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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4 (line 4), the phrase “is a region where the connection strips extended from” should instead read as --is a region where the connection strips extend from-- to correct the grammatical form.
In Claim 4 (lines 7-8), the phrase “is a region where the rear-end strips are positioned and extended from the connection strips” should instead read as --is a region where the rear-end strips are positioned and extend from the connection strips-- to improve the grammatical form since the “extended” limitation has not been previously recited .
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 7 and 21-23 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 7, the limitations of “a first region”, “a second region”, “a third region”, and “vias” are not clear as to how they relate to the same limitations in Claims 4 and 5, thus claim 7 is indefinite.
In Claim 21, the limitations of a “first substrate” and a “second substrate” are not clear how they relate to the “the dielectric substrate” in Claim 1 and thus claim 21 is indefinite, and especially since Claim 1 requires the transition structure having the differential line and balanced line to have the dielectric substrate. Claims 22-23 inherit the defects of Claim 21 by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach a transition structure having the particularly claimed structural arrangement for digital signal transmission that is converting a differential line comprising two lines having opposite polarities into a balanced line while preserving a form of a differential signal
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112 rejections of Claims 1-6 and 8-17. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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 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