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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 10/02/25 has been acknowledged. Applicant amended Claims 1, 2, and 4.
Status of Claims
Applicant earlier withdraw from considerations Claims 9-20 as directed to an invention not chosen for examination.
Claims 1-8 are examined on merits herein.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dally (US 2016/0380674) in view of Birch et al. (US 2008/0028352).
In re Claim 1, Dally teaches an apparatus for use in an electrical device, wherein the apparatus comprises (Fig. 1A, paragraphs 0004-0007):
a first repeater 102;
a second repeater 104; and
a wire 114 coupled with the first repeater 102 and the second repeater 104, wherein the wire 114 is to carry an electrical signal along a signal path along a unidirectional (paragraph 0007) from the first repeater 102 to the second repeater 104, wherein
the wire has a first segment adjacent to the first repeater 102 and a second segment adjacent to the second repeater 104 – inherently: each wire can be, at least virtually, divided at least into two segments; wherein:
the first segment has a first measurement perpendicular to a length of the wire (obviously);
the second segment has a second measurement perpendicular to the length of the wire (obviously); and
the first measurement the same as the second measurement (since the wire is not described as having different width values).
Dally does not teach that the first measurement is greater than the second measurement.
Birch teaches a wire 820 (Fig. 8, paragraph 0150-0158) comprised segments of different width, with a greater width of a first segment 838 disposed near a first repeater (being an input) than a width of a second segment disposed near an output (paragraph 0152). Birch further teaches that a multi-segment wire with multiple widths has such advantage, in comparison with a single-width wire, as a reduced delay of a signal passing through the wire (paragraph 0158). It is also known from the art (see Abstract of El-Moursy, NPL, cited by the IDS) that the tapered wires also have an advantage of a reduced power dissipation.
Dally and Birch teach analogous arts directed to a transmission line wire, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Dally apparatus in view of the Birch disclosure, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Birch refers to the structure successfully used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to substitute a Dally single-width wire between the first and second repeaters with a segmented wire similar to wire 820 of Birch, with the first segment (associated with a first measurement), having the first width located near the first repeater and a second segment with the second width (associated with a second measurements) near the second repeater, the second width smaller than the first width, when it is desirable to reduce a power dissipation on the wire and to reduce a signal delay (Birch, paragraph 0158).
In re Claim 2, Dally/Birch teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above, wherein, as shown for Claim 1, the first measurement is a width of the first segment and the second measurement are a width of the second segment.
In re Claim 5, Dally/Birch teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above, wherein, as is clear from the Dally/Birch apparatus and Claim 1, the length of the wire is measured in a direction parallel to a direction of propagation of the electrical signal.
In re Claim 7, Dally/Birch teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above, where Birch teaches the tapered wire comprised at least first and second segments of first and second widths, accordingly.
Birch further teaches (paragraph 0154) that when a wire is chosen such that at one end, its width is 10 microns, at another end – a wire width is 6 microns, e.g., it is possible to suggest a width of around 8 - 9 microns for a middle segment 840 of wire 820 (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0152-0158), e.g., Birch teaches that first and second widths could be 10 microns and 8-9 microns, accordingly, e.g., the first measurement (width) is about 20% or 10% greater (2/10 = 20% or 1/10 = 10%) than the second measurements (width), which falls within a claimed limitation – “the first measurement is between 10% and 20% greater than the second measurement”. Note that in accordance with the MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In re Claim 8, Dally/Birch teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above, where Birch teaches the tapered wire comprised at least first and second segments of first and second widths, accordingly.
Birch further teaches (paragraphs 0152-0154) that at one end, a wire width can be 10 microns, and at another end – 6 microns, e.g., having a width of around 8-9 microns for a middle segment of wire 820 (Fig. 8).
If the first wire segment is chosen to be a second from the driver/repeater and has a width of 9-8 micrometers and the second wire segment has a width of 6 micrometers, the first measurement (the first width) is about from 50% to 33% greater (3/6= 50% and 2/6= 33%) than the second measurements, which overlaps the claimed ratio: “the first measurement is 40% greater than the second measurement”. Note that in accordance with the MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dally/Birch in view of Lieber et al. (US 2009/0057650).
In re Claim 3, Dally/Birch teaches the apparatus of Claim 2 as cited above, including the tapered wire made per Birch.
Dally/Birch does not teach that the wire has an average width of less than or equal to 300 nanometers (nm). However, Dally teaches a length of the wire between two repeaters is about 250 micrometers (paragraph 0040).
Lieber teaches (paragraph 0168) that in a nanoscale wire technology, a width of a nanowire can be selected from a range from 1 nm to 1000 nm, and, in particular, it is good to have an aspect ratio (which is a length to width ratio) of 1000:1.
Dally and Lieber teach analogues arts directed to small wires, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Dally device in view of the Lieber teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Lieber refers to a commonly used practice in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Dally/Birch apparatus by creating its tapered wire with an average width of about 250 nm, achieving by that an average width being less than 300 nm and the wire with the aspect ratio of about 1000:1, in order to enable such parameter as an average wire width.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dally/Birch in view of Rodman (US 7,185,305).
In re Claim 4, Dally/Birch teaches the apparatus of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach that the first measurement and the second measurement are a height of first and second wire segments (per Birch) - Birch shows only wire segments widths, while not teaching their heights.
Rodman teaches (column 5 lines 57-67, column 6 lines 1-29) cross-sections of a tapered wiring along its length (Fig. 3B) and along its width (Fig. 3C) and shows (Fig. 3C) that a tapered wire with tapered width has similar sections with different heights, each height corresponding to a width of particular section - the shortest width corresponds to the shortest heights, etc.
Dally/Birch and Rodman teach analogous arts directed to tapered wires with similar shaped cross-sections along their lengths, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Dally/Birch device in view of the Rodman teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Rodman refers to a successful practice used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Dally/Birch apparatus of Claim 1 such that the first and second measurements are directed to heights of the tapered wire (per Rodman), in order to enable such parameter as a tapered wire height.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dally/Birch in view of Barke et al. (US 2008/0059933).
In re Claim 6, Dally/Birch teaches the apparatus of Claim 5 as cited above.
Dally further teaches (Fig. 5A, paragraph 0040) that the length, dR. of a wire between two adjacent repeaters 320 is 250 micrometers. Dally does not teach that the length of the wire between adjacent repeaters is between 300 and 400 micrometers (microns) long.
Barke teaches (paragraphs 0035-0036) that a length of a wire between two (adjacent) repeaters 16 (Fig. 2) is between 200 and 800 micrometers (paragraph 0047).
Dally and Barke teach analogous arts directed to a transmission wire between two repeaters, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Dally/Birch device in view of the Barke teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, both teach that the wire length between two repeaters in a similar range, and Barke refers to a successful practice used in the art.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Dally/Birch apparatus of Claim 5 by choosing the wire length from the range from 300 microns to 400 microns, if desirable. Note that in accordance with the MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). ... The court stated that “one skilled in the art look to the range appearing in the prior art.” Id.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments (REMARKS, filed 10/02/25) have been fully considered.
Examiner agrees with the Applicant (REMARKS, page 5) that amended Claims 2 and 4 (as filed 10/0/25) do not have grounds for their objections.
Examiner agrees with the cited paragraph from Dally (REMARKS, page 7) and points out that this paragraph (e.g., paragraph 0007 of Dally, referring to a Prior Art shown in Fig. 1) is good for the amended Claim 1 citing an unidirectional transmittance of a signal between repeaters. In view of which, the rejection of Claim 1 in the current Office Action is based on Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0004-0007 of Dally. Accordingly, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant that Dally cannot be used for rejection of the amended Claim 1. In view of the above, the Examiner believes that the current rejection is clear. However, an Applicant initiated Interview could be reasonable if the Applicant would like to discuss other possible amendments of Claim 1 (REMARKS, page 6).
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 should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 10/06/25