches wherein, from a top-view perspective, the adjustment mechanisms are arranged in a plurality of rows each extending in a first direction, wherein the adjustment mechanisms in each one of the rows are equidistant, and the adjustment mechanisms arranged in any two adjacent ones of the rows are in a staggered arrangement in a second direction, with the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (Figs. 3 and 4 and [0043] teaches wherein test electrodes are configured in a staggered arrangement and the limitations as claimed would be obvious for one ordinary skill in the art by staggering the probes of Daugherty in a manner as disclosed in Kaida.).
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 Kaida into Daugherty in order to gain the advantage of staggering the adjustment mechanisms of the probes in Daugherty in order to match the arrangement of test pads arranged on a test circuit if the test circuit has test pads arranged in a staggered configuration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest further comprising: a pressure sensor, configured to measure a second stress between the frame body and the membrane, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
While it is generally known to measure a pressure/force/stress within a probe card to avoid applying excessive force and/or to ensure adequate contact between the probes and a device under test, the examiner is unable to identify a reference which measures the stress between a frame body as claimed or as illustrated by pressure sensor 170 in Fig. 13 of the pending application or which would be compatible with the embodiment of claim 1 in an obvious manner.
For example:
US 5,894,161 includes a pressure sensing mechanism 52 comprising a piezoresistve sensing layer in Fig. 3, however, the reference is silent as to a membrane as claimed or “measuring the stress between the frame body and the membrane” as claimed.
US 5,847,571 teaches in Fig. 1d a system having a membrane assembly 23 and wherein a pressure transducer 29 measures a pressure of a chamber 25, however, this system adjust the pressure by “opening and closing the valves in lines 27, 28 to maintain the desired pressure level in chamber 25.” See col. 3, lines 43-54 of US 5,847,571. It is not obvious how a pressure transducer as disclosed in US 5,847,161 would be compatible or incorporated with “a plurality of adjustment mechanisms” and “a plurality of first elastic structures” as recited in claim 1. See also US 5,604,446 which teaches a similar system.
US 2015/021971 teaches a weight sensor 324 (see Fig. 5) which measures a weight or force applied to the probe card, however, the reference is silent as to a membrane as claimed or “measuring the stress between the frame body and the membrane” as claimed. It would not be obvious to combine the weight sensor of US 2015/021971 with “a plurality of adjustment mechanisms” and “a plurality of first elastic structures” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 18, definite and enabled by the specification, is objected to through a dependence on object claim 17.
Claim 19 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art of record is US 5,990,695 (Daugherty) which teaches a test method for a membrane probe card, wherein the membrane probe card comprising a substrate, a supporting structure and a membrane, wherein the supporting structure is disposed between the substrate and the membrane and configured to support a test area in the membrane, the test method comprising the steps of:
applying a first stress to the substrate to not only allow the test area of the membrane probe card to be in contact with a device under test but also allow a first contact stress to exist between the test area and the device under test;
adjusting an elastic force of at least one of a plurality of elastic structures.
The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest measuring a second stress between the supporting structure and the test area; adjusting an elastic force of at least one of a plurality of elastic structures in the supporting structure according to the second stress; and applying the first stress to the substrate to not only allow the test area of the membrane probe card to be in contact with the device under test but also allow a second contact stress to exist between the test area and the device under test, wherein the second contact stress and the first contact stress are not equal, in combination with all other limitation of claim 17. The claim is allowed for similar reasons as outlined for claim 1 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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