Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/872,807

CROSSTALK MEASURING METHOD AND CROSSTALK MEASURING PROBE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 07, 2024
Priority
Jun 14, 2022 — JP 2022-095734 +1 more
Examiner
AURORA, REENA
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
1035 granted / 1188 resolved
+27.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -13% lift
Without
With
+-13.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
36 currently pending
Career history
1209
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
§102
32.2%
-7.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1188 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 § 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 1 – 11 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. As to claim 1, applicant attempts to define the subject matter in terms of the result to be achieved (“the shield plate has a thickness greater than a skin depth for an electromagnetic wave equal in frequency to signals flowing through the first signal pattern and the second signal pattern”), but in so doing merely states the problem to be solved, without indicating the technical features or steps necessary for achieving this result. Due to lack of essential features or steps it is unclear how is it being determined that the shield plate has a thickness greater than a skin depth for an electromagnetic wave equal in frequency to signals flowing through the first signal pattern and the second signal pattern. It is unclear which signals are flowing through the first signal pattern and the second signal pattern? As to claim 6, applicant attempts to define the subject matter in terms of the result to be achieved (“the shield plate has a thickness greater than a skin depth for an electromagnetic wave equal in frequency to signals flowing through the first pin and the second pin”), but in so doing merely states the problem to be solved, without indicating the technical features or steps necessary for achieving this result. Due to lack of essential features or steps it is unclear how is it being determined that the shield plate has a thickness greater than a skin depth for an electromagnetic wave equal in frequency to signals flowing through the first pin and the second pin. It is unclear which signals are flowing through the first signal pattern and the second signal pattern? Claims 2 - 5 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Claims 7 - 11 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6. Claims 1 - 11 have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, the claims are vague such that no meaningful search can be performed at this time, hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. However, any subsequently presented claims, in definite form will be subject to prior art rejection. Prior Art of Record The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure. Shi et al. (10,057,976) is cited for its disclosure of a power-ground co-reference transceiver structure to deliver ultra-low crosstalk comprising a first one or more conductors configured to carry power signals extending vertically from the first semiconductor component; a second one or more conductors configured to carry data signals extending vertically from the first semiconductor component; a third one or more conductors configured to carry ground signals extending vertically from the first semiconductor component, wherein the first one or more conductors are further configured to shield and separate the second one or more conductors. KIM et al. (2012/0081869) is cited for its disclosure of a printed circuit board for reducing crosstalk, having a capacitive impedance component connected between signal and ground patterns, the printed circuit board comprising: signal patterns including a first signal pattern transferring low frequency signals and a second signal pattern transferring high frequency signals; ground patterns including a first ground pattern connected to the first signal pattern and a second ground pattern connected to the second signal pattern which are separated from each other; and a conductive shielding film connected between the first and second ground patterns and shielding electromagnetic waves generated from the printed circuit board.. Hammond, Jr. et al. (7,232,340) is cited for its disclosure of methods and systems for minimizing alien crosstalk between connectors. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REENA AURORA whose telephone number is (571)272-2263. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM-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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 5712705628. 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. /REENA AURORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 07, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12741686
HOD DEVICE AND VEHICLE CONTROL DEVICE
4y 0m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12729983
SHAFT SUPPORT STRUCTURE, MAGNETISM DETECTION DEVICE, AND ABSOLUTE ENCODER
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12716706
MAGNETISM DETECTION DEVICE AND ABSOLUTE ENCODER
3y 0m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12716751
MAGNETIC SENSOR DEVICE
2y 2m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12716940
WAFER PROBING APPARATUS WITH PROBE CARD POSITIONING MODULE
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (-13.4%)
2y 5m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1188 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month