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 .
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 “a metal layer between two dielectric layers” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 of 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 8 and 16 – 18 are 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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (US 2004/0037050 A1) in view of Shim (US 2008/0169838 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakayama (US 2004/0037050 A1) discloses a printed circuit board (Fig 3,6), comprising: a pair (1,1) of differential signal ([0021]) traces including a positive signal trace (1; [0021] “opposite in phase”) and a negative signal trace (1; [0021] ““opposite in phase””); and a rejection (note that it is unclear from the claim language what is being rejected and this the structure would be a trace providing some type of rejection; the structure being claimed is presented by the prior art reference and would be able to perform this function) trace (2; [0021,0029]) between the positive signal trace (1) and the negative signal trace (1), the rejection trace (2).
Though Nakayama structurally shows a PCB comprising a trace between positive and negative differential traces, the physical structure being claimed by the Applicant, Nakayama does not explicitly disclose the rejection trace configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
Shim (US 2008/0169838 A1) teaches of a circuit (Fig 2), comprising: a pair of differential signal traces (226,228,232,234; [0026]) including a positive signal trace (226) and a negative signal trace (228); and a CM-detector (252,254; [0032]) between the positive signal trace and the negative signal trace, the CM-detector ([0032]) configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present ([0032]) on the differential signal traces and to reduce ([0032]) the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as disclosed by Nakayama, configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces as taught by Shim, in order to selectively modulate communication data, provide detection circuitry, detect changes in signals, and provide better performance (Shim, [0009-0032]), such that the rejection trace is configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
Claim states “rejection trace” and “configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Regarding Claim 9, Nakayama in view of Shim teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Nakayama further teaches the printed circuit board (Fig 3,6) of claim 1, wherein the pair of differential traces (1,1) and the rejection trace (2) are formed on a surface (see Fig 6 showing a surface) of the printed circuit board.
Regarding Claim 11, Nakayama discloses a method (Fig 3,6; [0014]), comprising: providing, on a printed circuit board (Fig 3,6;Abstract), a pair of differential ([0021]) signal traces (1,1) including a positive signal trace (1; [0021] “opposite in phase”) and a negative signal trace (1; [0021] “opposite in phase”); providing, between the positive signal trace (1) and the negative signal trace (1), a rejection (note that it is unclear from the claim language what is being rejected and this the structure would be a trace providing some type of rejection; the structure being claimed is presented by the prior art reference and would be able to perform this function) trace (2; [0021,0029]).
Though Nakayama structurally shows a PCB comprising a trace between positive and negative differential traces, the physical structure being claimed by the Applicant, Nakayama does not explicitly disclose detecting, by the rejection trace, a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces; and reducing, by the rejection trace, the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
Shim teaches of a method (Fig 2; [0010-0013,0024,0032] “reduces”, “detects”), comprising: providing, on a circuit (Fig 2), a pair of differential (226,228,232,234; [0026]) signal traces (226,228) including a positive signal trace (226) and a negative signal trace (228); providing, between the positive signal trace (226) and the negative signal trace (228), a CM-detector (252,254; [0032]); detecting ([0029,0032]), by the CM-detector, a common mode (CM) signal present ([0032]) on the differential signal traces; and reducing ([0032]), by the CM-detector, the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method as disclosed by Nakayama, detecting, a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces; and reducing, the CM signal on the differential signal traces as taught by Shim, in order to selectively modulate communication data, provide detection circuitry, detect changes in signals, and provide better performance (Shim, [0009-0032]), configured such that detecting is by the rejection trace, a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces; and reducing is by the rejection trace, the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
Further as no specific steps are provided the Office reads this in the broadest sense to include any steps.
Regarding Claim 19, Nakayama in view of Shim teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Nakayama further teaches the method (Fig 3,6) of claim 11, wherein the pair of differential traces (1,1) and the rejection trace (2) are formed on a surface (see Fig 6 showing a surface) of the printed circuit board.
Further as no specific steps are provided the Office reads this in the broadest sense to include any steps.
Regarding Claim 20, Nakayama discloses a (data communication) interface (Fig 3,6), comprising: a pair (1,1) of differential ([0021]) signal traces (1,1), the differential signal traces including a positive signal trace (1; [0021] “opposite in phase”) and a negative signal trace (1; [0021] ““opposite in phase””); and a rejection (note that it is unclear from the claim language what is being rejected and this the structure would be a trace providing some type of rejection; the structure being claimed is presented by the prior art reference and would be able to perform this function) trace (2; [0021,0029]) between the positive signal trace (1) and the negative signal trace (1), the rejection trace (2).
Though Nakayama structurally shows a PCB comprising a trace between positive and negative differential traces, the physical structure being claimed by the Applicant, Nakayama does not explicitly disclose a transmitter; a receiver; a pair of differential signal traces between the transmitter and the receiver and the rejection trace configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
Shim teaches of a data communication (Abstract) interface (Fig 2), comprising: a transmitter ([0025]); a receiver ([0025]); a pair (226,228) of differential ([0026]) signal traces (226,228,232,234; [0026]) between the transmitter and the receiver, the differential signal traces including a positive signal trace (226) and a negative signal trace (228); and a CM-detector (252,254; [0032]) between the positive signal trace (226) and the negative signal trace (228), the CM-detector configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces ([0032]) and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the interface as disclosed by Nakayama, comprising a transmitter; a receiver; a pair of differential signal traces between the transmitter and the receiver and the rejection trace configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces as taught by Shim, in order to provide video data transmission, selectively modulate communication data, provide detection circuitry, detect changes in signals, and provide better performance (Shim, [0002,0009-0032]), such that the rejection trace is configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces.
Claim states “configured to detect a common mode (CM) signal present on the differential signal traces and to reduce the CM signal on the differential signal traces” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
The recitation that “data communication” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951)
Claim(s) 2 – 5 and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (US 2004/0037050 A1) in view of Shim (US 2008/0169838 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Kanno (US 2007/0056764 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakayama in view of Shim teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Nakayama further teaches the printed circuit board (Fig 1,6) of claim 1, comprising the positive signal trace (1; [0021,0029]) and the negative signal trace (1; [0021,0029]).
Nakayama does not disclose wherein the rejection trace includes a positive signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the positive signal trace and a negative signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the negative signal trace.
Kanno (US 2007/0056764 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1), wherein a rejection trace (301) includes a signal directional coupler trace (303) electromagnetically coupled ([0069]) to the signal trace (102a) and a signal directional coupler trace (305) electromagnetically coupled ([0069]) to the signal trace (102b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Nakayama in view of Shim, wherein the rejection trace includes a positive signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the positive signal trace and a negative signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the negative signal trace as taught by Kanno, in order to effectively suppress crosstalk and reduce signal deterioration (Kanno, [0001-0018,0025-0033]), such that the rejection trace includes a positive signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the positive signal trace and a negative signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the negative signal trace.
Regarding Claim 3, Nakayama in view of Shim and Kanno teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Kanno further teaches the printed circuit board (Fig 1) of claim 2, wherein the positive signal directional coupler trace (303) and the negative signal directional coupler trace (305) (are configured to detect a CM noise signal on the differential signal traces; note that the structure claimed could provide this function).
Claim states “configured to detect a CM noise signal on the differential signal traces” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Regarding Claim 4, Nakayama in view of Shim and Kanno teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Kanno further teaches the printed circuit board (Fig 1) of claim 3, wherein the positive signal directional coupler trace (303) and the negative signal directional coupler trace (305) are coupled to a delay trace (307).
Regarding Claim 5, Nakayama in view of Shim and Kanno teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Kanno further teaches the printed circuit board (Fig 1) of claim 4, wherein the delay trace (307) (is configured to provide a 180 degree phase shift to the CM noise signal).
Claim states “configured to provide a 180 degree phase shift to the CM noise signal” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Regarding Claim 12, Nakayama in view of Shim teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Nakayama further teaches the method (Fig 1,6) of claim 11, comprising the positive signal trace (1; [0021,0029]) and the negative signal trace (1; [0021,0029]).
Nakayama does not disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the rejection trace includes a positive signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the positive signal trace and a negative signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the negative signal trace.
Kanno (US 2007/0056764 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 1), wherein a rejection trace (301) includes a signal directional coupler trace (303) electromagnetically coupled ([0069]) to the signal trace (102a) and a signal directional coupler trace (305) electromagnetically coupled ([0069]) to the signal trace (102b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Nakayama in view of Shim, wherein the rejection trace includes a positive signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the positive signal trace and a negative signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the negative signal trace as taught by Kanno, in order to effectively suppress crosstalk and reduce signal deterioration (Kanno, [0001-0018,0025-0033]), such that the rejection trace includes a positive signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the positive signal trace and a negative signal directional coupler trace electromagnetically coupled to the negative signal trace.
Further as no specific steps are provided the Office reads this in the broadest sense to include any steps.
Regarding Claim 13, Nakayama in view of Shim and Kanno teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Kanno further teaches the method (Fig 1) of claim 12, wherein the positive signal directional coupler trace (303) and the negative signal directional coupler trace (305) (are configured to detect a CM noise signal on the differential signal traces; note that the structure claimed could provide this function).
Claim states “configured to detect a CM noise signal on the differential signal traces” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Further as no specific steps are provided the Office reads this in the broadest sense to include any steps.
Regarding Claim 14, Nakayama in view of Shim and Kanno teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Kanno further teaches the method (Fig 1) of claim 13, wherein the positive signal directional coupler trace (303) and the negative signal directional coupler trace (305) are coupled to a delay trace (307).
Further as no specific steps are provided the Office reads this in the broadest sense to include any steps.
Regarding Claim 15, Nakayama in view of Shim and Kanno teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Kanno further teaches the method (Fig 1) of claim 14, wherein the delay trace (307) (is configured to provide a 180 degree phase shift to the CM noise signal).
Claim states “configured to provide a 180 degree phase shift to the CM noise signal” however it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)
Further as no specific steps are provided the Office reads this in the broadest sense to include any steps.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama (US 2004/0037050 A1) in view of Shim (US 2008/0169838 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chen (US 2014/0002935 A1) and Fusayasu (US 2008/0266019 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Nakayama in view of Shim teaches the limitations of the preceding claim.
Nakayama does not disclose the printed circuit board of claim 1, wherein the pair of differential traces and the rejection trace are formed on a metal layer between two dielectric layers of the printed circuit board.
Chen (US 2014/0002935 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 3), wherein a pair of differential traces (110a,110b) and a trace (114) are formed on a metal layer (112,110) between two dielectric layers of the printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Nakayama in view of Shim, wherein the pair of differential traces and the rejection trace are formed on a layer between two dielectric layers of the printed circuit board as taught by Chen, in order to provide a mask for solder (Chen, [0038-0043]) and also to provide a means of protection over the traces. Such a covering dielectric would provide protection from the environment as well as electrical insulation from short circuiting.
Fusayasu (US 2008/0266019 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 2), wherein a pair of differential traces (2ab,2cb) and a trace (2bb) are formed on a metal layer (layer with 2) between two dielectric layers (D1,D3) of a printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the board as taught by Nakayama in view of Shim and Chen, wherein the pair of differential traces and the rejection trace are formed on a metal layer as taught by Fusayasu, in order to provide a conductive material and form a material able to be etched (Fusayasu, [0166]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: He (US 2002/0097061 A1) teaches of a printed circuit board (Fig 4), comprising: a pair of signal traces (94,94); and a rejection trace (96) between the signal trace and the signal trace, the rejection trace (96) comprising a means for interfacing with a test probe ([0032]). This may be useful for a future 103 Rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSHN K VARGHESE whose telephone number is (571)270-7975. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 900 am-300 pm.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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.
/ROSHN K VARGHESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896