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 with traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. The restriction requirement is deemed moot and is withdrawn because of the allowability of claim 1, and thus non-elected claims 7 and 11 are rejoined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 (line 4), it appears the phrase “extending its front portion” should instead read as --extending from the front portion-- merely to improve the grammatical form.
In Claim 8 (line 1), it appears the phrase “wherein cylindrical front portion” should instead read as --wherein the cylindrical front portion-- merely to improve the grammatical form.
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 9, 10, 11, and 15 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 9 (line 2), the phrase “the facing edge of the circuit” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear as to what it is referring. Should the phrase instead read as --a facing edge of the circuit--?
In Claim 10 (lines 1-3), the phrase “the circuit is a suspended-microstrip and has a dielectric substrate a major face of which has the transmission line, which takes the form of a microstrip” is not clear as to how the suspended-microstrip, the transmission line and the “a microstrip” relate to each other. Should the phrase instead read as --the circuit transmission line is a suspended-microstrip and has a dielectric substrate, a major face of which has the transmission line, which takes the form of the microstrip-- to make it clear that the transmission line, suspended-microstrip, and microstrip are all referring to the same portion of the device?
In Claim 11 (line 1), the phrase “the circuit is of coplanar type” is indefinite since the metes and bounds of the term “type” are not defined. It appears that replacing the phrase with --the circuit is a coplanar circuit-- would overcome the indefiniteness.
In Claim 15 (lines 3-4), the phrase “at least one of the conductive ground lines” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear as to what it is referring since the conductive ground lines were not previously recited. Should the phrase instead read as --at least one conductive ground line--?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 12-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach the claimed central contact of the coaxial component including a rear portion that makes contact with the transmission line and that is fastened thereto by a solder joint, the rear portion having at least one gap, defining a volume forming a reserve for the solder of the solder joint, configured to absorb excess solder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi et al. (US 4,656,441) teaches a coaxial to microstrip connection including openings for solder in an outer conductor plate (e.g. see Figs. 6 and 10).
Payne (US 2010/0176896) teaches a coaxial to board connection having a solder access opening.
Pierro et al. (US 5,402,088) teaches a coaxial interconnection having a flat top surface of the center conductor in the connection region.
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