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 statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/13/2025 and 01/22/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 5b and 7a should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 3, it is suggested that the limitation recites “PEEK material” should be spelled out as --polyether ether ketone (PEEK) material-- to make it clearer.
In claim 16, line 6, it is suggested to remove the word “an” in the limitation “[[an]] an antenna” because it is duplicated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19078442 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the two sets of claims are only minor structural variations that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of person of ordinary skill are taken into consideration. The claim limitations of the copending Application No. 19078442 clearly anticipated the claim limitations of the pending application. They are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both containing same structure configured to do the same function.
Regarding claims 1-20, the limitations of the applicant’s claims are obvious variations of the mapped claims above. While the pending claims 1 and 20 use different vernacular than the copending claims 1 and 20 of Application No. 19078442, and also the depending claims are similar. For example, the pending claims 1 and 20 recite “the pusher comprising: a structure in which there are alternating layers of higher dielectric permittivity and layers of lower dielectric permittivity,” and the copending pending claims 1 and 20 recite “the pusher comprising: higher permittivity dielectric regions, and lower permittivity dielectric regions; wherein the higher permittivity regions and the lower permittivity regions form a structure of higher permittivity dielectric columns with lower permittivity dielectric regions between the columns, or a structure of a higher permittivity dielectric block with lower permittivity dielectric holes.” Also, the depending of pending claims 3-9 and 11-20 are similar to the depending of copending claims 5-20. One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the claims are directed to substantially the same invention, and their structures are the same with the copending claims. The principle difference is that the pending claims are broader in scope than the copending claims. It is generally understood that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Alternatively, the elimination of an element and its function is generally held to be within the skill of the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the claims 1-20 of pending application has the same structures and performed the same function as claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19078442.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, the limitation recites “wherein the layers of higher dielectric permittivity and the layers of lower dielectric permittivity extend in a first direction, which is within +/- 450 of a pushing direction” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that what is a first direction? What is a pushing direction? And where is +/- 450 of a pushing direction? Which direction is it?
Regarding claim 2, the limitation recites “wherein a ratio between a thickness of the layers of the higher dielectric permittivity and a thickness of the layers of lower dielectric permittivity is between 1:10 and 2:1” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that how does it determine a ratio between a thickness of the layers of the higher dielectric permittivity and a thickness of the layers of lower dielectric permittivity is between 1:10 and 2:1?
Regarding claim 3, the limitation recites “wherein the alternating layers comprise between 9 vol.% and 66.6 vol.% higher dielectric permittivity regions and between 91 vol.% and 33.3 vol.% lower dielectric permittivity regions” is unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that what is 9 vol.% and 66.6 vol.% higher dielectric permittivity regions? And what is 91 vol.% and 33.3 vol.% lower dielectric permittivity regions? Maybe a volume percentage of between 9 % and 66.6 % or between 20 % and 60 % and a lower dielectric constant dielectric region having a volume percentage of between 91 % and 33.3 %.
The claims fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts for achieving the functional result recited in the claim to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim.
Claims 2-19 are depending on claim 1, and are rejected the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Note: for compact prosecution purposes, the examiner interprets the claims above as best understood in the rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (U.S Publication No. 20210302467 A1) in view of
Regarding claim 1, Lei discloses a pusher for use in an automated test equipment to mechanically push a device under test into a device under test socket (which is a test kit for testing a device under test (DUT) includes a socket structure for containing the DUT, see fig. 1, abstract, paragraph [0055]-[0059]), the pusher (via a plunger structure 20 comprises a nest 210, and a pressing member 220 may be coupled to the upper side 210a of the nest 210; and the nest 210 is coupled to at least one nozzle 240 for vacuum gripping and/or holding the DUT 130 in the guide plate 120 mounted in the socket housing 100, see fig. 1, paragraph [0071] and [0074]) comprising:
a pusher comprises a structure (which is a plunger structure 20 comprises a nest 210, and a pressing member 220 may be coupled to the upper side 210a of the nest 210, see fig. 1, paragraph [0071]),
wherein the layers of higher dielectric permittivity and the layers of lower dielectric permittivity extend in a first direction, which is within +/- 450 of a pushing direction (see fig. 1, paragraph [0052], [0070] and [0071]).
Lei does not explicitly disclose a structure in which there are alternating layers of higher dielectric permittivity and layers of lower dielectric permittivity.
However, Lei discloses as shown in FIG. 1, the test kit la comprises a socket structure 10 and a plunge structure 20 detachable from the socket structure 10. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the socket structure 10 may comprise a socket housing 100 secured to a load board 30 such as a printed wiring board or a printed circuit board. The load board 30 may also be referred to as a test board. Although not explicitly depicted, it is understood that the load board 30 typically comprises a core (e.g., FR4 copper clad laminate core), a plurality of dielectric build-up layers, and traces on opposite surfaces of the core (see paragraph [0059]). Referring back to FIG. 1, the socket structure 10 may further comprise an annular socket base 150 for precision plunger alignment. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the socket base 150 may be made of monolithic anti-static materials including, but not limited to, anti-static FR4 having a dielectric constant of about 4.37, but is not limited thereto. The plunge structure 20 comprises a nest 210. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the nest 210 may be made of ESD control materials or static-dissipative materials including, but not limited to, PEEK having a dielectric constant of about 3.3, but is not limited thereto (see paragraph [0069] and [0071]). Lei further discloses the nest 210 is coupled to at least one nozzle 240 for vacuum gripping and/or holding the DUT 130 in the guide plate 120 mounted in the socket housing 100. For illustration purposes, two nozzles 240 are illustrated in FIG. 1. According to an embodiment of the present invention, for example, the nozzle 240 may be made of ESD control materials or static-dissipative materials including, but not limited to, ESD420 having a dielectric constant of about 5.63, but is not limited thereto (see paragraph [0074], which is the nozzle 240 forms a column having a dielectric constant of 5.63, which is higher than that of air. The nozzle 240 is surrounded by air).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention was made to modify the plurality of dielectric build-up layers in the pusher as taught by Lei having alternating layers of higher dielectric permittivity and layers of lower dielectric permittivity as claimed in order for improving the mechanical rigidity of the pusher, and the layer with low dielectric constant improves the electromagnetic transparency of the pusher.
Regarding claim 2, Lei discloses all the limitations of the pusher according to claim 1, except for specifying that wherein a ratio between a thickness of the layers of the higher dielectric permittivity and a thickness of the layers of lower dielectric permittivity is between 1:10 and 2:1.
However, Lei further discloses according to an embodiment of the present invention, the outer portion 152 has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the inner portion 151 (see paragraph [0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the thickness of the layers of the higher dielectric permittivity and a thickness of the layers of lower dielectric permittivity as taught by Lei having a ratio between 1:10 and 2:1, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Regarding claim 3, Lei discloses the pusher according to claim 1, wherein the alternating layers comprise between 9 vol.% and 66.6 vol.% higher dielectric permittivity regions and between 91 vol.% and 33.3 vol.% lower dielectric permittivity regions, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Regarding claim 11, Lei discloses the pusher according to The pusher according to wherein the layers of higher dielectric permittivity comprise a relative permittivity greater than 2 (see paragraph [0070] and [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Lei discloses the pusher according to claim 1, wherein the layers of higher dielectric permittivity are made of polymer or of polycarbonate or of quartz or of Teflon or of PEEK material (see paragraph [0071] and [0080]).
Regarding claim 13, Lei discloses the pusher according to claim 1, wherein the layers of lower dielectric permittivity comprise a relative permittivity less than or equal to 1.5, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Regarding claim 14, Lei discloses the pusher according to claim 1, wherein the layers of lower dielectric permittivity comprise air (which is the nozzle 240 forms a column having a dielectric constant of 5.63, which is higher than that of air. The nozzle 240 is surrounded by air inside the socket, see fig. 1, paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 15, Lei discloses the pusher according to claim 1, wherein the pushing direction is perpendicular, within a tolerance of +/−15°, to a far-field direction of an electrical field in a main lobe of an antenna of the device under test, or wherein the pushing direction is perpendicular, within a tolerance of +/−15°, to a main surface of device under test, or wherein the pushing direction is perpendicular, within a tolerance of +/−15°, to a main surface of device under test socket (see fig. 1, paragraph [0070] and [0071]).
Regarding claim 16, Lei discloses a test arrangement for testing a device under test, the test arrangement comprising: a device under test; a device under test socket; and a pusher according to claim 1; wherein the device under test comprises an antenna; and wherein the device under test is pushed into the device under test socket by the pusher in order to test the device under test (which is a test kit for testing a device under test (DUT) includes a socket structure for containing the DUT. The DUT comprises an antenna and radiates a RF signal, see paragraph [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, Lei discloses a method for mechanically pushing a device under test into a device under test socket of an automated test equipment (which is a test kit for testing a device under test (DUT) includes a socket structure for containing the DUT, see fig. 1, abstract, paragraph [0055]-[0059]), the method comprising: mechanically pushing the device under test into the device under test socket with a pusher (which is the test kit la comprises a socket structure 10 and a plunge structure 20 detachable from the socket structure 10, see paragraph [0055] and [0059]),
wherein the pusher comprises a structure (which is a plunger structure 20 comprises a nest 210, and a pressing member 220 may be coupled to the upper side 210a of the nest 210, see fig. 1, paragraph [0071]),
and wherein the alternating layers are extending in a first direction, which is within +/−45° of a pushing direction (see fig. 1, paragraph [0052], [0070] and [0071]).
Lei does not explicitly disclose wherein the pusher comprises a structure in which there are alternating layers of higher dielectric permittivity and layers of lower dielectric permittivity.
Lei does not explicitly disclose a structure in which there are alternating layers of higher dielectric permittivity and layers of lower dielectric permittivity.
However, Lei discloses as shown in FIG. 1, the test kit la comprises a socket structure 10 and a plunge structure 20 detachable from the socket structure 10. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the socket structure 10 may comprise a socket housing 100 secured to a load board 30 such as a printed wiring board or a printed circuit board. The load board 30 may also be referred to as a test board. Although not explicitly depicted, it is understood that the load board 30 typically comprises a core (e.g., FR4 copper clad laminate core), a plurality of dielectric build-up layers, and traces on opposite surfaces of the core (see paragraph [0059]). Referring back to FIG. 1, the socket structure 10 may further comprise an annular socket base 150 for precision plunger alignment. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the socket base 150 may be made of monolithic anti-static materials including, but not limited to, anti-static FR4 having a dielectric constant of about 4.37, but is not limited thereto. The plunge structure 20 comprises a nest 210. According to an embodiment of the present invention, the nest 210 may be made of ESD control materials or static-dissipative materials including, but not limited to, PEEK having a dielectric constant of about 3.3, but is not limited thereto (see paragraph [0069] and [0071]). Lei further discloses the nest 210 is coupled to at least one nozzle 240 for vacuum gripping and/or holding the DUT 130 in the guide plate 120 mounted in the socket housing 100. For illustration purposes, two nozzles 240 are illustrated in FIG. 1. According to an embodiment of the present invention, for example, the nozzle 240 may be made of ESD control materials or static-dissipative materials including, but not limited to, ESD420 having a dielectric constant of about 5.63, but is not limited thereto (see paragraph [0074], which is the nozzle 240 forms a column having a dielectric constant of 5.63, which is higher than that of air. The nozzle 240 is surrounded by air).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention was made to modify the plurality of dielectric build-up layers in the pusher as taught by Lei having alternating layers of higher dielectric permittivity and layers of lower dielectric permittivity as claimed in order for improving the mechanical rigidity of the pusher, and the layer with low dielectric constant improves the electromagnetic transparency of the pusher.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 06/11/2026
Prosecution Insights