DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/2/2026 has been entered.
Claims 7-12, 21, 25-26 and 28-38 are pending. Claims 1-6, 13-20, 22-24 and 27 have been canceled. Claims 7, 9, 11, 21, 31, 33 and 38 have been amended.
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 7-12, 21, 25-26 and 28-38 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 reciting “the top surface of one of the second through vias is entirely in contact with the dielectric layer of the second RDL” lacks adequate support. Applicant’s 8/2/2026 remark the amendments are supported by FIGs. 2 and 7 (Remark, page 2). Examiner note, FIGs. 2 & 7 show a cross-sectional view of the package structure without any information on what may be present on the top surface of the through vias in other cross-sections into and out of the page. In other words, FIGs. 2 and 7 is not representative of the three-dimensional package structure. Applicant’s FIG. 4 depicts a perspective view of the 3D solenoid inductor coil. As shown in FIG. 4, the through vias 150 to either side of the magnetic core 110 are coupled to second conductive lines 142 on top and first conductive lines 132 on the bottom with the exception of two last through vias. FIG. 4 depicts one last through via on the left side and one last through via on the right side that appears to be completely floating in space and are separated from the rest of the coil structure. These two through vias are not coupled to the top and bottom conductive lines 132,142 as required by claim 7. Thus, these two through vias, as best understood, would not correspond to any of the claimed first/second through vias. It is also unclear how these two through vias would be coupled to the rest of the coil and where the ends of these vias lead. FIG. 4 also does not depict the dielectric layer above the magnetic core. The inductor coil as disclosed should be coupled to the die 180 in the package as shown in FIG. 2 instead of completely floating as shown in FIG. 4. It is unclear where the connection to the die would be made in structure shown in FIG. 4. Therefore, as best understood, FIG. 4 should not be taken as providing literal support for the top surface of a through via being “entirely in contact with the dielectric layer” as recited in the claim. As such, Applicant’s original disclosure fails to provide clear, adequate, and unequivocal support for the limitations recited in claim 7.
Claim 21 reciting “the top surface of one of the second through vias is entirely in contact with the dielectric layer of the second RDL” lacks adequate support for the same reasons as detailed for claim 7 above.
Claim 33 reciting “the third surface of one of the second through vias is entirely in contact with the dielectric layer of the second RDL” lacks adequate support for the same reasons as detailed for claim 7 above.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 7-12, 21, 25-26 and 28-38 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.
Claim 7 reciting “the plurality of first through vias and the plurality of second through vias are coupled to the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if each of the plurality of first through vias are coupled to both the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines and each of the plurality of second through vias are coupled to both the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines. Or does the limitation require some of the plurality of first/second through vias to be coupled to some of the first/second conductive lines? Furthermore, does the limitation require each of the plurality of first/second through vias to be coupled each of the first/second conductive lines? How can a through via be coupled to all of the first conductive lines or all of the second conductive lines? There is no unclear on which of the through vias need to be coupled to which of the conductive lines.
Claim 7 reciting “the top surface of one of the second through vias is entirely in contact with the dielectric layer of the second RDL” renders the claim indefinite. As detailed in 35 USC § 112(a) rejections above, it is unclear from Applicant’s disclosure where the top surface of the through via lead to and how would the through via be coupled to the rest of the coil structure or to the die in the package. Claim 7 further requires that “the plurality of first through vias and the plurality of second through vias are coupled to the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines”. If this requires every single second through vias to be coupled to one of the second conductive lines, how would the one of the second through via that is “entirely in contact with the dielectric layer of the second RDL” also be coupled to the second conductive lines of the second RDL that is above the top surface of the second through via?
Claim 21 reciting “the plurality of first through vias and the plurality of second through vias are coupled to the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines” and “the top surface of one of the second through vias is entirely in contact with the dielectric layer of the second RDL” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons as detailed for claim 7 above.
Claim 33 reciting “the plurality of first through vias and the plurality of second through vias are coupled to the first conductive lines and the second conductive lines” and “the third surface of one of the second through vias is entirely in contact with the dielectric layer of the second RDL” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons as detailed for claim 7 above.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
As such, the claim has not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues prior art fails to teach the amended limitations in claims 7, 21 and 33.
This is not persuasive. There is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims as detailed in the 35 USC § 112 rejections above. A proper interpretation cannot be made and to ascertain whether the claims can be rejected over the prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2014/0111273 teaches (FIG. 9) a die 904 mounted adjacent a solenoid inductor.
US 2016/0233292 teaches (FIG. 6F) a die 13 adjacent inductor having magnetic core 20
US 9,799,722 teaches (FIG. 5) die 142,144 adjacent inductor coil formed in magnetic body 110
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights