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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 4, 6, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yosui et al. (US PGPub 20170149111), a reference of record.
As per claim 1:
Yosui et al. discloses in Fig. 1 & 13B:
A transmission line comprising:
a substrate (insulator layers 11-14) that is insulating and extends in a predetermined direction (as seen in Fig. 1);
a high-frequency signal transmission line (first signal conductor pattern 31) included in the substrate;
a differential signal transmission line (32A/B, [0066]) included in the substrate; and
a power supply line (40 with connected plane 23, [0106]) included in the substrate;
wherein:
the power supply line and the high-frequency signal transmission line are in parallel or substantially in parallel to each other (abstract);
the differential signal transmission line is between the power supply line and the high-frequency signal transmission line (32 is between 23 and 31);
in the substrate where the high-frequency signal transmission line and the differential signal transmission line are closest and parallel or substantially parallel to each other, the power supply line, the differential signal transmission line, and the high-frequency signal transmission line are aligned with each other in a thickness direction of the substrate (23, 32, and 31 are all stacked and centered over each other in the thickness direction of 13B); and
in the substrate where the high-frequency signal transmission line and the differential signal transmission line are closest and parallel or substantially parallel to each other, when a direction from the high-frequency signal transmission line toward the differential signal transmission line in the thickness direction of the substrate is defined as a downward direction (upward direction of Fig. 13B), any portion of the power supply line (ground plane 23, used as a power supply line, [0108]) is located below the differential signal transmission line in the downward direction (differential signal transmission line 32 overlaps ground plane 23 when Fig. 13B is vertically inverted).
As per claim 2:
Yosui et al. discloses in Fig. 1 & 13B:
a ground conductor (21) between at least one of the power supply line and the differential signal transmission line or the differential signal transmission line and the high-frequency signal transmission line.
As per claim 4:
Yosui et al. discloses in Fig. 1, 2B, & 13B:
the substrate includes a curved section at a middle position of the substrate in the direction in which the substrate extends (as seen in Fig. 2B and described in [0055] and [0028]).
As per claim 6:
Yosui et al. discloses in Fig. 1 & 13B:
the substrate includes a plurality of insulating resin materials (insulating layers 11-15) that separate the high-frequency signal transmission line, the differential signal transmission line included in the substrate, and the power supply line from one another ([0055], as seen in Fig. 13B).
As per claim 14:
Yosui et al. discloses in Fig. 1 & 13B:
the high-frequency signal transmission line and the power supply line are spaced away from each other at a distance equal or substantially equal to a size of the differential signal transmission line (as seen in Fig. 13B, where the high-frequency signal transmission line is considered to include insulative layers 13 & 14, and the differential signal transmission line size includes insulative layers 11 & 12).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosui et al. (US PGPub 20170149111), a reference of record.
As per claim 11:
Yosui discloses in Fig. 10:
the differential signal transmission line includes a first differential signal transmission line (32) and a second differential signal transmission line (33)
Yosui does not disclose in Fig. 13B:
the differential signal transmission line includes a first differential signal transmission line and a second differential signal transmission line; and a width of the first differential signal transmission line is equal or substantially equal to a width of the second differential signal transmission line.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the differential signal transmission line to include a first differential signal transmission line and a second differential signal transmission line, to provide the benefit of multiple differential signal transmission lines as is well known in the art and shown in Fig. 10 of Yosui et al.
It would be further obvious for a width of the first differential signal transmission line is equal or substantially equal to a width of the second differential signal transmission line as one of a limited number of options (same or different), wherein the width of the differential signal transmission line is a design parameter for determining the characteristic impedance of the transmission line, as is well understood in the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosui et al. (US PGPub 20170149111) in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub 20160174361), all references of record.
As per claim 5:
Yosui et al. discloses in Fig. 1 & 13B:
the substrate includes:
a first section where the high-frequency signal transmission line is located (insulative layers 13 & 14);
a second section (protective layer 9) where the power supply line is located; and
a third section (insulative layers 11 & 12) where the differential signal transmission line is located.
Yosui does not disclose:
the first section, the second section, and the third section are made of different materials from each other.
Chen et al. discloses in Fig. 3:
A multi-layer substrate comprising a plurality of transmission line layers (signal layers 302), and power layers (306) separated by a plurality of dielectric layers 308, wherein the dielectric layer material is a design parameter chosen based on thermal, electrical, and/or mechanical characteristics ([0070]), wherein suitable dielectric materials can include many different options ([0084]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the respective dielectric material of each section of Yosui to be individually determined as a design parameter based on desired thermal, electrical or mechanical characteristics, as taught by Chen et al. ([0070]) and further as is it is well understood in the art that the dielectric constant of a material affects the impedance of a transmission line.
It would be further obvious for the first section, the second section, and the third section to be made of different materials from each other as one of a limited number of options (different or same) for the design parameter of the dielectric material.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the resultant combination of Yosui et al. (US PGPub 20170149111) in view of Chen et al. (US PGPub 20160174361) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US PGPub 20100201459) and Chen et al. (US PGPub 20130271909), hereinafter Chen 2, all references of record.
The resultant combination discloses the transmission line of claim 5, as rejected above.
As per claim 13:
The resultant combination discloses in Yosui:
the first section includes an insulating resin material ([0055]);
The resultant combinaiton does not disclose:
the second section includes a material that is higher in heat resistance and heat dissipation than the insulating resin material of the first section; and
the third section includes an insulating resin material with a filler magnetic substance.
Kawaguchi et al. discloses in Fig. 1:
A power supply line configured with transmission lines (12), wherein the power supply line includes is formed on a resin material ([0135]) and includes a material (resistive material 14) that is higher in heat resistance and heat dissipation (conductive ceramics, [0124, 0131]) than the insulating resin material.
Chen 2 discloses:
The use of a filler magnetic substance (common mode filter 308, [0021]) in the insulating material of differential transmission lines.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the resistive material of Kawaguchi et al. to the second section of the resultant combination to provide the benefit of suppressing transmission noise through a power supply line, as taught by Kawaguchi et al. (abstract)
It would be further obvious for the insulating resin material of the third section to include the filler magnetic substance of Chen 2 to provide the benefit of filtering a common mode from the differential transmission lines, as per Chen 2 (abstract, and being a common mode filter).
As a consequence of the combination, the combination discloses the second section includes a material that is higher in heat resistance and heat dissipation than the insulating resin material of the first section; and the third section includes an insulating resin material with a filler magnetic substance.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yosui et al. (US PGPub 20170149111) in view of Dagostino (US Patent 6867668), all references of record.
As per claim 7:
Yosui et al. does not disclose:
a first ground conductor on a first main surface of the substrate.
Dagostino discloses in Fig. 8A:
A flexible transmission line (flexible dielectric layer 152) comprising a plurality of signal conductors (154), wherein the transmission line comprises a first ground conductor (148) on a first main surface of a substrate (152) and a second ground conductor (150) on a second main surface of a substrate.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the ground conductors of Dagostino to the transmission line of Yosui et al. to provide the benefit of reducing electromagnetic interference emissions, as taught by Dagostino (col. 7 lines 7-29).
As per claim 8:
Yosui et al. does not disclose:
a width of the differential signal transmission line is smaller than a width of the first ground conductor.
Dagostino discloses in Fig. 8A:
A flexible transmission line (flexible dielectric layer 152) comprising a plurality of signal conductors (154), wherein the transmission line comprises a first ground conductor (148) on a first main surface of a substrate (152) and a second ground conductor (150) on a second main surface of a substrate. Wherein the width of the ground conductors exceeds that of the transmission lines.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the ground conductors of the combination of claim 7 to have a larger width an a width of the differential signal transmission line to provide the benefit of effectively reducing electromagnetic interference emissions, as taught by Dagostino (col. 7 lines 7-29), and is well understood in the art.
As per claim 9:
Yosui et al. does not disclose:
a second ground conductor on a second main surface of the substrate that opposes the first main surface of the substrate.
Dagostino discloses in Fig. 8A:
A flexible transmission line (flexible dielectric layer 152) comprising a plurality of signal conductors (154), wherein the transmission line comprises a first ground conductor (148) on a first main surface of a substrate (152) and a second ground conductor (150) on a second main surface of a substrate.
As a consequence of the combination of claim 7, the combination discloses a second ground conductor on a second main surface of the substrate that opposes the first main surface of the substrate.
As per claim 10:
Yosui et al. does not disclose:
the first ground conductor and the second ground conductor are not connected to each other.
Dagostino discloses in Fig. 8A:
A flexible transmission line (flexible dielectric layer 152) comprising a plurality of signal conductors (154), wherein the transmission line comprises a first ground conductor (148) on a first main surface of a substrate (152) and a second ground conductor (150) on a second main surface of a substrate.
Dagostino further discloses:
the first ground conductor and the second ground conductor are not connected to each other (no ground vias 138 are shown in Fig. 8A, with Dagostino specifically noting ground vias as optional, description para 14).
As a consequence of the combination of claim 7, the first ground conductor and the second ground conductor are not connected to each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 & 12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the limitations found in claims 3 and 12 in combination with the limitations found in claim 1 upon which they both depend were not disclosed or rendered obvious over the closest related prior art, as disclosed in the rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 04/21/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection of claims 3 & 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 3 & 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, & 13-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In pages 9-10 of the applicant’s remarks, the applicant argues:
With the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Applicant's amended Claim 1, including the feature of "when a direction from the high-frequency signal transmission line toward the differential signal transmission line in the thickness direction of the substrate is defined as a downward direction, any portion of the power supply line is located below the differential signal transmission line in the downward direction," Applicant has been able to provide transmission lines in each of which noise from a power supply line is less prone to propagate to a high-frequency signal transmission line (see, for example, paragraph [0007] of Applicant's specification).
Yosui fails to teach or suggest the feature of "when a direction from the high-frequency signal transmission line toward the differential signal transmission line in the thickness direction of the substrate is defined as a downward direction, any portion of the power supply line is located below the differential signal transmission line in the downward direction" as recited in Applicant's amended Claim 1.
[Figure 13B of Yosui redacted for brevity]
For example, Fig. 13B of Yosui (reproduced above) shows and discloses that when a direction from the signal conductor pattern 31 toward the signal conductor pattern 32 in the thickness direction of the substrate is defined as a downward direction, a portion of the power transmission line 40 and the ground conductor 22 are located above the signal conductor pattern 32.
For at least the reasons described above, Yosui fails to teach, suggest, or even contemplate the feature of "when a direction from the high-frequency signal transmission line toward the differential signal transmission line in the thickness direction of the substrate is defined as a downward direction, any portion of the power supply line is located below the differential signal transmission line in the downward direction" as recited in Applicant's amended Claim 1, that there would have been any reason or motivation whatsoever to have modified the device of Yosui to include this feature, or that any advantages or benefits would or could have been obtained thereby.
For at least the reasons described above, Yosui clearly fails to teach or suggest the unique combination and arrangement of features recited in Applicant's amended Claim 1, including the feature of "when a direction from the high-frequency signal transmission line toward the differential signal transmission line in the thickness direction of the substrate is defined as a downward direction, any portion of the power supply line is located below the differential signal transmission line in the downward direction."
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yosui.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 defines an orientation for the transmission line wherein a “downward direction” is defined by “a direction from the high-frequency signal transmission line toward the differential signal transmission line in the thickness direction of the substrate.” Yosui meets this limitation, in that Fig. 13B discloses “a direction from the high-frequency signal transmission line (31) toward the differential signal transmission line (32) in the thickness direction (vertical direction) of the substrate is defined as a downward direction,” as the limitation designates the vertical direction of Fig. 13B towards the top of the page as the “downward direction,” as directional labels such as top and bottom are arbitrary distinctions based on the relative position of the viewer, when further relations to structural elements are absent. In short, the rotation of Fig. 13B to be upside down is an arbitrary distinction that does not change the disclosed invention of Yosui, and does not render Yosui unfit to meet the limitations of claim 1. As a consequence of the claimed viewpoint, Yosui discloses ground plane 23 to be “below the differential signal transmission line” (32) “in the downward direction,” as seen in Fig. 13B. Yosui actively discloses that the ground plane conductor 23 is used as part of the power supply line ([0108]), thus meeting the amended limitation of claim 1. Applicant notes that ground conductor 22 would be located above the signal conductor pattern 32, but claim 1 does not prohibit the presence of ground conductor 22, and further ground conductor 22 is not cited in the rejection as meeting the limitations of claim 1.
This requires no modification of the invention shown in Fig. 13B. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive, and the rejections of claim 1 is sustained. Arguments pertaining to dependent claims 2, 4-11, & 13-14 are based on the arguments discussed above, and as such are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 2, 4-11, & 13-14 are sustained.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to further 103 rejections apply to a rejection that has not been made, and as such cannot be addressed at this time.
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 SAMUEL S OUTTEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Andrea Lindgren Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/Samuel S Outten/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights