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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 9, element 213Ta
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: ln. 11 uses the phrase “opposing to”, this is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “belt shape” is being interpreted to mean a two-dimensional matrix as per the specification (para. [0046]).
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 1-18 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “planar perspective” in claims 1, 7-8, and 10-11 is used by the claim to mean “a top down view from above,” while the accepted meaning is “an artistic technique used to suggest depth on a flat surface.” (For example, in the drawings of the instant application, fig. 1, 3-4 and 9 are in plan view, while fig. 2 and 6-7 are in oblique planar perspective.) The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
This rejection may be overcome by replacing the term “planar perspective” with the term “plan view” which appears to be the intended terminology, and is supported by the specification (see para. [0011] et al.). For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be examined as if this change has been made.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the battery" in ln. 7 and 11 and the limitation “the electronic component” in ln. 9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the battery" in ln. 7 and 11 and the limitation “the electronic component” in ln. 9.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art was found wherein an electronic module comprises: a first circuit substrate having a first and second connector on first and second faces of the substrate, respectively, wherein the connectors are electrically connected and have different positions from each other when viewed in plan view; an analog block having a third connector; and a second circuit substrate having a fourth connector; the second substrate further comprising a projecting portion which extends towards the first substrate; the projecting portion having a surface facing the first substrate and further including a partial range of the second and fourth connectors; wherein the first substrate cooperates with the analog block and second substrate to route signals between the second substrate and the analog block.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fee – US 20070045872 – Discloses a structure for connecting a microelectronic die having an IC to a packaging module, the structure consisting of an interposing substrate with contacts having different positions on the opposite sides of said substrate. However, this structure fails to teach or suggest an “analog block”, or that “the analog block includes a projecting portion that includes an opposing surface opposing to the first surface of the first circuit substrate and including at least a partial range of the second connector and the fourth connector”, nor would there be reasonable motivation to combine this reference with other references in the art.
Kitamura, et al. – US 20200301371 – Discloses a radio-controlled timepiece with an intervening substrate carrying antenna impedance matching circuitry (a balun circuit) which connects an antenna positioned around the watch crystal to a circuit substrate via sets of conducting pins which are electrically connected and have different positions on each side of the substrate when viewed in plan view. However, Kitamura fails to teach or suggest that the balun circuit board cooperates with “an analog block that includes a third connector, wherein the third connector is connected to the first connector of the first circuit substrate; and a second circuit substrate that includes a fourth connector, wherein the fourth connector is connected to the second connector of the first circuit substrate”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7599. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET Monday through Friday.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at (571)272-2009. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2831
/EDWIN A. LEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights