The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, in paragraph [0003], note that a date of publication should be provided for the cited document for clarity and completeness of description. Page 1, in the heading immediately following paragraph [0003], note that --of the Invention-- should be inserted after “Summary” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 2, in paragraph [0005], 5th line therein, note that the term “circuit” should be rewritten as --circuiting-- for an appropriate characterization; 8th line therein, note that the recitation of “or the like” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page ]2, in the heading immediately preceding paragraph [0007], note that --the-- should be inserted after “to” for idiomatic clarity. Pages 2 & 3, in the headings immediately preceding paragraphs [0008], [0009] & [0010], note that --the-- should be inserted after “of”, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 3, in the heading immediately preceding paragraph [0010], note that --Detail-- should be inserted prior to “Description” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 4, in paragraph [0010], last line therein, note that --throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted prior to “may” for an appropriate characterization. Page 4, in paragraph [0013], third line therein and page 6, in paragraph [0021], 4th line therein, note that the term “of” should be rewritten as --in--, respectively at these instances for idiomatic clarity. Page 4, in paragraph [0014], third line therein, note that the recitation of “a GND” should be rewritten as --a ground (GND)-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 5, in paragraph [0017], note that the term “shortened” should be rewritten as --reduced-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 6, in paragraph [0019], last line therein, note that the recitation of “to make the MMIC chip further smaller” should be rewritten as --to reduce the size of the MMIC chip further-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 6, in paragraph [0021], 5th line therein, note that the recitation of “typically less affects circuit characteristics” should be rewritten as --typically affects circuit characteristics less-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 7, in paragraph [0021], 11th line therein, note that the recitation of ‘to advance the influence …” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 7, in paragraph [0023], last two lines therein, note that the recitation of “also referred to as a die bonding substrate” should be rewritten as --also referred to as a “die bonding substrate”-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 8, in paragraph [0026], first line therein, note that --be-- should be inserted after “to” for idiomatic clarity. Page 9, in paragraph [0029], last line therein, note that the term “require” should be rewritten as --requires-- for consistent tense. Page 9, in paragraph [0031], next to last line therein, note that it is unclear whether the recitation of “a circular protrusion 216” would be consistent with what is depicted in Fig. 10 and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Page 13, in paragraph [0045], 8th line therein, note that the recitation of “10 holes 826” should be rewritten as --ten (10) holes 826-- for an appropriate characterization. Page 13, in paragraph [0046], second line therein, note that the recitation of “not filled with the metal 828” should be rewritten as --not being filled with only metal 828-- for an appropriate characterization. Throughout the detail description, for the description of individual drawings, it is noted that in such descriptions, many of the reference labels described do not actually appear in the drawing being described and thus it is necessary to reference hose labels with respect to the drawings in which those labels actually appear for clarity and completeness of description. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIGS. 3 & 4, should these drawing be designated as --PRIOR ART-- (or equivalent designations) in view of the “conventional” nature of these drawings?
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.
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 1-5; 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 6, note that the recitation of “formed on an inner side from an outermost peripheral portion” is vague in meaning and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 3, 4, line 2 in each claim, note that it is unclear how “protrusions”, as respectively recited in these claims would relate to “first protrusions” as recited in line 6 of claim 1 (i.e. one in the same protrusions, separate and distinct protrusions, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 3, line 2 and in claim 4, line 2, note that the respective recitations of “to sides other than …” (i.e. in claim 3) and “four sides of …” (i.e. in claim 4) are corresponding vague in meaning, especially since the claims have not positively established how many sides are associated with the substrate and thus clarification is needed.
In claim 10, line 2, note that the recitation of “the high frequency circuit” lacks strict antecedent in this amended independent claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3; 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mooney et al.
Mooney et al (e.g. FIG. 7K) discloses a high frequency circuit, comprising: a substrate (i.e. 52) having a signal line (i.e. conductors 56) disposed on an upper surface of the substrate (52); the substrate includes protrusions extending from a rear surface, in which the protrusions are located on two opposing peripheral sides of the substrate, as evident from FIG. 7K. Regarding claim 3, as evident from FIG. 7K, the protrusions are only located on the two opposing peripheral sides. Regarding claim 7, Mooney et al (i.e. FIGS. 7C, 7D, 7G) further discloses, in addition to the peripheral protrusions, a protrusion extending from the rear surface that is centrally disposed within the substrate. Regarding claim 8, note that a hole (i.e. opening between the protrusions) is provided in the substrate below the edge(s) of the signal line (s), as evident from FIGS. 7C, 7D, 7G.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Niman et al.
Niman et al (i.e. Fig. 1) discloses a high frequency circuit, comprising: a substrate (i.e. defined by LCP layer (103) and spacer layers (104A) in Fig. 1) having a signal line (i.e. microwave circuit component 105) formed on an upper surface of LCP layer (103); the spacer layers (104A) include a central aperture (i.e. 104’) formed therein that define protrusions that extend around the outer periphery (as per claim 4) of the spacers (104A), as evident from Fig. 1, where an inner side of the protrusion (i.e. the surfaces of the aperture) are spaced from the outer periphery of the spacers (104A).
Claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Nadeau.
Nadeau (i.e. FIG. 1A) discloses a high frequency circuit (i.e. cross over 100), comprising: a substrate (i.e. 150) with a signal line (i.e. cross over conductor 106) formed on an upper surface (i.e. surface 102); the substrate further including protrusions (i.e. defined by features located on opposite sides of a depression (144) formed in a rear surface (i.e. surface 104) in FIG. 1A); the protrusions having inner sides (i.e. vertical surfaces of the depression (114) in FIG. 1A) spaced from the outer peripheral sides of the substrate (150). Regarding claim 2, note that pads (i.e. transition conductors (114, 140) in FIG. 1A) are disposed on peripheral sides of the substrate (150) corresponding to the location of the protrusions. Regarding claim 3, as evident from FIG. 1A, the depression (144) and protrusions formed therefrom are formed on only two of the peripheral sides. Regarding claim 5, as evident from FIG. 1A, RF pads (i.e. matching sections (122, 124) in FIG. 1A) are formed above the protrusions.
Claims 1, 3, 5; 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Dutta.
Dutta (i.e. FIGS. 3A, 3B; 6A, 6B) discloses a high frequency circuit, comprising: a substrate (i.e. dielectric material 104) having a signal line (i.e. 100) formed on an upper surface thereof; the substrate includes a slot (106) formed in a rear side of the substrate, which defines protrusions formed into the rear side of the substrate (104) located between inner side walls of the slot (106) and two opposing peripheral sides of the substrate (104), as evident from FIGS 3A, 3B. Regarding claim 3, as evident from FIGS. 3A, 3B, the protrusions are only located on the two opposing peripheral sides. Regarding claim 5, as evident from FIGS. 6A, 6B, RF pads (i.e. ground planes 102) are located immediately above the protrusions. Regarding claim 7, note that in related FIG. 7N, the slot (106) can take the form where there is a central protrusion located in the slot (106). Regrading claim 8, note that the slot (106) forms a hole located underneath edges of the signal line (100), as evident from FIGS. 3A, 3B; 6A, 6B.
Claim 9 is 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 prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maruhashi et al (Fig. 6) discloses a substrate having protrusions located at two opposing peripheral sides of the substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Benny Lee at telephone number 571 272 1764.
/BENNY T LEE/PRIMARY EXAMINER
ART UNIT 2843
B. Lee
Prosecution Insights