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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (¶¶111-132) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2A(a) should be designated by a legend such as--Prior Art--because only that which is old is illustrated (e.g. see the Background description). See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Fig. 13 showing Table 3 includes a legend “This article”, which is unclear.
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. No new matter should be entered. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 111-132 include a list of references that properly belongs either in an IDS or in the Background section.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, line 3, recites “a pattern etched onto at least one of the traces,” The examiner suggests “a pattern etched onto at least one trace of the at least two traces” for consistency and to provide a proper antecedent basis for later recitations of “the at least one trace.”
Claim 1, line 4, recites “FEXT” should be--far-end crosstalk (FEXT)--for clarity.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, recite “further comprising wherein” should be --wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the pattern etched on the at least one trace improves a self-inductance of the at least one trace as compared to a different trace with no pattern etched on the different trace.” It is unclear whether a “second different trace” refers to the second trace of the at least two traces or some other trace.
For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean “wherein the pattern etched on the at least one trace improves a self-inductance of the at least one trace as compared to a trace without the pattern.”
Claim 6 recites “wherein the series of tabs improves a mutual capacitance value of the at least one trace as compared to a second different trace with no series of pattern etched on the second different trace.”
First, there appears to be a typo “with no series of pattern etched on the second different trace” should be-- with no series of tabs formed onto
Second, it is still unclear whether a “second different trace” refers to the second trace of the at least two traces or some other trace.
For examination purposes, this limitation will be understood to mean “wherein the series of tabs improves a mutual capacitance value of the at least one trace as compared to a trace without the series of tabs.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0378089, published 12/2/2021 (“Wang”) in view of L. K. Baghel et al., Crosstalk reduction in coupled microstrip lines using TT-shaped DMS approach, Proc. Joint Asia-Pac. Int. Symp. Electromagn. Compat., May 2023, pp. 1–4 (“Baghel”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an interconnect structure for reducing far-end crosstalk comprising (Fig. 2e, Abstract, ¶¶33, 56-57):
at least two traces formed substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 2e);
a pattern etched (see Baghel below) onto at least one of the traces (Fig. 2e, ¶33 “tab routing structure with magnetic film deposited and patterned on selected surfaces”); and
the interconnect structure having a frequency from 1 to 18 GHz and a maximum FEXT reduction of up to 55 dB at 10.6 GHz (Figs. 3, 5; ¶57).
According to Figs. 3 and 5, the interconnect structure of Wang operates from 1GHz to at least 15GHz and provides a maximum FEXT reduction of approximately 33 dB at 11GHz. The claim, as currently written, requires any (“up to”) reduction from zero to 55 dB at 10.6 GHz. Thus, Wang discloses this limitation.
Wang is silent on how the pattern is realized.
However, Baghel, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a similar interconnect structure including a combination of T and inverted T patterns etched on one of the coupled microstrip lines to reduce far-end crosstalk (Figs. 1-3, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interconnect structure of Wang by etching a pattern for the benefit of reducing the overall coupling between microstrip lines and consequently reducing the crosstalk, as taught by Baghel (pp. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), Wang in view of Baghel discloses “wherein the pattern etched on the at least one trace improves a self-inductance of the at least one trace as compared to a trace without the pattern” (Wang, ¶56, “Magnetic film is employed to increase the self-inductance of the two microstrip lines”; Baghel, p. 2, “the length (Lt) of the proposed TT-shaped [pattern] is varied to balance the ratio of self and mutual inductance, capacitance respectively”).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), Wang in view of Baghel discloses wherein the series of tabs improves a mutual capacitance value of the at least one trace as compared to a trace without the series of tabs (Wang, ¶56 “mutual capacitance is increased by design tabs”; Baghel, p. 2, “the length (Lt) of the proposed TT-shaped [pattern] is varied to balance the ratio of self and mutual inductance, capacitance respectively”).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Baghel discloses wherein the series of tabs are shaped as trapezoidal tabs (Wang, Fig. 2e).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Baghel discloses wherein self-inductance and mutual capacitance of the at least one of the two traces is adjustable by configuring both the pattern etched and the series of tabs on the at least one of the traces (Wang, ¶56 “mutual capacitance is increased by design tabs”; Baghel, p. 2, “the length (Lt) of the proposed TT-shaped [pattern] is varied to balance the ratio of self and mutual inductance, capacitance respectively”).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Baghel discloses wherein FEXT is reduced via concurrently increasing a mutual capacitance between adjacent traces and self-inductance of the at least two traces (Wang, ¶56 “mutual capacitance is increased by design tabs”; Baghel, p. 2, “the length (Lt) of the proposed TT-shaped [pattern] is varied to balance the ratio of self and mutual inductance, capacitance respectively”).
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Baghel discloses further comprising decreasing FEXT by at least 15 dB within an operation frequency range of 1 to 18 GHz (Wang, Figs. 3, 5; ¶57; Baghel, Table 1). According to Figs. 3 and 5, the interconnect structure of Wang operates from 1GHz to at least 15GHz and provides a maximum FEXT reduction of approximately 33 dB at 11GHz. The claim, as currently written, requires any (“up to”) reduction from zero to 55 dB at 10.6 GHz. Baghel also discloses FEXT reduction of up to 62 dB from 1GHz to 8GHz. Thus, Wang in view of Baghel discloses this limitation.
Regarding claims 11, 14-20, Wang in view of Baghel discloses interconnect structures that are configured to use methods of reducing far-end crosstalk, as recited in these claims (see corresponding rejections of claims 1, 4-10, respectively).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 12-13 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0062893 (“Wu”) discloses a microstrip structure for reducing crosstalk, including tabs (Fig. 1) and L-notches (Figs. 7, 11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL, can be reached at (571) 272-5918. 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights