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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ngo et al. [WO 2011/103259 A2].
Regarding Claim 1, Ngo et al. shows an electronic package (Figs. 5A-5D with teachings from Figs. 1A-4D), comprising:
a package substrate (510, Paragraphs [0016], [0058]);
a first region (first region R1, see Drawing A below) in the package substrate (see Figs. 5A-5D), wherein the first region comprises first conductive routing (first region R1 having element 516a); and
a second region (second region R2, see Drawing A below) in the package substrate (see Figs. 5A-5D) and laterally spaced apart from the first region (second region R2 laterally spaced apart from first region R1, see Drawing A below), the second region separate and distinct from the first region (second region R2 separate and distinct from first region R1, see Drawing A below), wherein the second region comprises second conductive routing (second region R2 having element 503), and wherein the second conductive routing is embedded in a magnetic material (509, see Figs. 5A-5B, second region R2 having element 503 is at least partially embedded in element 509, see also Fig. 4A, element 403 is embedded in element 403), and
a die (529) coupled to the first conductive routing (see Fig. 5B, element 529 coupled to element 516a in first region R1, see Drawing A below), the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective (see Figs. 5A-5D and Drawing A below, element 529 is entirely outside of a footprint of element 509 of the second region R2 in a plan view perspective).
Regarding Claim 2, Ngo et al. shows the package substrate comprises a plurality of layers (see Fig. 4A, element 409 have a plurality of layers), and wherein the magnetic material (409) is disposed through more than one of the plurality of layers (see Fig. 4A).
Regarding Claim 3, Ngo et al. shows the magnetic material (409) is disposed through all of the plurality of layers (see Fig. 4A, element 409 is disposed through all of the plurality of layers).
Regarding Claim 4, Ngo et al. shows the second conductive routing comprises a conductive loop (see Figs. 5A-5B, Paragraph [0026]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ngo et al. shows the conductive loop directly contacts the magnetic material (see Figs. 5A-5B, element 503 directly contacts element 509).
Regarding Claim 6, Ngo et al. shows the conductive loop forms an inductor (see Figs. 5A-5B, the conductive loop of element 503 forms an inductor).
Regarding Claim 10, Ngo et al. shows the second conductive routing is proximate to an edge of the package substrate (see Figs. 5A-5D, second region R2 having element 503 is proximate to an edge of element 510).
Regarding Claim 11, Ngo et al. shows the package substrate (510) is a molded substrate (506), an organic substrate, a ceramic substrate, or a glass substrate.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. substrate, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. in view of We et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0286562].
Regarding Claim 2, Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
We et al. shows the package substrate comprises a plurality of layers (120 or 309), and wherein the magnetic material (140) is disposed through more than one of the plurality of layers (see Figs. 1-4K).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the package substrate comprises a plurality of layers, and wherein the magnetic material is disposed through more than one of the plurality of layers as taught by We et al. for the device as disclosed by Ngo et al. to enhance a magnetic field to achieve high magnetic coupling characteristics (Paragraphs [0003], [0033]).
Regarding Claim 3, We et al. shows the magnetic material (140) is disposed through all of the plurality of layers (see Figs. 1-4K, element 140 is disposed through all elements 120 or 309).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. in view of Ahn [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284462].
Regarding Claim 5, Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Ahn shows the conductive loop directly contacts the magnetic material (see Figs. 1-10, Paragraph [0038]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the conductive loop directly contacts the magnetic material as taught by Ahn for the device as disclosed by Ngo et al. to achieve high magnetic characteristics and DC-bias (Paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. in view of Teggatz et al. [U.S. Patent No. 8,664,745].
Regarding Claim 7, Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the second conductive routing comprises a wire bond.
Teggatz et al. shows an integrated inductor (Figs. 4A-4G) teaching and suggesting the second conductive routing (12) comprises a wire bond (42(a), claims 14-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second conductive routing comprises a wire bond as taught by Teggatz et al. for the device as disclosed by Ngo et al. to facilitate electrical connection to an external circuit or IC providing interoperability to achieve desirable operating characteristics (Col. 4, Lines 7-56).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. in view of Yosui et al. [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 8, Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing.
Yosui et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting a surface roughness of the second conductive routing (34A or 35A) is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing (33A, see English translation, Abstract, element 33A have a surface roughness less than the average surface roughness of all interfaces of elements 33A, 34A, 35A so that element 34A or 35A will have a surface roughness greater than element 33A; in addition, element 34A or 35A have a rough surface which will have a surface roughness greater than a surface roughness of a smooth surface of element 33A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing as taught by Yosui et al. for the device as disclosed by Ngo et al. to achieve high bonding strength, small conductor loss and realize excellent high-frequency characteristics (see English translation).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. in view of Yosui et al. [CN 204464431 U] (hereinafter as “Yosui ‘431”).
Regarding Claim 8, Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing.
Yosui ‘431 shows a coil component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a surface roughness of the second conductive routing (40a or 40b) is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing (42a, 42b, 40c, see English translation, Abstract, element 40a or 40b have rough surface which will have a surface roughness greater than a surface roughness of a smooth surface of element 42a, 42b, 40c).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing as taught by Yosui ‘431 for the device as disclosed by Ngo et al. to achieve high bonding strength, small conductor loss and realize excellent high-frequency characteristics by suppressing a decrease in the inductance value of the inductor (see English translation).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al in view of Ahrens et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0169596].
Regarding Claim 9, Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the second conductive routing comprises a first end embedded in the magnetic material and a second end embedded in the package substrate, and wherein the first end and the second end are coupled together.
Ahrens et al. shows an integrated inductor (Figs. 3c, 3e, 3g) teaching and suggesting the second conductive routing (300 or 360) comprises a first end (304 or 116) embedded in the magnetic material (108) and a second end (306 or 114) embedded in the package substrate (102), and wherein the first end and the second end are coupled together (see Figs. 3c, 3e, 3g, element 304 or 116 and element 306 or 114 are coupled together by being integrated together, Paragraph [0027], see also Figs. 1, 4e, 11c).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second conductive routing comprises a first end embedded in the magnetic material and a second end embedded in the package substrate, and wherein the first end and the second end are coupled together as taught by Ahrens et al. for the device as disclosed by Ngo et al. to achieve a resulting structure that is more stable while obtaining desirable inductance values as required by design requirements (Paragraphs [0041], [0043]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first end and the second end are coupled together, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art to simplify design and reduce manufacture time and cost. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. in view of Nishiwaki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0364662].
Regarding Claim 11, Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Nishiwaki et al. shows the package substrate is a molded substrate (Paragraph [0031]), an organic substrate (resin, Paragraph [0031]), a ceramic substrate, or a glass substrate.
In addition, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. substrate, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the package substrate is a molded substrate, an organic substrate, a ceramic substrate, or a glass substrate as taught by Nishiwaki et al. for the device as disclosed by Ngo et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability to achieve desirable operating characteristics.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over We et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0286562] in view of Ngo et al. [WO 2011/103529] (for clearer illustration).
Regarding Claim 1, We et al. shows an electronic package (Figs. 1-4K), comprising:
a package substrate (120 with 140 or 309 with 140, not including 122, 121, 150);
a first region (first region R1, see Drawing 1 below) in the package substrate (see Figs. 1-4K), wherein the first region comprises first conductive routing (first region R1 having element 110, 111, 130); and
a second region (second region R2, see Drawing 1 below) in the package substrate (see Figs. 1-4K) and laterally spaced apart from the first region (second region R2 laterally spaced apart from first region R1, see Drawing 1 below), the second region separate and distinct from the first region (second region R2 separate and distinct from first region R1, see Drawing 1 below), wherein the second region comprises second conductive routing (second region R2 having elements 112 and/or 110, 160), and wherein the second conductive routing is embedded in a magnetic material (140, see Figs. 1-4K, second region R2 having elements 112 and/or 110, 160 is embedded in element 140); and
a die (123) coupled to the first conductive routing (see Fig. 1 and Drawing 1 below, element 123 electrically coupled to element 110, 111, 130), the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective (see Fig. 1 and Drawing 1 below, element 123 is entirely outside of a footprint of element 140 of second region R2 in a plan view perspective).
For clearer illustration, Ngo et al. shows a package (Figs. 5A-5D) teaching and suggesting a die (529) coupled to the first conductive routing (see Fig. 5B, element 529 coupled to element 516a in first region R1, see Drawing A below), the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective (see Figs. 5A-5D and Drawing A below, element 529 is entirely outside of a footprint of element 509 of the second region R2 in a plan view perspective).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a die coupled to the first conductive routing and the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective as taught by Ngo et al. for the device as disclosed by We et al. to facilitate power management which can reduce the size of electronic circuit assemblies to achieve desirable operating characteristics such as targeted inductance, quality factor and DC resistance (Paragraphs [0029], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 2, We et al. shows the package substrate comprises a plurality of layers (120 or 309), and wherein the magnetic material (140) is disposed through more than one of the plurality of layers (see Figs. 1-4K).
Regarding Claim 3, We et al. shows the magnetic material (140) is disposed through all of the plurality of layers (see Figs. 1-4K, element 140 is disposed through all elements 120 or 309).
Regarding Claim 4, We et al. shows the second conductive routing comprises a conductive loop (see Figs. 2-3, Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5, We et al. shows the conductive loop directly contacts the magnetic material (see Figs. 1-4K, Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 6, We et al. shows the conductive loop forms an inductor (see Figs. 1-4K, the conductive loop of element 110 forms an inductor, Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding Claim 10, We et al. shows the second conductive routing is proximate to an edge of the package substrate (see Figs. 1-4K and Drawing 1 below, second region R2 having element 110 is proximate to an edge of element 120 or 309).
Regarding Claim 11, We et al. shows the package substrate (120 or 309) is a molded substrate (Paragraph [0023]), an organic substrate, a ceramic substrate, or a glass substrate.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. substrate, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0088971].
Regarding Claim 1, Crawford et al. shows an electronic package (Figs. 1a-5h with teachings from Figs. 6a-6d), comprising:
a package substrate (405);
a first region (first region R1, see Drawing 5 below) in the package substrate (see Figs. 1a-5h with teachings from Figs. 6a-6d), wherein the first region comprises first conductive routing (through via or inductive element of Drawing 5 below or left element 605 of Figs. 6a-6d); and
a second region (second region R2, see Drawing 5 below) in the package substrate (see Figs. 1a-5h with teachings from Figs. 6a-6d) and laterally spaced apart from the first region (second region R2 laterally spaced apart from first region R1, see Drawing 5 below), the second region separate and distinct from the first region (second region R2 separate and distinct from first region R1, see Drawing 5 below), wherein the second region comprises second conductive routing (right inductive element of Drawing 5 below or right element 605 of Figs. 6a-6d), and wherein the second conductive routing is embedded in a magnetic material (110, see Figs. 1a-5h, right inductive element is partially embedded in element 110 or 530),
a die (410) coupled to the first conductive routing (see Fig. 4 and Drawing 5 below, element 410 coupled to through via or inductive element of Drawing 5 below), the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective (see Fig. 4 and Drawing 5 below, element 410 is entirely outside of a footprint of element 110 or 530 of second region R2 in a plan view perspective).
Furthermore, Crawford et al. in the embodiment of Figs. 6a-6d clearly show the second conductive routing is embedded in a magnetic material (530, see Figs. 6a-6d, left element 605 is embedded in element 530).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second conductive routing is embedded in a magnetic material as taught by Crawford et al. in the embodiment of Figs. 6a-6d for the device as disclosed by Crawford et al. in the embodiment of Figs. 1a-5h to enhance magnetic coupling until desired thickness is achieved for desirable operating characteristics (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 4, Crawford et al. shows the second conductive routing comprises a conductive loop (see Figs. 6a-6d, Paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claim 5, Crawford et al. shows the conductive loop directly contacts the magnetic material (see Figs. 6a-6d, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 6, Crawford et al. shows the conductive loop forms an inductor (see Figs. 6a-6d, the conductive loop of element 605 forms an inductor, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 9, Crawford et al. shows the second conductive routing (right element 605) comprises a first end (lower end of right element 605, see Figs. 6a-6d) embedded in the magnetic material (530) and a second end (upper end of right element 605, see Figs. 6a-6d) embedded in the package substrate (upper end of right element 605 will be embedded in element 405 shown in Fig. 4), and wherein the first end and the second end are coupled together (see Figs. 6a-6d, lower end and upper end of right element 605 are electrically coupled together by being integrated together).
Regarding Claim 10, Crawford et al. shows the second conductive routing is proximate to an edge of the package substrate (see Figs. 6a-6d, right element 605 is proximate to an edge of element 405 as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 11, Crawford et al. shows the package substrate is a molded substrate (Paragraph [0034]), an organic substrate, a ceramic substrate, or a glass substrate.
In addition, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. substrate, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Ahn [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284462].
Regarding Claim 5, We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Ahn shows the conductive loop directly contacts the magnetic material (see Figs. 1-10, Paragraph [0038]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the conductive loop directly contacts the magnetic material as taught by Ahn for the device as disclosed by We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. to achieve high magnetic characteristics and DC-bias (Paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teggatz et al. [U.S. Patent No. 8,664,745].
Regarding Claim 7, We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the second conductive routing comprises a wire bond.
Teggatz et al. shows an integrated inductor (Figs. 4A-4G) teaching and suggesting the second conductive routing (12) comprises a wire bond (42(a), claims 14-15).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second conductive routing comprises a wire bond as taught by Teggatz et al. for the device as disclosed by We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. to facilitate electrical connection to an external circuit or IC providing interoperability to achieve desirable operating characteristics (Col. 4, Lines 7-56).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yosui et al. [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 8, We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing.
Yosui et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting a surface roughness of the second conductive routing (34A or 35A) is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing (33A, see English translation, Abstract, element 33A have a surface roughness less than the average surface roughness of all interfaces of elements 33A, 34A, 35A so that element 34A or 35A will have a surface roughness greater than element 33A; in addition, element 34A or 35A have a rough surface which will have a surface roughness greater than a surface roughness of a smooth surface of element 33A).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing as taught by Yosui et al. for the device as disclosed by We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. to achieve high bonding strength, small conductor loss and realize excellent high-frequency characteristics (see English translation).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yosui et al. [CN 204464431 U] (hereinafter as “Yosui ‘431”).
Regarding Claim 8, We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing.
Yosui ‘431 shows a coil component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a surface roughness of the second conductive routing (40a or 40b) is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing (42a, 42b, 40c, see English translation, Abstract, element 40a or 40b have rough surface which will have a surface roughness greater than a surface roughness of a smooth surface of element 42a, 42b, 40c).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a surface roughness of the second conductive routing is greater than a surface roughness of the first conductive routing as taught by Yosui ‘431 for the device as disclosed by We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. to achieve high bonding strength, small conductor loss and realize excellent high-frequency characteristics by suppressing a decrease in the inductance value of the inductor (see English translation).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over We et al. in view of Ngo et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ahrens et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0169596].
Regarding Claim 9, We et al. in view of Ngo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the second conductive routing comprises a first end embedded in the magnetic material and a second end embedded in the package substrate, and wherein the first end and the second end are coupled together.
Ahrens et al. shows an integrated inductor (Figs. 3c, 3e, 3g) teaching and suggesting the second conductive routing (300 or 360) comprises a first end (304 or 116) embedded in the magnetic material (108) and a second end (306 or 114) embedded in the package substrate (102), and wherein the first end and the second end are coupled together (see Figs. 3c, 3e, 3g, element 304 or 116 and element 306 or 114 are coupled together by being integrated together, Paragraph [0027], see also Figs. 1, 4e, 11c).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second conductive routing comprises a first end embedded in the magnetic material and a second end embedded in the package substrate, and wherein the first end and the second end are coupled together as taught by Ahrens et al. for the device as disclosed by We et al. in view of Ngo et al. to achieve a resulting structure that is more stable while obtaining desirable inductance values as required by design requirements (Paragraphs [0041], [0043]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first end and the second end are coupled together, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art to simplify design and reduce manufacture time and cost. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiwaki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0364662].
Regarding Claim 11, We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Nishiwaki et al. shows the package substrate is a molded substrate (Paragraph [0031]), an organic substrate (resin, Paragraph [0031]), a ceramic substrate, or a glass substrate.
In addition, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. substrate, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. molded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the package substrate is a molded substrate, an organic substrate, a ceramic substrate, or a glass substrate as taught by Nishiwaki et al. for the device as disclosed by We et al. in view of Ngo et al. OR Crawford et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability to achieve desirable operating characteristics.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing A
PNG
media_image2.png
495
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Drawing 1
PNG
media_image3.png
640
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Drawing 5
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Ngo et al. does not show “the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective” is found not persuasive because Ngo et al. shows the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective (see Figs. 5A-5D and Drawing A below, element 529 is entirely outside of a footprint of element 509 of the second region R2 in a plan view perspective). The term “second region” is broad. Based on the broad interpretation of the term “second region”, Drawing A clearly shows an interpretation of second region R2.
In response to applicant’s arguments that We et al. does not show “the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective” is found not persuasive because We et al. shows the die entirely outside of a footprint of the second region (see Fig. 1 and Drawing 1 below, element 123 is entirely outside of a footprint of element 140 of second region R2 in a plan view perspective).
In response to applicant’s arguments that Crawford et al. does not show “the die entirely outside of a footprint of the magnetic material of the second region in a plan view perspective” is found not persuasive because Crawford et al. shows the die entirely outside of a footprint of the second region (see Fig. 4 and Drawing 5 below, element 410 is entirely outside of a footprint of element 110 or 530 of second region R2 in a plan view perspective).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at (571)272-3985. 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837