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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 8/4/26 is acknowledged. Because applicants did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Thus, claims 7-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/4/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-6 as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 (entirely) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
It is suggested method flow diagram drawing as below for method invention drawings:
PNG
media_image1.png
605
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: .
The scope of the claims is uncertain because it is not known as to what being referring to as “subassemblies in an information handling system” since the claims clearly directed to the joining between two PCB’s base on the predetermining of their impedance of the microstrip width. Therefore, it is suggested the preamble to be more specific because the “subassemblies in an information handling system” appears to be outside of the claimed method.
It is also not known as to what being associated with step of “determining” appear to be: --“predetermining” -- instead of.
Further, several transition terms “comprising” existed in claim 1 such as (see lines 9, 14) which is/are confusing since the method directed to the impedance matching rather than the making of first trace and second trace and it structure features thereto. Also, there is no “matching impedance process” cited in the body of claim 1 to reflect the method as claimed. 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 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 this case it is unclear exactly what method invention applicant intends to claim, at best understood appears that the method directed to making of PCBs assemblies is based on the predetermining of circuit traces and the interconnection between PCBs assemblies (see lines 9-18 of claim 1). Therefore, it is suggested that claim 1 should be rewritten into method for forming PCB assemblies for clarity of the scope of the claims. Since, no “the impedance matching across subassemblies in an information handling system” existed in the claims as the present formats.
whether or not “a first trace” (claim 1, line 9) as same as that in claim 1, line 3?
whether or not “a second trace” (claim 1, line 14) as same as that in claim 1, line 6?
The phrases:
“forming the first PCB with a first trace comprising: a main portion with a trace width based on the trace design width of the first trace; and a first end with a trace width greater than the trace design width of the first trace; and “ (claim 1, lines 9-13) and “forming the second PCB with a second trace comprising: a main portion with a trace width based on the trace design width of the second trace; and a second end with a trace width greater than the trace design width of the second trace; and”(claim 1, lines 14-18) appears to be awkwardly worded and confusing since above lacking of positive method inventive features it is suggested rewritten the structure limitations after term “comprising “ into method limitation the following is/are suggested :
-- forming the first PCB includes a first trace, a main portion, a first end, wherein the main portion trace width based on the predetermined trace design width of the first trace, and the first end trace width configured to be greater than the predetermined trace design width of the first trace; and” -- , similar to the above applied to lines 14-18 of claim 1 above.
The step of “joining the first PCB to the second PCB” (claim 1, line 19) appears to be incomplete since it is unclear at to how the joining of the PCBs can be done because there is no connector provided to connect the first and the second PCB. Also, it is not known what portion of the first PCB is interconnected to the portion of the second PCB, respectively.
“are formed” (claims 4-5, line 2) is/are not active method limitation.
“further comprising forming the first PCB with a conductive silk screen” (claim 6, line 1) is unclear and confusing appear to be incomplete in that it is not known as to what part of the first PCB is forming by a conductive silk screen. Please be more specific as to whether the trace or solder mask layer further comprising forming conductive layer by silk screen printing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morales et al in view of Klein (6492598).
Phoy et al discloses the interconnect method for impedance matching across subassemblies in an information handling system, the method comprising:
forming the first PCB 12 with a first trace36/38 comprising:
a main portion with a trace width based on the trace design width of the first trace 24/26 ; and a first end 26 with a trace width greater than the trace design width of the first trace 24 (see Fig. 1); and
forming the second PCB with a second trace comprising:
a main portion 36/38 with a trace width based on the trace design width of the second trace; and a second end 38 with a trace width greater than the trace design width of the second trace 36; and
joining the first PCB to the second PCB (see Fig. 2).
Regarding the following steps: e.g., ” determining a trace design width for a first trace on a first printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a ground plane, a prepreg layer and a solder mask; determining a tolerance associated with the trace design width of the first trace; determining a trace design width for a second trace on a second printed circuit board (PCB) comprising a ground plane, a prepreg layer and a solder mask; determining a tolerance associated with the trace design width of the second trace “ do not seem to further limit the method since determining considered to be predicting and/or assuming and it appears that the Klein as discussed in col. 1, lines 58-67 and col. 2, lines 1-34 which depict the pcb layout as determining includes trace 101, solder mask 102/103 and the trace width configurations at discussed in col. 2 in light of lines 28-34, respectively which satisfied the above PCBs determining factors or configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Klein teaching as mentioned above into invention of Phoy et al to facilitate the interconnection between number of PCbs in an effective manner.
As applied to claims 2 and 6, it appears that it is a matter of choice since no positive method limitation existed in these claims see also 112 issues above. Thus, the subject-matter of claims above is therefore not inventive when departing from the combination applied prior art in conjunction with the common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
9/18/26
Prosecution Insights