DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Patil in view of German have been fully considered and are persuasive. – the rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 2, 5 and 9 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 Claim 1, the claim limitation “a lateral gap that is formed between lateral extension parts of two adjacent conductive traces which are respectively used as a signal wire and a ground wire” renders the claim indefinite. Is it unclear if the signal wire and the ground wire are the same as the first and second traces. The first conductive trace and second conductive trace are defined by their geometric relationship (different sectional areas). “Signal wire” and “ground wire” are functional designations, and nothing in the claim maps the first and second conductive trace to the signal wire and the ground wire. It is unclear if the first conductive trace or the second conductive trace are either the claimed signal wire and ground wire. It is unclear if the first conductive trace and the second conductive trace are different elements from the signal wire and ground wire (hence, four traces and wires total). Additionally, it is unclear what “adjacent” means in the context of the claims relative to the already named plurality of conductive traces and first and second conductive trace. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the first conductive trace is used as a the signal wire and the second conductive trace is used as the ground wire.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim limitation “each lateral gap that is formed between lateral extension parts of two adjacent conductive traces” and “lateral extension parts of two adjacent conductive traces” also render the claim indefinite. The claim previously introduces a first and second conductive trace but never requires them to be “adjacent” to each other. It is unclear if the limitation “two adjacent conductive traces” appears to refer back to the first and second traces, or another of the plural conductive traces. This problem is also replicated with respect to the lateral gap. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the two adjacent conductive traces are the first and second conductive trace, and that these two traces are adjacent to one another.
Essentially, there is ambiguating between the plural conductive traces, the first and second conductive trace, what entails two adjacent conductive traces (Are the plural conductive traces adjacent? Are the first and second conductive trace adjacent? Are all of the traces adjacent?).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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. Reasons for allowance will be set forth in a subsequent Office action due to the nature of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights