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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/26 has been entered.
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 1-8 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.
In Claim 1 (lines 9-11), the phrase “a third conductive trace in a second metal layer, the first conductive trace extending from a first end connected to the end of the second linear conductive trace to a second end” is not clear what element “a first end” it is referring and also appears to be erroneously referring to the first conductive trace. Should the phrase instead read as --a third conductive trace in a second metal layer, the third conductive trace extending from a first end of the third conductive trace connected to the end of the second linear conductive trace to a second end of the third conductive trace-- to clarify what particular ends are being described?
In Claim 1 (lines 15-17), the phrase “a fourth conductive trace in the first metal layer, the fourth conductive trace extending from a first end connected to the second end of the third conductive trace” is not clear what element “a first end” it is referring. Should the phrase instead read as --a fourth conductive trace in the first metal layer, the fourth conductive trace extending from a first end of the fourth conductive trace connected to the second end of the third conductive trace--?
In Claim 1 (lines 20-22), the phrase “diverging from the first direction toward the second linear conductive trace to pass between the first and second ends of the third conductive trace as projected onto the first layer before turning back toward the first direction and future turning back in a direction opposite the first direction to connect to second end of the third conductive trace” is not clear what it means and further does not appear to be consistent with the structure. Should the phrase instead read as -- diverging from the first direction toward the second linear conductive trace to pass between the first and second ends of the third conductive trace as projected onto the first layer by extending in the first direction and turning back in a direction opposite the first direction to connect to the end of the first conductive trace-- since, for example see Applicant’s invention Fig. 3, the fourth trace (i.e. 322 on the second layer) connects between the second end of the third trace (i.e. 324 on the first layer) and the end of the first trace (i.e. 306)?
In Claim 1 (lines 23-24), the phrase “from an input by the couple port” is unclear what the term “by” means. Should the phrase instead read as --from an input adjacent the coupled port--to clarify that the input and the coupled port are nearby but not directly connected to each other as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3?
In Claim 1 (lines 27), the phrase “to an output by the isolated port” is unclear what the term “by” means. Should the phrase instead read as --to an output adjacent the isolated port--to clarify that the input and the coupled port are nearby but not directly connected to each other as shown in Applicant’s Fig. 3?
In Claim 7, the phrase “fourth conductive trace includes a third conductive trace segment conductively coupled to and perpendicular to the second conductive trace segment” is unclear as to how it relates to the previously recited fourth conductive trace connections described in claim 1, especially in view of the indefiniteness detailed for Claim 1 (i.e. Claim 7 is compounding the indefiniteness of Claim 1). It appears the phrase in Claim 7 should instead read as --fourth conductive trace includes a third conductive trace segment conductively coupled to and perpendicular to the first conductive trace segment-- since it is the first conductive trace (e.g. 306) that has the trace portion/segment (e.g. 324) that is conductively coupled to and perpendicular to the first trace 306.
Dependent claims inherit the defects of the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11, 13-16, and 18-26 are allowed.
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. See the examiner suggestions for overcoming the 112 rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN E JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1762. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM to 5PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at 571-272-5918. 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.
/Stephen E. Jones/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843