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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/20/2025, 10/31/2025 and 06/30/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 03/20/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
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 2 is 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 2 discloses the limitation “…the stress distribution sections are recesses provided on at least one surface of the beam part in a buckling direction thereof…” in lines 3-4 of Claim 2. It is not clear if the underlined limitation in question refers to the same “buckling direction thereof” disclosed earlier in Claim 1 or if it refers to a different “buckling direction thereof”. Please provide proper clarification in order to avoid confusion.
Claims 6 and 9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit rejected Claim 2.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. JP 2014013184 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Hamada) in view of Gritters US 2008/0238467 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Gritters).
Regarding claim 1, Hamada teaches a cantilever-type probe for a probe card (Figs. 1, 12, 13), comprising:
a base part (Figs. 1, 12, 13; main body, 103);
a needle tip part (Figs. 1, 12, 13; needle tip portion, 102); and
a beam part (Figs. 1, 12, 13; connecting members, 104a, 104b) between the base part (Figs. 1, 12, 13; main body, 103) and the needle tip part (Figs. 1, 12, 13; needle tip portion, 102).
Hamada does not specifically teach wherein the beam part includes, on at least one surface of the beam part perpendicular to a buckling direction thereof, a plurality of stress distribution sections where greater stress concentration occurs than in other portions of the beam part.
However, Gritters does teach wherein the beam part (Fig. 1; [0028]) includes, on at least one surface of the beam part (Fig. 1; [0028]) perpendicular to a buckling direction thereof (Fig. 1; [0028]), a plurality of stress distribution sections (Fig. 1; [0028]) where greater stress concentration occurs than in other portions of the beam part (Fig. 1; [0028]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cantilever assembly of Hamada by implementing the teachings of Gritters regarding wherein the beam part includes, on at least one surface of the beam part perpendicular to a buckling direction thereof, a plurality of stress distribution sections where greater stress concentration occurs than in other portions of the beam part; in order to reduce “contact features and the scrub distance, thus reducing damage to the resilient element on the DUT” (See Gritters; Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hamada and Gritters teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 1, wherein Gritters further teaches wherein the stress distribution sections are through-holes penetrating the beam part in a thickness direction thereof (Figs. 1, 2A).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Gritters in further view of Tanabe JP H10123173 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Tanabe).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hamada and Gritters teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein the stress distribution sections are recesses provided on at least one surface of the beam part in a buckling direction thereof.
However, Tanabe does teach wherein the stress distribution sections are recesses provided on at least one surface of the beam part in a buckling direction thereof (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamada and Gritters by implementing the teachings of Tanabe regarding wherein the stress distribution sections are recesses provided on at least one surface of the beam part in a buckling direction thereof; in order to “enable each probe element to contact the electrode of a specimen in proper position” (See Tanabe; Abstract).
Claim(s) 4, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Gritters in further view of Kanai JP 2006284292 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Kanai).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hamada and Gritters teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein the beam part comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance, and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties, wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion.
However, Kanai does teach the beam part (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]) comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamada and Gritters by implementing the teachings of Kanai regarding wherein the beam part comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance, and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties, wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion; in order to “reconcile spring property with conductivity though cross section reduction accompanying the thinning and to finely set a balance point of both characteristics, in a contact probe structure constituting a probe pin of a probe card for current-carrying inspection of an integrated circuit on a semiconductor wafer” (See Kanai; Abstract).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hamada and Gritters teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 3, but not specifically wherein the beam part comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance, and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties, wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion.
However, Kanai does teach wherein the beam part (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]) comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamada and Gritters by implementing the teachings of Kanai regarding wherein the beam part comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance, and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties, wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion; in order to “reconcile spring property with conductivity though cross section reduction accompanying the thinning and to finely set a balance point of both characteristics, in a contact probe structure constituting a probe pin of a probe card for current-carrying inspection of an integrated circuit on a semiconductor wafer” (See Kanai; Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hamada, Gritters and Kani teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 4, wherein Kanai further teaches wherein the beam part comprises a stacked structure of the low-resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]) and the high-resistance portion, and the stress distribution sections are recesses provided in the high- resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), wherein the low-resistance portion, is exposed in the recesses (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hamada, Gritters and Kanai teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 7, wherein Kanai further teaches wherein the beam part comprises a stacked structure of the low-resistance portion and the high-resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), and the stress distribution sections are recesses provided in the high- resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), wherein the low-resistance portion, is exposed in the recesses (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]).
Claim(s) 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada in view of Gritters in view of Tanabe in further view of Kanai.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hamada, Gritters and Tanabe teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 2, but not specifically wherein the beam part comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance, and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties, wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion.
However, Kanai does teach wherein the beam part (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]) comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Hamada, Gritters and Tanabe by implementing the teachings of Kanai regarding wherein the beam part comprising: a low-resistance portion made of metal layer having low electrical resistance, and a high-resistance portion made of metal layer having higher electrical resistance than the low-resistance portion and having spring properties, wherein the stress distribution sections are formed in the high-resistance portion; in order to “reconcile spring property with conductivity though cross section reduction accompanying the thinning and to finely set a balance point of both characteristics, in a contact probe structure constituting a probe pin of a probe card for current-carrying inspection of an integrated circuit on a semiconductor wafer” (See Kanai; Abstract).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hamada, Gritters, Tanabe and Kanai teaches the cantilever-type probe for a probe card according to claim 6, wherein Kanai further teaches wherein the beam part comprises a stacked structure of the low-resistance portion and the high-resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), and the stress distribution sections are recesses provided in the high- resistance portion (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]), wherein the low-resistance portion, is exposed in the recesses (Fis. 1, 2; [0010-0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosaka US 2008/0284458 - A prove which can be easily formed, is not limited in a mounting position and number, and capable of sufficiently securing a space allowing a contact to move is provided.
Minami et al. US 2011/0163774 - In one embodiment, a probe card includes a substrate, a probe provided on the substrate, and a contact terminal. The contact terminal is provided at a position on the substrate where the contact terminal comes in contact with the probe when a shape anomaly is generated in the probe.
Chang US 2003/0104731 - Resilient reinforcing structure for contact plate of an electric connector, including a contact plate. A front section of the contact plate is formed with a bent contact section. The middle portion of the contact plate is formed with a resilient arm. A rear end of the contact plate is formed with a connecting end fixedly connected in a seat body. A rear side of the contact plate is provided with a resilient reinforcing arm for resiliently pressing the back side of a portion of the resilient arm which suffers a force.
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
