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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 01/25/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Dependent Claims 2-7 disclose the preamble “The elastic contactor of claim…” which is different from the preamble of Independent Claim 1; which disclosed the preamble “An elastic contactor with enhanced bonding…” Please change the preamble of the Dependent Claims so that they are consistent with the preamble of Independent Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…the contactor comprising a head tip formed of a hard metal material …” in lines 1-2 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “elastic contactor” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “contactor”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the elastic contactor”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…wherein the head tip includes a probe in an upper part that contacts a terminal, a barrel supporting part formed integrally with …” in lines 3-4 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “head tip formed of the hard metal material” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “head tip”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the head tip formed of the hard metal material”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a barrel supporting part formed integrally with the probe at a lower part of the probe in a middle …” in lines 3-5 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “probe in the upper part that contacts the terminal” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “probe”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the probe in the upper part that contacts the terminal”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a connecting part protruding below the barrel supporting part at a lower part and …” in lines 5-6 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “lower part of the probe in the middle” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “lower part”. Please provide proper clarification in order to clear up any possible confusion.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…wherein the body silicone includes a silicone bonding part in which an insertion groove is formed to receive the connecting part …” in lines 7-8 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “body silicone formed of the soft conductive material” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “body silicone”. If this is the case, then please change the limitation in question to “the body silicone formed of the soft conductive material”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…and a connecting part protruding below the barrel supporting part at a lower part and having at least bonding hole formed therein…” in lines 3-6 of Claim 1. The underlined limitation appears to be indefinite as it does not clarify the amount of “bonding holes” needed as minimum in order to cover said underlined limitation. Please make the proper correction in order to provide better clarification.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a bonding bar formed integrally with the silicone bonding part and inserted into the bonding hole…” in lines 7-9 of Claim 1. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “at least bonding hole” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “bonding hole”. Please make the proper correction in order to provide better clarification.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " wherein the bonding holes and bonding bars are provided in multiple numbers " in lines 2-3 of Claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of “bonding holes” before this point; there is a disclosure in Claim 1 of “at least bonding hole”. If it’s meant to mean the same limitation, please make the proper corrections for purposes of consistency as well as addressing the previously stated issues regarding “at least bonding hole”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " wherein the bonding holes and bonding bars are provided in multiple numbers " in lines 2-3 of Claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior disclosure of “bonding bars” before this point; there is a disclosure in Claim 1 of “a bonding bar formed integrally with the silicone bonding part”. If it’s meant to mean the same limitation, please make the proper corrections for purposes of consistency.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “…wherein the bonding hole is formed so that its vertical length is longer than its horizontal width…” in lines 2-3 of Claim 3. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “at least bonding hole” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “bonding hole”. Please make the proper correction in order to provide better clarification.
Clams 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Please make the proper corrections.
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.
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) 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi KR 102091339 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Choi; Machine Translation Provided by Examiner) in view of Lim et al. WO 2017126877 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Lim; Machine Translation Provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches an elastic contactor with enhanced bonding (Figs. 1, 2), the contactor comprising a head tip (Fig. 1; 12) formed of a hard metal material (Figs. 1, 2; Page 2, line 8 to Page 3, line 26),
wherein the head tip (Fig. 1; 12) includes a probe (Fig. 1; 12; Page 2, line 8 to Page 3, line 26) in an upper part that contacts a terminal (Fig. 1; 12; Page 2, line 8 to Page 3, line 26), a barrel supporting part (Figs. 1, 2; 11) formed integrally with the probe at a lower part of the probe in a middle (Figs. 1, 2; 11), and a connecting part (Figs. 1, 2; 13) protruding below the barrel supporting part (Figs. 1, 2; 11) at a lower part and having at least bonding hole formed therein (Figs. 1, 2; 13; Page 2, line 8 to Page 3, line 26).
Choi does not specifically teach a body silicone formed of a soft conductive material, and wherein the body silicone includes a silicone bonding part in which an insertion groove is formed to receive the connecting part, a bonding bar formed integrally with the silicone bonding part and inserted into the bonding hole, and a body part positioned below the silicone bonding part.
However, Lim does teach a body silicone formed of a soft conductive material (Page 4, lines 13-26; Page 6, line 22 to Page 7; silicone rubber), and wherein the body silicone includes a silicone bonding part in which an insertion groove is formed to receive the connecting part (Page 4, lines 13-26; Page 6, line 22 to Page 7; Page 12, lines 15-20; Page 17, line 27 to Page 18, line 3), a bonding bar (Page 4, lines 13-26; Page 6, line 22 to Page 7; Page 12, lines 15-20; Page 17, line 27 to Page 18, line 3) formed integrally with the silicone bonding part and inserted into the bonding hole (Page 4, lines 13-26; Page 6, line 22 to Page 7; Page 12, lines 15-20; Page 17, line 27 to Page 18, line 3), and a body part positioned below the silicone bonding part (Page 4, lines 13-26; Page 6, line 22 to Page 7; Page 12, lines 15-20; Page 17, line 27 to Page 18, line 3).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bimetal pogo pin of Choi by implementing the teachings of Lim regarding a body silicone formed of a soft conductive material, and wherein the body silicone includes a silicone bonding part in which an insertion groove is formed to receive the connecting part, a bonding bar formed integrally with the silicone bonding part and inserted into the bonding hole, and a body part positioned below the silicone bonding part; for the purpose of “performing stable electric characteristic inspection and an inspection unit having the same” (See Lim; Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Choi and Lim teaches the elastic contactor of claim 1, wherein Lim further teaches wherein the bonding holes and bonding bars are provided in multiple numbers and are spaced apart from each other in an upper and lower directions of the connecting part and the insertion groove (Page 4, lines 13-26; Page 6, line 22 to Page 7; Page 12, lines 15-20; Page 17, line 27 to Page 18, line 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Choi and Lim teaches the elastic contactor of claim 1, wherein Choi further teaches wherein the bonding hole is formed so that its vertical length is longer than its horizontal width (Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Choi and Lim teaches the elastic contactor of claim 1, wherein Choi further teaches wherein the connecting part is formed in a cylindrical shape (Figs. 1, 2) protruding downward from the shaft supporting part and formed with flat bonding plane on one side (Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Choi and Lim teaches the elastic contactor of claim 1, wherein Lim further teaches wherein a length of the silicone bonding part coupled with the connecting part is shorter than a length of the body part (Page 6, line 22 to Page 7; Page 12, lines 15-20; Page 17, line 27 to Page 18, line 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1,
“…wherein the connecting part includes a convex part formed with a width smaller than that of the barrel supporting part; and a concave part formed with a width smaller than that of the convex part and arranged alternately with the convex part to form a concavo-convex structure with the convex part; and wherein the insertion groove includes a convex groove receiving the convex part; and a concave groove receiving the concave part and forming a hooking structure with the convex part.”
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1,
“…further comprising a contact part arranged at a lower part of the body part and in contact with the terminal, wherein a width of the body part is formed to be larger than a width of the contact part to form a step, and wherein a width of the barrel supporting part is the same as a width of the silicone bonding part.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kang et al. US 2016/0033551 - A socket for testing a semiconductor to electrically connect electrodes of a test device and contact balls of a semiconductor device with each other, including: contactors each of which has an upper end portion protruding to one side from a vertical line and a lower end portion protruding to the other side in such a way as to have elasticity by a structure that the upper end portion and the lower end portion are symmetric with each other; insulation parts each of which is made of an insulating elastic material and is formed integrally with the contactor to absorb the force generated when coming in contact with the contactor.
Cho et al. US 2021/0285984 - A semiconductor device test socket, wherein a shielding structure is formed around each contactor so as to prevent signal delay or distortion during a test process and thereby enhance the test reliability, is proposed. The test socket can include: a vertical probe having a contactor which has a contact terminal to be electrically connected to an external connection terminal of a semiconductor device, and a shielding structure which is formed by laminating a conductive material on the outer edge of the contactor and is electrically connected to a ground; and an elastic layer which is filled in the space between the contactor and the shielding structure.
Maruyama et al. US 2004/0266272 - A contactor has contact electrodes elastically deformable in a direction of thickness of the contactor so that the contactor can make a contact with a semiconductor device with an appropriate contact pressure. The contactor is positioned between the semiconductor device and a test board so as to electrically connect the semiconductor device to the test board. Each of a plurality of contact electrodes has a first contact electrode part, a second contact electrode part and a connecting part electrically connecting the first contact electrode part to the second contact electrode part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
