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 features of “a PCB design system” as recited in claim 8 and “a design rule check (DRC) module” as recited in claim 10 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, the limitation of “ the shorting trace comprises a stub length dimension of 10 mils plus or minus 5 mils” is improperly claimed since the specification does not have support in the specification. Should “or minus 5 mils” be deleted?
In claim 3, the limitation of “ the shorting trace comprises a stub length dimension of 10 mils plus or minus 5 mils” is improperly claimed since the specification does not have support in the specification. Should “or minus 5 mils” be deleted? Furthermore, It appears that the limitation of claim 3 is a duplicate of claim 2.
In claim 4, “a power layer” should be “power plane layer”?
In claim 20, the limitation of “the shorting trace comprises a stub length dimension of 10 mils plus or minus 5 mils” is improperly claimed since the specification does not have support in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It appears that the specification does not provide sufficient details showing which devices are used for “accessing a PCB design”, ”selecting a non-ground via of the PB design”,” accessing a PCB manufactured according to the PCB design” ,” electrically testing the PCB” and “detecting a failure in the back-drill” as recited in claim 1, “accessing a PCB design”, ”selecting a non-ground via of the PB design”,” accessing a PCB manufactured according to the PCB design” ,” electrically testing the PCB” and “determining a failure in the back-drill if the signal via is shorted to ground” as recited in claim 8; ”comparing error checking output files” as recited in claim 9; “adding a shorting trace from the non-ground via to ground in the PCB design to create an updated PCB design”; “producing a PCB according to the updated PCB design”; “back drilling the non-ground via to produce a back-drill”, “electrically testing the PCB to determine if the non-ground via is shorted to ground” and “determining that the back drill failed if the non-ground via is shorted to ground” as recited in claim 15?
The dependent claims not specifically addressed share the same indefiniteness as they depend from rejected base claims.
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 1-20 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 1, it is unclear which electrical signals are detected or measured in order to determine if the non-ground via is shorted to ground? It appears that the scope of the claim is incomplete.
In claim 8, it is unclear which electrical signals are detected or measured in order to determine if the signal via is shorted to ground? It appears that the scope of the claim is incomplete.
In claim 10, what is “a design rule check (DRC) module” and what does it comprise of? It appears that it is not shown in any of drawings.
In claim 15, it is unclear which electrical signals are detected or measured in order to determine if the non-ground via is shorted to ground? It appears that the scope of the claim is incomplete.
The dependent claims not specifically addressed share the same indefiniteness as they depend from rejected base claims.
Conclusion
Searches were performed and no prior art was found to meet the limitations of claims 1-20. However, these claims are not allowed due to their deficiencies as mentioned in the current office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Caprio et al (Pat# 12,135,347) disclose Method For Detecting And Adjusting Poor Back Drills In Printed Circuit Boards.
Mutnury et al (Pat# 8,542,494) disclose Circuit Board Having Holes To Increase Resonant Frequency Of Via Stubs.
Levy et al (pat# 7,669,321) disclose Methods For Verifying Correct Counter-bore Depth And Precision On Printed Circuit Boards.
Primavera et al (Pat# 7,388,394) disclose Multiple Layer Printed Circuit Board Having Misregistration Testing Pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1964. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Phan Huy can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/VINH P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights