US 4622514

I'll search for authoritative information on US 4,622,514, including any litigation/docket references, then summarize.

US 4,622,514 — summary (searched as the literal number 4622514)

Bottom line on the docket request: I found no CAFC (or district court) docket, litigation, or IPR/PGR record involving US 4,622,514. A web search for "4622514 litigation CAFC Federal Circuit docket" returned zero results, and broader litigation terms returned no case keyed to this patent. I cannot rule out an unpublished/litigation-history entry that isn't indexed publicly, but I have no authoritative evidence of any proceeding involving this number. (See "Trap flagged" below — one search hit references a "'514 patent," but it is a different patent.)

Bibliographic data

Note on dates: the Google Patents legal-events feed shows a "PATENT GRANT / PATENTED CASE" entry dated 1986-09-10, while the patent's publication/issue date is 1986-11-11. I flag this as a source-data artifact; the issue date of record is 1986-11-11.

Abstract (verbatim substance)

A multiple-mode buckling beam probe is formed by top and bottom mating locating guides interposed between a space transformer die (bearing exposed wire contact ends) and an underlying substrate with correspondingly positioned conductive pads. Wire probes pass slidingly through aligned holes in the top and bottom locating guides. At least one center locating guide, with holes aligned to the top and bottom guides, slidably receives the wire probes and is spaced at different distances from the top and bottom guides. Interposed between the center guide and the top/bottom guides are respective slotted guides with elongated slots through which the probes pass, the slots being offset relative to the guide holes. This increases achievable axial deflections over a standard buckling beam probe, confines buckling directionality, permits greater probe density, and lets the sequence/magnitude of each buckle — and thus the force-versus-deflection curve — be tailored to a user's needs.

Independent claims in plain language

The patent has 3 claims: claim 1 and claim 3 are independent; claim 2 is dependent.

Claim 1 — the multi-guide, multi-mode assembly (apparatus).
An assembly for testing ICs connected to pads on a semiconductor chip substrate, comprising:

• a space transformer die that moves relatively toward/away from the substrate and bears potted wires forming laterally spaced contacts facing the chip pads, generally axially aligned with them;
• first and second planar locating guides between the die and substrate (i.e., top and bottom guides), with holes aligned to the contacts/pads;
• at least one planar center locating guide fixed to the movable die, positioned between and spaced from the first and second guides, with correspondingly sized aligned holes;
• a plurality of buckling wire probes running between die and substrate through the aligned holes, slightly smaller in diameter than the holes so they slide freely;
• planar slotted, offset guides interposed between given pairs of locating guides, with slots longer than the probe diameter and offset from the guide holes, to control lateral buckling of the localized probe portions between guides;
• the locating guides being spaced at different distances so the probe portions have different effective free lengths.

Result/whereby clause: under increasing applied axial compressive force, the probes buckle laterally in sequence from the longest effective free length to the shortest, so the assembly increases usable axial deflection while permitting greater probe density, with the sequence and magnitude of each buckle tailorable to the specific application.

Claim 2 — the three-mode spacing relationship (dependent on claim 1).
Adds a pair of vertically spaced center locating guides between the first and second guides, with slotted guides respectively interposed (a) between the first guide and one center guide, (b) between the two center guides, and (c) between a center guide and the second guide — such that the effective free lengths satisfy:

EFL₁ > EFL₂ > EFL₃ > (EFL₁ / 2)

where EFL₁ is the span from the first (top) locating guide to its proximate center guide, EFL₂ the span between the two center guides, and EFL₃ the span from the second (bottom) guide to its proximate center guide. This is the claim that captures the specific three-buckle sequence illustrated in FIGS. 4a–4d and plotted in FIG. 5 (12 → 13 → 14 g thresholds; ~24 mils total axial deflection with Paliney 7 alloy wire of 0.005 in. diameter).

Claim 3 — the two-length, intumescent-probe assembly (apparatus, broader framing).
An assembly with an electrical contactor movable toward/away from a substrate having laterally spaced contacts, the contactor comprising a plurality of relatively equal-length wire probes, each longer than its diameter and bendable under axially applied loads when the contactor is moved toward the substrate (each probe positioned to correspond to a substrate contact). Mounting means mount the probes for free axial movement and include means slidably engaging the probes centrally to divide each probe into two lengths so both lengths can buckle, plus means to control the direction of buckling of each length under applied axial load. Whereby each probe acts completely independently of every other probe, and the two probe portions on opposite sides of the central engagement point deflect in sequence, depending on their relative effective free lengths. (Claim 1 recites "substrated" — a typographical error in the printed claim; I am reading it literally as "substrate.")

Traps flagged / uncertainty

• The "'514 patent" litigation hit is NOT this patent. A search result from rpxcorp insight shows a Delaware complaint (FotoMedia, filed Sept. 15, 2011) pleading infringement of a "'514 patent" covering photo-sharing website services and uploading/manipulating images from portable image capture devices. That subject matter cannot be US 4,622,514 (a 1986 IBM buckling-beam probe). It is a different patent that happens to share the last three digits. Do not conflate the two.
• No CAFC 2026 activity found. My search of public web sources returned no Federal Circuit appeal, docket entry, or oral-argument record for 4,622,514. I have no authoritative confirmation either way beyond indexed public sources, and I did not obtain a direct USPTO Patent Center / PACER / CAFC docket query result — so treat "no litigation" as no evidence found, not as a certified negative.
• Sources used: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4622514/en), FreePatentsOnline (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/4622514.html), Justia (https://patents.justia.com/patent/4622514), and uspto.report (https://uspto.report/patent/grant/4622514). I did not retrieve a USPTO PatentCenter or CAFC primary record directly; the bibliographic data above is cross-consistent across these mirrors and with the full patent text supplied.
• Legal status caveat: "Expired – Lifetime" and the 2004-06-15 expiration date come from Google Patents' automated feed, which itself states the status is an assumption and not a legal conclusion. Termination of all family members should be verified against USPTO/EPO/DPMA/JPO fee records if it matters.
• Minor internal inconsistency in the spec: the detailed description refers to "the multiple wire probes 84" where the element 84 is elsewhere the hole in the first center locating guide (the probes are 62, 62'). This appears to be a typographical error in the original; I have reported the IDs literally rather than correcting them.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 4622514.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Findings: No Known Litigation Involving US Patent 4,622,514

Based on my searches, I found no litigation involving US Patent 4,622,514. To be explicit and avoid fabrication: I cannot identify any case (plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome) asserting or challenging this patent.

What I searched

• General web queries for "4622514 litigation," "4622514 patent lawsuit," and "4,622,514 litigation."
• Queries naming the patent title ("Multiple mode buckling beam probe assembly") plus "litigation," "court docket," and "infringement."
• Attempts targeting the kind of sources you named (Unified Patents litigation case list, PACER, CAFC).

The only substantive hits were patent-prosecution/citation artifacts, not litigation — e.g., a WIPO search report (WO2009016746A1) citing US 4,622,514 as prior art, and the Google Patents family/claim data itself. None of these are litigation records.

Why no litigation is plausible here

Several facts from the patent record support the absence of any suit:

• Status: "Expired – Lifetime." The Google Patents record shows an anticipated expiration of 2004-06-15, consistent with a 20-year term from the 1984-06-15 filing (and the pre-1995 rule allowing the greater of 17 years from grant — grant was 1986-11-11 — or 20 years from filing). The patent has therefore been expired for roughly two decades.
• Assignees: Originally and currently International Business Machines Corp. No reassignment to a litigation-assertion entity appears in the record.
• No litigation tab/entries appear in the Google Patents page, and no case citations surfaced in any search.

Important caveats

• I could not directly query PACER or the Unified Patents litigation portal (my searches hit a step limit and returned no docket-specific results). PACER is not freely full-text searchable via the tools available to me, and Unified Patents' coverage skews toward district-court and PTAB matters involving assertion entities.
• Absence of results in my searches is not proof of absence of litigation. A thorough negative clearance would require a dedicated docket search (e.g., PACER/Docket Navigator/Lex Machina) across all district courts, the ITC, and the CAFC for this patent number.

Recommended next steps if you need a definitive answer

1. Run a Docket Navigator or Lex Machina search on patent number 4,622,514.
2. PACER "case number" search across districts for the patent number in the complaint text.
3. Check the CAFC docket for any appeal citing the patent.
4. Cross-check the patent's foreign family members (EP0164672, JPS614971A, DE3579502D1) for corresponding foreign proceedings, since multi-mode buckling-beam technology was widely used in the probe-card industry.

Bottom line: As of the information available to me, there is no known litigation involving US 4,622,514, and the patent's expired-lifetime status and clean IBM ownership chain make historical assertion unlikely. I am stating this as a "no records found" result, not as an affirmative confirmation of zero litigation.

I'll verify the canonical (empty) proceedings list against live web sources before drafting.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings on file. The USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block for US 4,622,514 returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM — and independent web checks (PTAB/E2E-style queries, "IPR201"/"CBM201"/"PGR201" combined with the patent number and title, and CAFC/Federal Circuit docket searches) surfaced nothing to contradict that. Total count: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied.

The bottom line for a defendant is unusual and worth stating plainly: this is not "hardened by surviving IPRs," and it is not "claims canceled." It is never-tested claims on a patent that expired more than two decades ago. US 4,622,514 lists an anticipated expiration of 2004-06-15, status "Expired – Lifetime," with maintenance fees paid through the 12-year window (last fee payment recorded 1998-01-05) — so it did not lapse for non-payment; it ran its full term. Any assertion today faces a threshold problem that has nothing to do with validity: § 286 damages reach back only six years from suit. If a demand letter in 2026 cites US 4,622,514, there is no reachable infringement window.

No proceedings to enumerate

The per-proceeding template (type, petitioner, judge panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD, settlement, appeal, defensive value) is intentionally omitted because there is no proceeding number, petitioner, panel, or FWD to report. I will not manufacture an IPR20xx-xxxxx to populate the format. For completeness, here is what I did verify regarding the closest adjacent record:

• No ex parte reexamination, no reissue, and no certificate of correction surfaced in any of the sources checked. The patent's entire post-grant file is the certificate issuance on 1986-11-11 followed by three maintenance fee payments.
• Foreign counterpart — EP 0 164 672 B1 (granted 1990-09-05; DE 3579502 D1; JP S61-4971 / JPH0228828 B2) is the same family. I found no evidence of a filed EPO opposition in the material reviewed; I cannot confirm an opposition was never filed, so treat that as unknown rather than "none."
• Search hygiene flag: queries for "4622514" reliably surface JP4622514B2, an unrelated NEC patent on document anonymization (filed 2004-12-28, registered 2010-11-12). Do not let that number contaminate a proceeding search. The only relevant identifiers are US 4,622,514, application 06/620,983, and the family members above.

Strategic summary

Claim status — all three claims are UNTESTED. Claims 1–3 issued as granted and remain in force on the face of the document; no claim of US 4,622,514 has ever been canceled, narrowed, or confirmed by the PTAB, because no petition was ever filed. Claim 1 is the broad assembly claim (top/bottom locating guides, "at least one planar locating center guide," buckled wire probes, "planar slotted offset guides," and the different-spacing/effective-free-length limitation). Claim 2 adds the two-center-guide configuration and hard-codes the relationship EFL₁ > EFL₂ > EFL₃ > (EFL₁/2). Claim 3 is a separately drafted, differently-worded independent claim directed to an electrical contactor with means for slidably engaging probes "centrally thereof" to divide each probe into two bucklable lengths. Because there is no FWD, I cannot tell you which of these would survive scrutiny — the specification's own prior art (U.S. Pat. No. 3,806,801 to Bove and the IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin articles cited on the face of the patent, e.g. Bruder et al., Dual Buckling Beam Connectors, IBM TDB vol. 17, no. 2, July 1974, pp. 638–639) is exactly the type of art a petitioner would build a § 103 case on. That case has never been made.

Estoppel landscape — there is none, and there never will be. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is petitioner-specific and attaches only to a petitioner that obtained an institution decision. With zero petitions, no party is estopped from anything, and no ground is foreclosed. Conversely, there is no petitioner-side precedent, no claim-construction record (no Phillips or Vidal/Finisar-style framing from any panel), and no FWD findings to point a defendant toward. A defendant gets a completely clean slate — and, just as importantly, a completely empty toolbox of PTAB-based defenses.

Pattern signals — none. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, no RPX) in the chain, no patent-owner PTAB appeals. This is consistent with the asset's history: it is a 1984 IBM contactor patent that expired in 2004 and whose citation footprint is entirely forward-looking technical citation by later IBM and third-party probe-card patents (e.g., US 5,227,777; US 5,367,254; US 6,404,211; US 6,788,085; US 7,734,777 family lineage), not assertion activity.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant and have received a demand citing US 4,622,514, lead with expiration, not invalidity. The patent's listed anticipated expiration is 2004-06-15 (Google Patents record). Damages under § 286 are limited to six years pre-suit, which in 2026 reaches back only to 2020 — long after the term ended. There is no reachable infringement period for the asserted claims. Ask opposing counsel to identify the specific pre-2004 acts and the specific license/settlement payments they claim — the answer is usually silence.
• Do not spend money on an IPR. Filing an IPR against an expired patent to defeat a demand that cannot produce damages is pure cost. If you need a defensive record for some other reason (e.g., a contractual indemnity or a live pre-2004 dispute of extraordinary vintage), note that there is no prior PTAB record to build on and you would be the first petitioner.
• If a claim chart is attached, characterize the claims accurately. Claims 1 and 3 are the independent claims; claim 2 depends on claim 1 and carries the EFL₁ > EFL₂ > EFL₃ > (EFL₁/2) spacing limitation — a genuine narrowing constraint you can attack on the merits by pointing out that the reference assembly must satisfy that specific numerical relationship, quoting claim 2 exactly. But frame this as a fallback: the expiration argument is dispositive first.
• Nothing is on a PTAB trial clock. There is no institution decision deadline, no 1-year statutory FWD deadline (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), and no oral hearing pending. If anyone tells you a proceeding is "active," ask for the proceeding number and pull it on PTAB E2E or USPTO PatentCenter — it will not be there.
• The absence of PTAB activity is itself the signal here. Well-asserted, economically live patents attract IPRs; a 1984 contactor patent that expired in 2004 has attracted none. Treat silence plus expiration as two independent reasons this asset is not a real litigation threat.

Confidence note: I have high confidence in the "zero proceedings" conclusion because it rests on the canonical ODP list you supplied and on independent searches that returned no contradicting proceeding. The items I could not verify and am flagging rather than asserting: (a) whether an EPO opposition was ever filed against EP 0 164 672 B1, and (b) any pre-AIA district court litigation involving US 4,622,514, which would not appear in PTAB data at all and which I did not have a docket-level source to query.

I'll search for assignment records and ownership data for this patent to ground the analysis.

Let me check the USPTO assignment index and any post-issuance transfer trails.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 4,622,514

Data-availability note up front: The USPTO Assignment Center record for this patent surfaces only one recorded assignment — the original inventor→IBM assignment captured in the patent's prosecution event log. I could not retrieve the reel/frame images themselves (the recorded correspondent of record field was not exposed in any indexed source I could reach), so where a field is unavailable I say so rather than infer it. This is a "single-link chain" finding, not a fabricated multi-hop story.

Inventors

• Only one inventor. No co‑inventor fragmentation, no split inventor team.
• Departure pattern: I have no reliable data on whether Lewis left IBM within 12 months of filing. The reel/frame image (which sometimes records the inventor's residence) was not retrievable, and I am not going to infer a departure from the absence of later IBM patents naming him. Signal not assessable.
• The immediately related IBM art (US 3,806,801 to Bove; US 4,506,215; US 4,518,910 to Hottenrott et al.) shows this was an active internal IBM probe‑card development group, which is consistent with a staff inventor rather than a one‑off filer — but that is context, not a finding.

Original assignee

• Entity on the issued patent: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Armonk, NY 10504, a corp. of New York (per the 1984‑06‑15 recorded assignment).
• Primary line of business: Mainframe/computing hardware and, relevant here, semiconductor packaging and test — the patent sits in IBM's MLC substrate / probe‑card test tooling line (buckling‑beam contactors for chip and I/O surface testing alongside US 4,518,910 to Hottenrott).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — buckling‑beam probe contactors were internal IBM manufacturing/test tooling used to electrically test MLC substrates (the background and the related US 4,816,754 confirm the practice). This is a process/tooling patent, so "product" = IBM's own probe hardware, not a sold consumer good.
• Current status: Operating. IBM remains the current assignee of record. No assignment to a third party, no bankruptcy, no merger‑driven transfer appears in the chain.
• Legal status of the patent itself: Expired – Lifetime, anticipated expiration 2004‑06‑15 (20 years from the 1984‑06‑15 filing). The patent has been dead for ~20 years — any assertion is time‑barred.

Assignment timeline

Chronological record of every recorded assignment:

1984‑06‑14 (executed) / recorded 1984‑06‑15 — Reel 004275 / Frame 0854

• Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
• Assignor: LEWIS, STEPHAN P. (sole inventor)
• Assignee: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Armonk, NY 10504, a corp. of New York
• Correspondent: Not exposed in the available record. The prosecution‑event entry lists only owner/assignor/reel‑frame; the recording correspondent field was not retrievable from the sources I could reach. I will not guess a name. (In this era IBM's patent recordings were typically handled by IBM's own patent‑operations staff rather than an outside prosecution firm, but that is a general pattern, not verified for this reel.)
• Context: Original corporate assignment at filing — inventor assigns to employer. Not a reorg, sale, or securitization.

No further assignments are recorded. There is no post‑issuance assignment, no security interest, no change‑of‑name, no merger conveyance, and no transfer to a licensing entity in the recorded chain. Per the task rules, that absence is itself the finding: the original assignee (IBM) retained ownership through expiration.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 4622514
    1984 : Lewis assigns to IBM
         : Reel 004275 frame 0854
    1986 : Patent issued to IBM
    2004 : Patent expired

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment).

The entire recorded chain is a single link — Stephan P. Lewis → International Business Machines Corporation, executed 1984‑06‑14 and recorded 1984‑06‑15 at Reel 004275 / Frame 0854 — with IBM still the current assignee of record and the patent expired on 2004‑06‑15. There is no post‑issuance transfer, no asserter entity, no cascading LLC chain, and (per the prior litigation section) no known suit. Every NPE signal is either "not present" or, for the correspondent field, simply unavailable — nothing supports an NPE characterization, and the sole corroborating fact is non‑transfer to IBM's own in‑house holding.

Verification link: USPTO Assignment Center search for patent 4,622,514 — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Caveat (unchanged from the litigation section): I could not pull the reel/frame images or the recorded correspondent name; a definitive correspondent check requires opening Reel 004275/Frame 0854 directly in Assignment Center. If a future assignment for this patent exists that is not indexed in the sources I reached, it did not surface here, and I am reporting a "no records beyond the original assignment" result rather than an affirmative confirmation of a clean single‑owner chain.

I'll search for the patent and its cited references to ground this analysis.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 4,622,514 ("Multiple mode buckling beam probe assembly")

0. Target confirmation (no auto-correction)

I analyzed only US 4,622,514, and only the references actually cited on its face. Confirmed record (Google Patents; uspto.report; FreePatentsOnline):

The reference list below is taken verbatim from the patent's "References Cited" (3 U.S. patents) plus the 8 non‑patent citations (IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletins). Because the application was filed pre‑AIA (1984), § 102(a)/(b)/(e) govern. Important threshold point for the § 102 analysis: each of the 8 TDB articles and US 3,806,801 published/were granted well over one year before the 1984‑06‑15 filing date, so all are § 102(b) art. US 4,506,215 (filed 1981‑06‑30) and US 4,518,910 (filed 1983‑06‑30) were not yet published on the filing date, so they are § 102(e) art (granted on applications filed before applicant's filing date) — noting both are IBM‑owned like the '514 patent.

1. U.S. patent citations

(A) US 3,806,801 A — the foundational reference

• Full citation: Bove, R., "Probe contactor having buckling beam probes," US 3,806,801 A. Priority/filed 1972‑12‑26; granted 1974‑04‑23; assignee IBM. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3806801A](/patent/US3806801A)/en
• Description: The base high‑density, constant‑force buckling‑beam probe contactor. Probes are conductive wires anchored at one end, passed through upper and lower alignment dies, and designed (F = (3π)²EI/L²) so that once a predetermined axial load is reached the wire buckles and the force on the pad stays essentially constant regardless of pad height. Bove expressly teaches three ways to control buckling direction: (a) offsetting the openings of the upper/lower alignment dies; (b) slanting the wire's longitudinal axis; (c) a combination. The '514 patent names Bove as the "typical" prior‑art assembly (its FIG. 1 is essentially Bove).
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Bove discloses the outer elements of claim 1 — space‑transformer/contactor interface, pads, buckling wire probes, offset guide/die to bias buckling direction — and the generic buckling‑beam concepts recited in claim 3. However, Bove is a single‑mode, one‑end‑anchored device: it lacks (i) the "at least one planar locating center guide" between first/second guides, (ii) multiple slotted offset guides with spaced EFLs, and (iii) the "means for slidably engaging said probes centrally thereof to divide each probe into two lengths to allow buckling of both lengths." On its face, therefore, Bove does not fully anticipate claim 1, 2, or 3; it is best characterized as the starting‑point/ancestry reference and § 103 background. Treat any "Bove anticipates claim 3" position as a broad‑construction argument only.

(B) US 4,506,215 A — most relevant of the three on "free‑length control"

• Full citation: Coughlin, C.P., "Modular test probe," US 4,506,215 A. Filed 1981‑06‑30; granted 1985‑03‑19; assignee IBM. URL: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US4506215A](/patent/US4506215A)/en
• Description: A modular buckling‑beam probe in which a center post and separator element (36) is given a calculated height to set the free length of each beam for buckling at a predetermined force; guide plates (10/12/14/16) use an offset key to pre‑bow the beams (holes are deliberately not axially aligned) and the offset geometry provides clearance for the bias; molded channels (38) separate beams to prevent shorting; a positive stop prevents over‑buckling. Applicable to clustered arrays and multiple chip sites.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Because it was filed before the '514 filing date and granted later, it is § 102(e) art. It discloses an "offset guide biasing buckling" element and a deliberate free‑length‑determining member — both recited in claim 1. But Coughlin is single‑mode with a "positive stop," not the sequential multi‑mode scheme (longest→shortest EFL) nor the offset slotted guides of claim 1; it also does not disclose a centrally‑divided two‑length probe as in claim 3. No full anticipation of claims 1–3; strongest as a § 103 combination reference against the "control free length / prevent over‑buckling" limitation of claim 1.

(C) US 4,518,910 A — most relevant of the three on "divided probe"

• Full citation: Hottenrott, O.R. et al., "Buckling beam twist probe contactor assembly with spring biased stripper plate," US 4,518,910 A. Filed 1983‑06‑30; granted 1985‑05‑21; assignee IBM. URL: https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[4518910](/patent/4518910).html
• Description: Buckling‑beam contactor using continuous wires "fixedly mounted intermediate of their ends to the carrier" (i.e., potted at mid‑length so the wire has two portions), offset guides fixedly carried by the post "define the direction of deflection of the beams," and a spring‑biased stripper plate that positions/protects probe tips. Continuous wires eliminate the space‑transformer interface.
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Filed before 1984‑06‑15 → § 102(e) art. Its "wires fixed intermediate their ends" + "offset guides define deflection direction" is the closest U.S.‑patent disclosure to claim 3 ("means for slidably engaging said probes centrally thereof to divide each probe into two lengths… and means to control the direction of buckling of each of the lengths"). The gap is that '910's wires are fixedly (potted) mid‑length and deflect principally at the free/tip portion; claim 3 requires slidable central engagement "to allow buckling of both lengths." That is a genuine, citable distinction, so I would not assert full anticipation of claim 3 — but '910 is the best § 103 reference against it.

U.S. citations — summary

2. Non‑patent citations (IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletins)

I could verify the bibliographic data for each of these but could not retrieve full text of the TDB articles themselves (they are not freely full‑text searchable in the sources available to me). Descriptions are from the titles/authors/dates and, where noted, from the '514 specification's own characterization. Each is § 102(b) art (published 1969–1975).

(D) Bruder, S. et al., "Dual Buckling Beam Connectors," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 17, No. 2, July 1974, pp. 638–639.

• Description: A dual (two‑mode) buckling‑beam connector — the probe is effectively divided so it buckles in two stages. The '514 patent expressly cites this (as "pages … 638") and distinguishes it, stating both it and the Pin Pad Contactor reference present buckling modes that "are independent, i.e. separate, which … require isolation of the wire probes into two halves, one to the connector side and the other to the contactor side."
• Potential § 102 anticipation: The single most relevant reference to claim 3 — "divide each probe into two lengths to allow buckling of both lengths." It is also directly material to claim 1's multiple‑mode concept. The applicant's own distinction (independent/separate modes requiring the wire to be split into halves) can be used to argue claim 1's sequential, force‑transfer multi‑mode is not disclosed — but for claim 3, which is broad and does not require the slotted‑guide/EFL structure, this reference is the strongest § 102 candidate and should be treated as potentially anticipating claim 3.

(E) Faure, L. et al., "Pin Pad Contactor," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 17, No. 2, July 1974, pp. 444–445.

• Description: Pin/pad contactor with multi‑mode buckling; expressly cited by the '514 specification (as "pages 444") as independent multiple buckling modes. § 102(b).
• Potential § 102 anticipation: Highly relevant to claim 3 and to the multiple‑mode premise of claim 1. Same applicant distinction applies (independent/separate modes vs. sequential EFL‑governed modes).

(F) Faure, L. et al., "Controlled Direction Buckling Beam," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 17, No. 5, October 1974, p. 1375. § 102(b).

• Description: Directional control of buckling of a beam — directly on point for the "planar slotted offset guides … to bias the initial buckling mode, control the buckling direction" limitation of claim 1 and the "means to control the direction of buckling" of claim 3. Likely anticipates no claim alone (it is a beam‑direction control, not a multi‑guide assembly), but is core § 103 art.

(G) Kostenko, A. Jr., "Buckling Direction Control in High Density Contactors," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 15, No. 11, April 1973, p. 3543. § 102(b).

• Description: Buckling‑direction control in high‑density contactors. Same relevance as (F) — the offset/directional limitation of claims 1 and 3.

(H) Kostenko, A. Jr., "High Density Contactors to Electrical Space Transformers," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 15, No. 10, March 1973, p. 3035. § 102(b).

• Description: High‑density contactor‑to‑space‑transformer coupling — relevant to the "space transformer die" preamble element of claim 1.

(I) Lipschutz, L. et al., "Buckling Wire Probe Assembly," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 15, No. 10, March 1973, pp. 3032–3034. § 102(b).

• Description: A buckling‑wire probe assembly with alignment/guide plates for the probes — relevant to the "planar locating guides with aligned holes, probes sliding freely therein" element of claim 1.

(J) Till, A., "Column Contact Probe," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 12, No. 4, September 1969, p. 551. § 102(b).

• Description: An early column contact probe. General background art; earliest of the wired‑probe disclosures. No specific claim‑level anticipation identified.

(K) Faure, L. et al., "Probe‑to‑Coupling Block Pressure Contact with Dust Seal," IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 18, No. 3, August 1975, p. 701. § 102(b).

• Description: Pressure‑contact probe‑to‑coupling‑block interface with a dust seal. Peripheral mechanical/interface art; no specific claim‑level anticipation identified.

3. Additional references cited against the foreign family (for completeness)

The Google Patents "Family Cites Families" listing adds two references relevant to the same invention family (EP0164672 / DE3579502D1 / JPS614971A):

• DE 3,123,627 A1 (Siemens AG), priority 1981‑06‑15, published 1982‑12‑30 — "Device for simultaneously contacting multiple close‑up check points, in particular of grid fields." Relevant as general multi‑point buckling‑contactor art.
• DE 3,273,554 D1 (IBM), priority 1981‑06‑30, published 1986‑11‑06 — "Contact probe assembly for integrated circuits." This is the German family member corresponding to the modular‑probe line (cf. US 4,506,215, Coughlin) and is relevant to the free‑length/offset art.

I flag these as family‑level citations, not face‑of‑the‑'514‑patent citations; treat them as secondary.

4. Bottom line

1. Nothing on the '514 face appears to fully anticipate claim 1 or claim 2. Claim 1's combination — offset slotted guides + at least one interior center locating guide + guides spaced at different distances yielding a sequential longest‑to‑shortest EFL buckling order — is not disclosed in any single cited reference I could retrieve. Claim 2's express inequality (EFL₁ > EFL₂ > EFL₃ > EFL₁/2) is even more clearly not anticipated.
2. The best § 102 candidates target the broadest claim — claim 3, whose "divide each probe into two lengths to allow buckling of both lengths" is squarely described by the IBM TDB "Dual Buckling Beam Connectors" (Bruder, 1974) and the "Pin Pad Contactor" (Faure, 1974) — both explicitly acknowledged by the '514 specification as prior art. US 4,518,910 (Hottenrott) is the closest U.S. patent on this point but requires fixed mid‑length mounting rather than the claimed slidable central engagement.
3. Most‑relevant references, ranked: (1) Bruder TDB 17(2):638 "Dual Buckling Beam Connectors"; (2) Faure TDB 17(2):444 "Pin Pad Contactor"; (3) US 4,506,215 (Coughlin); (4) US 4,518,910 (Hottenrott); (5) Faure TDB 17(5):1375 "Controlled Direction Buckling Beam" and Kostenko TDB 15(11):3543; (6) US 3,806,801 (Bove).
4. Prosecution posture: Under pre‑AIA law, the more realistic attack on the '514 claims is § 103 — combining Bove (offset‑die direction control) with the dual‑buckling TDB art (per‑length buckling) and Coughlin ('215 free‑length/positive‑stop) to render claim 3, and arguably claim 1, obvious. A pure § 102 rejection would most plausibly land on claim 3 via the dual‑buckling TDB references.

5. Caveats (stated explicitly, per operating rules)

• I verified the citation list, dates, and abstracts of the three U.S. patents and confirmed the bibliographic entries of the 8 TDB references, but I could not retrieve the full text of the TDB articles; my "potentially anticipates" calls for those items rest on titles, dates, and the '514 specification's own admissions.
• "Anticipation" is a legal conclusion. The § 102 mappings above are analyst assessments of disclosure coverage, not a substitute for a full element‑by‑element claim chart and claim‑construction analysis.
• I did not pull the actual USPTO Office Action / file‑wrapper history (the "PTACTS" style record) for 06/620,983, so I cannot confirm which of these references the examiner actually applied in a rejection versus merely listed. If you need the examiner's actual § 102/§ 103 basis, the prosecution history should be pulled from Patent Center.

I'll ground this analysis by pulling details on the key prior-art references listed on the patent page.

Let me try to pull the actual content of the two key IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin references the patent itself identifies as multiple-mode art.

Obviousness Analysis — US 4,622,514 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Patent: US 4,622,514 A — "Multiple mode buckling beam probe assembly"
Inventor: Stephan P. Lewis · Assignee: International Business Machines Corp.
Filed: 1984-06-15 · Granted: 1986-11-11 · Expired (anticipated): 2004-06-15
Claims: 3 (1 independent, 1 dependent, 1 independent of different scope)

Governing law: Because the application was filed before 2013-03-16, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) applies. The controlling framework is Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). KSR's rejection of a rigid "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test and its endorsement of "obvious to try," design incentives, and market demand apply to pre-AIA § 103(a).

Scope note: This is a technical validity analysis, not a legal opinion. All prior art used below is drawn from the "Citations," "Family Cites Families," and "Non-Patent Citations" sections of the Google Patents record for US 4,622,514 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US4622514/en). I flag where a reference is drawn from the "Similar Documents" section instead, and where I could not retrieve full text.

1. The prior-art record on the face of the patent

Key methodological point: the two references the patent itself identifies as prior multiple-mode buckling art are NPL-1 (Bruder, "Dual Buckling Beam Connectors") and NPL-2 (Faure, "Pin Pad Contactor") — the "pages 444 and 638" citations in the Background. That is an applicant admission about the state of the art, and it is the strongest single foothold for a § 103 challenge.

2. The claims, elementized

3. Claim-element-to-reference mapping (primary combination)

Combination A (asserted against claims 1 and 3)

PA-1 (Bove '801) + NPL-1 (Bruder, "Dual Buckling Beam Connectors") + NPL-4/NPL-3 (Kostenko; Faure, "Controlled Direction Buckling Beam") + NPL-2 (Faure, "Pin Pad Contactor") + PA-2 (US 4,506,215)

Combination B (asserted against claim 2)

Combination A + NPL-6 (Lipschutz, "Buckling Wire Probe Assembly") + NPL-5 (Kostenko, "High Density Contactors to Electrical Space Transformers")

Claim 2 adds only (i) a pair of center guides with a slotted guide between each adjacent pair, and (ii) the inequality EFL₁ > EFL₂ > EFL₃ > (EFL₁/2). Once Combination A is established:

• Adding a second intermediate guide is the k = 2 instance of the very technique claim 1 already covers ("at least one"), and the patent expressly says the design "can be extended to use more guides and increased buckling modes." Increasing the number of stages to increase total axial deflection is a predictable, cumulative design choice (KSR: combination of known elements according to known methods yields predictable results).
• The inequality is a routine design-parameter selection with a known governing equation. Both PA-1 and PA-2 set out F = (3π²)EI/L². Given that equation, a PHOSITA choosing three successively shorter free lengths to force non-simultaneous (sequential) buckling would arrive at EFL₁ > EFL₂ > EFL₃ by the most elementary reasoning; the lower bound EFL₃ > EFL₁/2 is a spacing constraint the patent itself never explains or supports with data (see § 6).
• NPL-6 (Lipschutz, "Buckling Wire Probe Assembly," IBM TDB 15(10):3032–3034) and NPL-5 (Kostenko, "High Density Contactors to Electrical Space Transformers," IBM TDB 15(10):3035) are the TDB disclosures of the multi-guide/offset-guide contacting architecture and were cited "Other References" of record in PA-3 (https://FreePatentsOnline.com/4518910.html). They supply the guide-stack context.

Confidence: Moderate. I could not retrieve the full text of NPL-5 or NPL-6, so their exact teachings beyond their titles and the patent's own description of FIG. 1 (offset die 26, floating die 30) cannot be verified here.

4. Would a PHOSITA have been motivated to combine?

Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a mechanical/electrical engineer or designer with a bachelor's degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and roughly 2–4 years of experience designing probe contactors, wafer probe cards, or precision electromechanical test fixtures; familiarity with column buckling theory; capable of reading IBM TDBs and IBM probe-contactor patents as the standard literature of the field.

Motivations, in decreasing force:

1. Same field, same problem, same assignee. PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, NPL-1 through NPL-6, and SD-1 are all IBM buckling-beam contactor art. The TDBs and the patents are the same corporate research program's publications: the TDBs are cited as "Other References" on the face of PA-3. A PHOSITA working in this field would have had every reason and every ability to consult them together.
2. The patent admits the multiple-mode concept. The Background states that multiple-mode buckling "concepts are set forth in IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 2, July 1974, pages 444 and 638" — i.e., NPL-2 (Faure, "Pin Pad Contactor") and NPL-1 (Bruder, "Dual Buckling Beam Connectors"). The patent's stated advance over them is architectural ("require isolation of the wire probes into two halves"), not conceptual. That framing hands the challenger the motivation.
3. A recognized, unsolved problem with a known deficiency list. The Background enumerates exactly the problems the claims are said to solve: lateral shorting at high probe density, binding/friction in the dies, and a ~5 mil ceiling on axial deflection. PA-2 independently identifies the same deficiencies and adds that precision-machined offset/slanted alignment dies are expensive and that biasing does not guarantee uniform buckling direction. Same problem ⇒ same motivation ⇒ combination is not inventive.
4. Predictable results via a formula in the art. PA-1 and PA-2 both give F = (3π²)EI/L², which directly links free length to buckling load. Adding an intermediate guide to create a second free length, and then choosing successive free lengths so that modes trigger in sequence, is the predictable application of a known equation, not an unpredictable result. KSR squarely covers this.
5. Industry demand for density/overtravel. PA-4 (Siemens) and PA-2 both address simultaneous contacting of dense grids and clustered probe arrays; the market pressure to increase probe count and overtravel without lateral shorting is the classic KSR "design incentive" and "market demand" rationale.
6. Ordinary mechanical engineering. Placing an intermediate apertured plate in a stack of aligned guide plates is the most conventional way to subdivide a slender column's unsupported length. Anyone seeking more deflection from a buckling beam would try it first.

5. Counter-arguments a patentee would raise, and their likely strength

6. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is reasonably likely obvious over PA-1 (Bove '801) + NPL-1 (Bruder) + NPL-2 (Faure, "Pin Pad Contactor") + NPL-3/NPL-4 (offset/direction-control art) + PA-2 (US 4,506,215), with SD-1 (US 3,911,361) supplying the potted-wire space-transformer limiter. Every limitation except the specific elongated-slot geometry has a clean mapping, and the motivation is supplied by the applicant's own Background admission plus PA-2's explicit identification of the same deficiencies.
• Claim 2 is moderately likely obvious: adding a second center guide is the k = 2 instance of claim 1's own element, and the EFL inequality is a routine parameter selection traceable to the buckling formula disclosed in PA-1 and PA-2. Confidence is limited by the unretrieved NPL-5/NPL-6 texts.
• Claim 3 is reasonably likely obvious over NPL-1 (Bruder) + NPL-4 (Kostenko) + NPL-3 (Faure, "Controlled Direction Buckling Beam") + PA-1 (Bove '801), with PA-2 (US 4,506,215) supplying the intermediate guide acting on a continuous beam and SD-1 supplying "each probe independently buckles." Claim 3 is drafted in means-plus-function form ("mounting means… means for slidably engaging… means to control the direction of buckling") and does not even require a slotted guide, which makes it the broadest and most vulnerable claim of the three.
• The patent's best defense rests on (i) the elongated-slot-as-lateral-stop geometry, which I could not locate in the retrieved prior art, and (ii) the absence of an express multi-mode, single continuous probe disclosure with differential guide spacing in the specific combination. Both are evidentiary points, not conceptual ones, and both would turn on the actual text of NPL-1 through NPL-6 and DE 3,123,627 A1.

7. Gaps, uncertainties, and what a complete § 103 record would still need

State these explicitly, because they materially bound the confidence of the analysis above:

1. I could not retrieve the full text of the eight IBM TDB references (NPL-1 to NPL-8) or of DE 3,123,627 A1 (PA-4). NPL-1 (Bruder) and NPL-2 (Faure) are load-bearing for both the multi-mode motivation and the "two buckling lengths" limitation, and I am relying on the patent's own characterization of them plus their titles. Their exact figures, offset geometry, and whether they use elongated slots or simple offset holes are unknown to me.
2. US 3,911,361 (SD-1) is drawn from the page's "Similar Documents" section, not its "Citations" section. I flag this because the mapping of "potted wires forming laterally spaced contacts" to SD-1 is unusually strong; if a formal challenge relied on it, one would confirm it was cited or otherwise of record, or cite it independently.
3. The prosecution history is not in the provided material. Whether the examiner expressly considered NPL-3 through NPL-8 in a § 103 combination — as opposed to merely listing them as "Non-Patent Citations" — is unknown, and it changes the strength of the "examiner already considered this" defense.
4. No secondary-considerations evidence was reviewed (no sales, licensing, copying, or industry-praise evidence tied to the claims with nexus). My characterization of objective indicia is therefore a negative finding based on the record provided, not an affirmative conclusion.
5. Date discrepancy noted: the task prompt states the current date as April 26, 2026, whereas the session context header states 2026-09-10. This does not affect the § 103 analysis, since the operative dates are the 1984-06-15 filing and the pre-2013 statutory regime.
6. Legal-status context: the patent is recorded as "Expired – Lifetime," with the 12-year maintenance fee paid in 1998 and anticipated expiration 2004-06-15. A § 103 obviousness challenge today would arise in a defensive/retrospective posture (e.g., invalidating a later patent that claims priority to or cites this one), not in an infringement action on the '514 patent itself.

Recommended next steps to firm up the analysis: (a) obtain the full IBM TDB pages 444–445, 638–639, 1375, 3032–3034, 3035, 3543, 551, and 701; (b) obtain DE 3,123,627 A1; (c) obtain the '514 file wrapper to identify the examiner's reasons for allowance and any § 103 rejections overcome; (d) if a validity challenge is contemplated, run the claim-1 chart above against the actual TDB figures, focusing on whether any of them shows an elongated slot (as opposed to an offset circular hole).