Prosecution Insights
Last updated: September 17, 2026
Application No. 19/102,656

TEST PIN DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 10, 2025
Priority
Aug 08, 2022 — DE 10 2022 119 935.5 +1 more
Examiner
SHAH, NEEL D
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Ingun Prüfmittelbau GmbH
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
548 granted / 631 resolved
+26.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§103
52.2%
+12.2% vs TC avg
§102
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Priority 2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2022 119 935.5, filed on 8/8/22. Information Disclosure Statement 3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/10/25, 4/17/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Claim Status 4. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application. Note: Claim 1 is rejected twice below. 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 (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. 5. 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. 6. Claims 1-4, 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Tanaka et al. (US 2017/005426). (“Tanaka”). 7. Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches A test pin (10) for making electrical touch contact with a contact partner (20) [Figures 1-25, a test pin (contact) is shown, see Abstract], the test pin (10) comprising an essentially sleeve-shaped body (1) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17 shows the test pin comprising sleeve-shaped body 40],a contact head (3) disposed on a contact side (2a) of the body (1) facing the contact partner (20), the contact head (3) having at least two segments (5a, 5b,5c, 5d) extending axially from a base (4) of the contact head (3) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, a contact head 10 is shown disposed on a contact side, facing the contact partner 50, the contact head 10 has two segments 11, 12, extending axially as shown], wherein the segments (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) each have at least one preferably rigid cutting element (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) extending from a front end thereof for cutting into and/or scratching a surface (21) of the contact partner (20), and wherein the contact head (3) is configured in such a manner that the cutting elements (6a, 6b, 6c,6d) radially widen and/or narrow when a force (F) acting on the test pin (10) in an axial direction is applied [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the segments 11, 12 each has rigid cutting element 11a, 12a extending from a front end for cutting or scratching a surface (via contact from pushing) when the force is applied; see P(0050, 0051)]. 8. Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches wherein the axially extending segments (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) of the contact head and/or the cutting elements (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) disposed thereon are circumferentially distributed, about a center axis (M) of the contact head (3) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the axially extending segments 11, 12 are circumferentially distributed, about a center axis of the contact head 10]. 9. Regarding claim 3, Tanaka teaches wherein the axially extending segments (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) of the contact head (3) and/or the cutting elements (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) disposed thereon are disposed at a radially outward offset relative to a center axis (M) of the contact head (3), by the same radial distance (r1) from the center axis (M) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the axially extending segments 11, 12 of the contact head 10 is shown]. 10. Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches wherein the segments (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) are formed by at least one or more slot-like recesses (7a,7b) on a side of the contact head (3) facing the contact partner (20), the recesses (7a, 7b) each running parallel to a center axis (M) of the contact head (3) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the segments 11, 12, are formed by slot-like recesses]. 11. Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches wherein the contact head (3) is mounted in such a manner that it can at least partially move axially within the sleeve-shaped body (1) and is preloaded by an elastic element (11) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, elastic element 30 is shown]. 12. Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches wherein the contact head (3) is disposed to axially move in the body (1) in such a manner that it is preloaded against a stop element (12), by the elastic element (11) when in a first extended non-contact position and at least partially cocked inside the body (1) against the preload force of the elastic element (11) when in a second contact position [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the contact head 3 has a stop element and the elastic element 30 is shown; see Figure 2C, element 40 acting as a stop element]. 13. Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches wherein the body (1) has a pin element (13) mounted therein in an immovable manner, the pin element (13) being configured to interact with the contact head (3) as a function of position in such a manner that when the contact head (3) is being cocked in a contact position of the test pin (10), the pin element (13) engages a central opening portion (14) and thereby radially widens the segments (5a, 5b,5c, 5d) of the contact head (3) in a uniform manner [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the body 40 has a pin element 10 mounted in an immovable manner] . 14. Regarding claim 9, Tanaka teaches wherein the pin element (13) has a contoured portion (13b) on its outer circumferential surface and downward of a distal portion (13a) in the axial direction of movement, the contoured portion (13b) having a reduced outer diameter and being configured to interact with the contact head (3) as a function of position in such a manner that as the contact head (3) is cocked further, the contoured portion (13b) engages the central opening portion (14) after the distal portion (13a) and radially narrows the segments (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) of the contact head (3) in a uniform manner in the process [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the pin element 10 arrangement is shown]. 15. Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches wherein the sleeve-like body (1) has a central guiding portion (17) in which the pin element (13) and, surrounding the latter, the preferably only elastic element (11) of the test pin (10) axially extend [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the sleeve-like body 40 has a central guiding portion, elastic element 30 of the pin element 10 is shown]. 16. Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches wherein the contact head (3) is configured to interact with a distal opening (14a) and/or with an inner circumferential surface (14b) of a hollow cylindrical guiding element (14) disposed on the body (1) as a function of position in such a manner that when the contact head (3) is being cocked in a contact position of the test pin (10), the opening (14a) and/or the inner circumferential surface (14b) radially narrows the segments (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) of the contact head (3) in a uniform manner [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the contact head 3 arrangement is shown]. 17. Regarding claim 12, Tanaka teaches wherein the preferably hollow cylindrical guiding element (14) is mounted on the body (1) and/or on the contact head (3) in an axially movable manner by means of a second elastic element (15) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the arrangement is shown]. 18. Regarding claim 13, Tanaka teaches wherein the contact head (3) is formed integrally on the contact side (2a) of the body (1) [Figures 1-3, 7, 15-17, the contact head arrangement is shown]. 19. Regarding claim 14, Tanaka teaches wherein the cutting elements (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) of the contact head (3) are configured to at least partially cut into and/or scratch a plane and/or passive surface (21) of the contact partner (20) [Figures 1-3, the cutting elements 11a, 12a is shown]. 20. Regarding claim 15, Tanaka teaches wherein the cutting elements (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) each have a cutting edge (16a) extending radially outward in an axial top view and/or a cutting edge (16b) disposed tangentially at the circumference [Figures 1-3, the cutting elements 11a, 12a is shown]. 21. Regarding claim 16, Tanaka teaches wherein each segment (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) of the contact head (3) has a plurality of cutting elements [Figures 1-3, the cutting elements 11a, 12a is shown]. 22. Regarding claim 17, Tanaka teaches wherein the test pin is for making electrical touch contact with a plane surface (21) of a contact partner [Figures 1-3, the test pin is shown]. 23. Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches wherein the stop element (12) is an annular shoulder [Figures 1-3, the part of the body is considered an annular shoulder, see Figure 2C, element 40]. 24. Regarding claim 19, Tanaka teaches wherein the second elastic element (15) is an exponential spring [Figures 15-17, see elastic element 161, 162; P(0070, 0073)]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 25. 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. 26. Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 2017/005426) in view of Lutz (WO 2021123081, provided in the IDS). 27. Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches the test pin. Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein the contact head (3) has a central hole (8) which is coaxial with a center axis (M) of the test pin (10) and in which a sensor element (9), or an inner conductor for contacting the contact partner (20) is accommodated and/or which provides a cooling channel for transporting a cooling fluid. However, Lutz teaches wherein the contact head (3) has a central hole (8) which is coaxial with a center axis (M) of the test pin (10) and in which a sensor element (9), or an inner conductor for contacting the contact partner (20) is accommodated and/or which provides a cooling channel for transporting a cooling fluid [Figures 1-6, coolant channel 27 is shown in the contact head 5]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tanaka with Lutz. Doing so would allow Tanaka to comprise liquid cooling channel in the contact head in order to remove heat from the contact head hence avoid overheating. 28. Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Iketani K (WO 2009069500, provided in the IDS). (“Iketani”). 29. Regarding claim 1, Iketani teaches A test pin (10) for making electrical touch contact with a contact partner (20) [Figures 1-10, a test pin for making electrical touch contact with a contact partner is shown], the test pin (10) comprising an essentially sleeve-shaped body (1),a contact head (3) disposed on a contact side (2a) of the body (1) facing the contact partner (20), the contact head (3) having at least two segments (5a, 5b,5c, 5d) extending axially from a base (4) of the contact head (3), wherein the segments (5a, 5b, 5c, 5d) each have at least one preferably rigid cutting element (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) extending from a front end thereof for cutting into and/or scratching a surface (21) of the contact partner (20), and wherein the contact head (3) is configured in such a manner that the cutting elements (6a, 6b, 6c,6d) radially widen and/or narrow when a force (F) acting on the test pin (10) in an axial direction is applied [Figures 1-10, the test pin comprises sleeve-shaped body 400, a contact head 230, segments 210a, 210b, rigid cutting element 222a, 222b, see Figures 8a-8b]. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bianca et al. (US 9,917,390), Figures 1-14 shows a contact for an electrical connector, a spring for engaging the pin contact, body, inner movement mechanism and so on. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-5:30PM. 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. /NEEL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 10, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12736560
ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE CONTACT PIN AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12737067
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR TOUCH SENSING BASED ON RESISTOR-CAPICITOR DELAYS
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12736583
CHIP TESTING METHOD AND APPARATUS
1y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12730165
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR ULTRAFAST WIDEFIELD QUANTUM SENSING USING NEUROMORPHIC VISION SENSORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12724062
LASER PERTURBATION PROBING
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+7.6%)
2y 4m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 631 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month