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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2024 and 12/15/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
NOTE: Examiner is wondering if Fig. 6 – Fig. 12 are related to each other as [0009]-[0015] refers to the structures as “another example”
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the ground reference layer segments” or “the second ground reference layer segments” in Claims 10, 16, and 19 should be “the plurality of the ground reference layer segments” or “the plurality of the second ground reference layer segments”
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 5-8 and 14-17 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.
Claim 14 and 15 (16-17 being dependent) recites the limitation "the FPC" in it. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “approximately” in claims 5-8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term allows significant latitude in range of the gap which might not be consistent between different parties which would render the claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DENG (CN107819177).
Regarding Claim 1. DENG teaches, in Fig. 2-16, a flexible printed circuit (FPC) cable comprising: a first ground trace (102) on a first side of an insulator substrate (103); a second ground trace (102) on the first side of the insulator substrate spaced from the first ground trace (see Fig. 3); a plurality of signal lines (101, page 3 paragraph 4, page 1 last paragraph) between the first ground trace and the second ground trace; and a ground reference layer (104) on a second side of the insulator substrate (see Fig. 3), the ground reference layer comprising a plurality of ground reference layer segments (104a) spaced from one another, wherein each of the ground reference layer segments is connected with a via (105) to the first ground trace and the second ground trace (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 20. DENG teaches, in Fig. 2-16, a method of manufacturing a flexible printed circuit (FPC) cable, the method comprising: providing an FPC cable with a first ground trace (102) on a first side of an insulator substrate (103), a second ground trace (102) on the first side of the insulator substrate (103) spaced from the first ground trace, and a plurality of signal lines (101, page 3 paragraph 4, page 1 last paragraph) between the first ground trace and the second ground trace (Fig. 3); and creating a bending region (implicitly see page 6 paragraph 3) in the FPC cable by: providing a ground reference layer (104) on a second side of the insulator substrate (see Fig. 3), wherein the ground reference layer comprises a plurality of ground reference layer segments (104a) spaced from one another; and connecting each of the ground reference layer segments with a via (105) to the first ground trace and the second ground trace (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 2. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ground reference layer segments substantially define a bending region of the FPC cable (implicitly see page 6 paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 3. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 2, wherein when the bending region is substantially coplanar, the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a first gap (Lg- Gg), and when the bending region is curved in a first direction (downward direction (U shape)), the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a second gap greater than the first gap (implicit as the bending, the gap will naturally increase).
Regarding Claim 4. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 3, wherein when the bending region is curved in a second direction (upward direction (upside-down U)) opposite to the first direction, the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a third gap smaller than the first gap (implicit as the bending, the gap will naturally decrease).
Regarding Claim 5. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 2, wherein when the bending region is substantially coplanar, the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a gap equal to or less than approximately 1/50th of a wavelength of a highest frequency signal carried by the plurality of signal lines (page 6 paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 6. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 2, wherein when the bending region is substantially coplanar, the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a gap equal to or less than approximately 1/100th of a wavelength of a highest frequency signal carried by the plurality of signal lines (page 6 paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 7. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 2, wherein when the bending region is substantially coplanar, the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a gap equal to or less than approximately 12 mm (page 6 paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 8. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 2, wherein when the bending region is substantially coplanar, the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a gap equal to or less than approximately 3 mm (page 6 paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 9. DENG teaches, in Fig. 3, he FPC cable of claim 1, wherein the ground reference layer comprises a first planar ground reference surface (104a) extending longitudinally from a first endmost ground reference layer segment (Fig. 3) of the plurality of ground reference layer segments, and a second planar ground reference surface (104a) extending longitudinally from a second endmost ground reference layer segment opposite to the first endmost ground reference layer segment of the plurality of ground reference layer segments (see Fig .3).
Regarding Claim 10. DENG teaches, in Fig. 10-12, the FPC cable of claim 1, wherein each of the ground reference layer segments comprises a first sub-segment (303 top) and a second sub-segment (303 bottom) spaced from the first sub-segment.
Regarding Claim 11. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 10, wherein the first sub-segment is connected with a first via to the first ground trace and the second sub-segment is connected with a second via to the second ground trace (see Fig. 10-12)(see Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 13. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 10, wherein the first sub-segment is substantially colinear with the second sub-segment (see Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 14. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 10, wherein the first sub-segment is spaced from the second sub-segment in a longitudinal direction along the FPC (se Fig. 12).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim(s) 12, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DENG in view of Case Law.
Regarding Claim 12. DENG teaches, in Fig. 10-12 the FPC cable of claim 11, wherein the FPC cable further comprises a third ground trace (201a) and a fourth ground trace (206a) on the first side of the insulator substrate, except for the first sub-segment is connected with a third via to the third ground trace, and the second sub-segment is connected with a fourth via to the fourth ground trace.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change the first sub-segment and second sub-segment to be connected to a third and fourth via to connect them to the third and fourth ground trace in order to reduce the amount of conductive material needed as it is known in the art, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 15. DENG teaches, in Fig. 12, the FPC cable of claim 1, wherein the insulator substrate is a first insulator substrate (implicit), the ground reference layer is a first ground reference layer (304), and the plurality of ground reference layer segments are a plurality of first ground reference layer segments (304, see Fig. 12), wherein the FPC further comprises the second ground reference layer comprising a plurality of second ground reference layer segments (303) spaced from one another, wherein each of the second ground reference layer segments is connected with a via (105) to the first ground trace and the second ground trace (see Fig. 12)(see Fig. 6), but does not disclose the FPC further comprises a second insulator substrate between the first ground trace and a second ground reference layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the insulator substrate to make a second insulator substrate (202,205 in Fig. 11) in order to adjust electric characteristics between the layers of the cable as it is known in the art, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 17. DENG teaches the FPC cable of claim 15, wherein each of the first ground reference layer segments is located in between two opposing second ground reference layer segments in a longitudinal direction along a length of the FPC cable (see Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muro (US8758028) in view of DENG.
Regarding Claim 18. MURO teaches, in Fig. 13, an electronic device, comprising: a housing (70); a first electronic component (14) in the housing; a second electronic component (72) in the housing; and a flexible printed circuit (FPC) cable (16) connecting the first electronic component and the second electronic component, but does not disclose the FPC cable comprising: a first ground trace on a first side of an insulator substrate; a second ground trace on the first side of the insulator substrate spaced from the first ground trace; a plurality of signal lines between the first ground trace and the second ground trace; and a ground reference layer on a second side of the insulator substrate, the ground reference layer comprising a plurality of ground reference layer segments spaced from one another, wherein each of the ground reference layer segments is connected with a via to the first ground trace and the second ground trace.
DENG teaches, in Fig. 2-16, a flexible printed circuit (FPC) cable comprising: a first ground trace (102) on a first side of an insulator substrate (103); a second ground trace (102) on the first side of the insulator substrate spaced from the first ground trace (see Fig. 3); a plurality of signal lines (101, page 3 paragraph 4, page 1 last paragraph) between the first ground trace and the second ground trace; and a ground reference layer (104) on a second side of the insulator substrate (see Fig. 3), the ground reference layer comprising a plurality of ground reference layer segments (104a) spaced from one another, wherein each of the ground reference layer segments is connected with a via (105) to the first ground trace and the second ground trace (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electric device as disclosed by MURO with the FPC as disclosed by DENG in order to be easily bent and can provide greater impedance adjusting range and convenient for impedance control of the flexible flat wire with high frequency and its device (DENG, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 19. MURO and DENG teaches the electronic device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of ground reference layer segments substantially define a bending region of the FPC cable (implicitly see page 6 paragraph 3), wherein when the bending region is substantially coplanar, the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a first gap (Lg- Gg), and when the bending region is curved ( downward direction (U shape)), the ground reference layer segments are spaced from one another by a second gap greater than the first gap (implicit as the bending, the gap will naturally increase)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is presented in the Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMED AZAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0593. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00am-5:00pm.
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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848