DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims resolve the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in the Non-Final rejection mailed 4/20/2026, however, new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues are presented below. Since Claim 1 is allowable, the examiner has considered withdrawn dependent claims that depend from Claim 1.
Applicant says that claims 25, 28, 30 and 31 have been amended in a manner consistent with claim 1, but none of these claims recite claim 1’s first/second-longitudinal-extension-part sectional-area limitation (Claim 25 substitutes a shape-change limitation, Claim 28 substitutes connection-portion alignment, Claim 30 recite “at least one… sectional area different from the others” and Claim 31 recites “different sectional areas” genericall)y. Therefore, claims 25, 28, 30 and 31 are not currently eligible for rejoinder, and have yet to be considered for both prior art and 35 U.S.C. 112 issues.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “lower dielectric constant than of the second insulating layer” should be amended to recite “lower dielectric constant than that of the second insulating layer”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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 limitation “each lateral gap is formed between lateral extension parts of each adjacent conductive traces” renders the claim indefinite. “Each” modifying a plural is unclear, it is ambiguous whether this means every pair of adjacent traces or each trace individually. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim “each pair of adjacent conductive traces”.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “corresponds to a via hole” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the via hole is located within the gap, aligned with it, or merely associated. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the via hole is a “hole” which are formed at predetermined positions on the insulating layer for the purpose of the electrical connection.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation is formed parallel to the longitudinal axis of “the guide wire” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation “the guide wire” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim “the guide wire core”.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “has a thickness dimension different from those of the other conductive traces… at different positions in a length direction” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the one trace’s thickness varies along its length or at each of several positions its thickness differs from the other traces. Also, “a length direction” of what is unspecified. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim the one trace’s thickness varies along its length.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “at least one of gaps” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1 recites longitudinal gaps and lateral gaps, so it is unclear which gap this refers to, and “constant” with respect to what (Length? Across circumference?). For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that all gaps are constant.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitation “each of the plural conductive traces each electrical connection point” renders the claim indefinite. The meaning of each is unclear, does each trave have its own connection point, does each trace have every connection portion? Also, “arranged on one straight line of the guide wire core” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “line of the core” is (in contract to Claim 2’s “straight line parallel to the longitudinal axis).
Regarding Claims 15-18, the limitation “had each electrical connection portion” renders the claim indefinite, as similarly set forth in the rejection of Claim 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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