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: Throughout the specification description, note that the acronyms “D-PHY” & “C-PHY” need to be strictly defined (i.e. in words) for clarity and completeness of description. In the following headings, note that --the-- should be inserted after “of” for idiomatic clarity (i.e. page 1, after paragraph [0005], page 6, page 7, prior to paragraphs [0022] & [0029], respectively). Page 2, in the heading preceding paragraph [0007], note that --the-- should be inserted after “to” for idiomatic clarity. Page 7, in the heading preceding paragraph [0029], note that --Detail-- should be inserted prior to “Description” for consistency with PTO guidelines. Page 7, in paragraph [0029], second line therein, note that --, where like features are denoted by the same reference labels throughout the detail description of the drawings-- should be inserted after “drawings” for an appropriate characterization. Page 13, in paragraph [0064], second line therein; page 16, in paragraph [0083], second line therein[ page 17, in paragraph [0085], 4th line therein; page 17, in paragraph [0086], second line therein: note that the acronyms “SGSG” (i.e. in paragraphs [0064], [0085]) and “GSGSG” (i.e. in paragraph [0083], [0086]), respectively need to be strictly defined (i.e. in words) for clarity and completeness of description. Pages 20 & 21, in paragraphs [0098] to [00101], note that reference label “521” is vague in meaning, especially since no such label appears in any of the drawings and thus appropriate clarification is needed. Throughout the detail description, for the description of individual drawings, it is noted that such description of the individual drawings includes description of reference labels which do not appear in the drawings being described and therefore such reference labels need to be reference to at least a drawing in which such labels actually appear for clarity and completeness of description. Note that label “Frequency (GHz)” in FIGS. 13, 15 needs to be correspondingly described in the specification description of those drawings for clarity and completeness of description. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to because of the following: In FIGS. 13, 15, note that appropriate parameters for the vertical axis in the graphs in FIGS. 13 & 15 need to be provided for clarity and completeness of description In FIGS. 14, 15, note that reference label --521-- needs to be provided in these drawings such as to be commensurate with the description in paragraphs [0098] to [00101].
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 N fifth sheets and N+1 sixth sheets (i.e. 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.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification needs to provide a corresponding description of N fifth sheets & N+1 sixth sheets, as recited in claim 10.
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 1-17 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, lines 8, 10, 11, note that it is unclear how each recitation of “a capacitor pattern” would related to each other (i.e. one in the same capacitor pattern, separate & distinct capacitor patterns, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed; lines 9, 11, note that it is unclear how each recitation of “a ground pattern” would relate to each other (i.e. one in the same ground pattern, separate & distinct ground pattern, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 14, note that it is unclear, even in light of the specification, as to how “an additional capacitance” would be formed from these combination of features and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 1, line 13 and in claim 12, line 2, note that the recitation of “the capacitor pattern” is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances, especially since it is unclear with respect to which one of the “first capacitance layer” & “second capacitance layer” would the recited “the capacitor pattern” would be intended to be associated with and thus appropriate clarification is needed;
In claim 3, line 7, note that the recitation of “one side surface” is vague in meaning as to its relationship to other “surfaces” recited earlier and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claims 8, 10, last line in each claim and in claim 14, line 2, note that the recitation of “a ground pattern” is vague in meaning, respectively at these instances, especially since it is unclear as to its relationship to other ground patterns recited earlier and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 15, lines 3, 6, 8, 10, note that it is unclear how the respective recitations of “a first coil pattern” (i.e. line 3), “a fourth coil pattern” (i.e. line 6), “a second coil pattern” (i.e. line 8) and “a third pattern” (i.e. line 10), at these instances would relate to previous recitations of “coil patterns” (i.e. one in the same coil pattern, separate & distinct coil patterns, etc.) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 16, lines 2, 4, 6, 8, note that it is unclear how the respective recitations of “a third capacitor” (i.e. line 2), “a fourth capacitor” (i.e. line 4), “a first capacitor” (i.e. line 6) and “a second capacitor” (i.e. line 8), at the instances would relate to the previous recitations of “first capacitor” and the “second capacitor” and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
In claim 17, lines 3, 7, note that it is unclear how the respective recitations of “a second pattern” (i.e. line 3) and “the third pattern” (i.e. line 7) would relate to the previous recitations of “patterns” and thus appropriate clarification is needed; line 7, note that the claim lacks a period (.), thereby rendering the claim as being vague and indefinite (i.e. it is unclear whether additional claim wording would be intended) and thus appropriate clarification is needed.
The following claims have been found to be objectionable for reasons set forth below:
In claims 8, 10, last line in each claim, note that --respective-- should be inserted prior to “ground pattern” for an appropriate characterization.
In claim 9, second, third lines therein, note that the respective recitation of “six” should be rewritten as --sixth-- for consistency in claim terminology.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al in view of Miyoshi.
Sim et al (i.e. FIGS. 2, 4) discloses a common mode filter comprising plural electrode layers (i.e. 141, 142, 143, 144) arranged in a stack to form a coil pattern layer, as evident from cross-section view in FIG. 2 taken in conjunction with the schematic in FIG. 4. As evident from the schematic in FIG. 4, the stacked coil patterns (141, 142, 143, 144) are electrically connected together through the use of electrical vias (i.e. see paragraphs [0037] & [0039]). Moreover, as evident from the schematic in FIG. 4, a first capacitor is electrically connected over stacked coil pattern, while a second capacitor is electrically connected under the stacked coil pattern. Further, as evident from FIGS 2 & 4, an additional capacitor (i.e. C in FIG. 4) is formed by a shunt electrode layer (i.e. 160) associated with the stacked coil pattern (141, 142, 143, 144). Also, note that a ground pattern (i.e. ground electrode 165) is electrically connected with the filter. Regarding claims 2, 3, note that in the stacked coil pattern of FIG. 2, coil patterns (141, 143) are electrically connected at ends to each other by the conductive via, while coil patterns (142, 144) are electrically connected at ends to each other by the conductive via. Regarding claim 7, as evident from the schematic in FIG. 4, the first and second capacitors are symmetrically oriented relative to the stacked coil pattern layer disposed between the first and second capacitors. Regarding claim 15, as evident from the schematic in FIG. 4 and in related FIG. 1, the stacked coil pattern and the first and second capacitors are electrically connected to each other at first to fourth electrodes (i.e. electrodes (161, 162, 163, 164) in related FIG. 1). However, Sim et al differs from the claimed invention that the first and second capacitors are characterized by respective stacked capacitance layers, as set forth in independent claim 1.
Miyoshi (e.g. Fig. 2) discloses a stacked filter arrangement comprising a stacked coil arrangement electrically connected to a capacitor arrangement (i.e. 50) that includes first stacked capacitance layers (i.e. the two uppermost layers in Fig. 2) and second stacked capacitance layers (i.e. the two lowermost layers in Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious in view of the references, taken as a whole, to have realized the first (i.e. upper) capacitor and second (i.e. lower) capacitor, schematically depicted in FIG. 4 of Sim et al with the specific stacked upper and lower capacitance layers, as aught in Miyoshi. Such a modification would have been considered an obvious substitution of art recognized equivalent capacitors that perform the equivalent function, especially since the generic nature of the capacitors in Sim et al would have suggested that any art recognized equivalent capacitors, such as the capacitance layers in Miyoshi would have been usable therein, thereby suggesting the obviousness of such a modification.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masuda discloses a multilayer LC filter comprising plural coil patterns.
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
