Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/611,468

THIN-FILM POWER INDUCTOR

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 28, 2022
Examiner
LIAN, MANG TIN BIK
Art Unit
2837
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Hengdian Group Dmegc Magnetics Co. Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
921 granted / 1312 resolved
+2.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
82 currently pending
Career history
1394
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
53.4%
+13.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1312 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/21/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3 and 5-13 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. Drawings The drawings received on 12/22/2025 are acceptable. 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. Claims 1, 5-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2016/0217917 A1)in view of Nakamura et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2015/0035634 A1). With respect to claim 1, Jeong teaches a thin-film power inductor 100 (FIGs. 1-4), comprising a magnet 50, a first port electrode 85 and or 86, and a second port electrode 81 and or 82 (FIG. 2), wherein the first port electrode and the second port electrode are disposed on an outer surface (e.g. left and right side surfaces in W axis direction, FIG. 2) of the magnet separately; wherein the magnet comprises n (n being interpreted as 2) first sub-structures (upper and lower structures of dotted line, annotated FIG. 4) that are stacked, and n is an integer greater than or equal to 2, wherein each of the n first sub-structures comprises a first upper functional layer 50a and 50a1, a first upper coil 61 and 63, a first insulating layer 21 and 22, a first lower coil 62 and 64, and a first lower functional layer 50b and 50b1 that are stacked in sequence; wherein the first upper coil and the first lower coil each comprise a first end 61’ and 62’ and a second end 63’ and 64’, the first end of the first upper coil and the first end of the first lower coil are exposed to a same surface of the magnet and are both electrically connected to the first port electrode, and the second end of the first upper coil and the second end of the first lower coil are exposed to a same surface of the magnet and are both electrically connected to the second port electrode; and wherein among the n first sub-structures, a first upper functional layer 50a1 of an (i+1)-th first sub-structure (structure below the dotted line) and a first lower functional layer 50b of an i-th first sub-structure (structure above the dotted line) adjacent to the first upper functional layer of the (i+1)-th first sub-structure are made of a same material and manufactured using a same manufacturing process, and i (i being interpreted as 1) is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to n-1 (paras. [0020], [0031]-[0033], [0063-0065] and [0073]). PNG media_image1.png 309 535 media_image1.png Greyscale Jeong does not expressly teach each of the n first sub-structures comprises a first upper functional layer, a first upper coil, a first upper adhesive layer, a first insulating layer, a first lower adhesive layer, a first lower coil, and a first lower functional layer that are stacked in sequence. Nakamura et al., hereinafter referred to as “Nakamura,” teaches a thin-film power inductor (FIGs. 1A-2), wherein the n first sub-structure 100 comprises a first upper functional layer 110a (annotated FIG. 2), a first upper coil 33A, a first upper adhesive layer 21, a first insulating layer 10, a first lower adhesive layer 22, a first lower coil 37A, and a first lower functional layer 110b that are stacked in sequence (paras. [0019] and [0036]). PNG media_image2.png 336 519 media_image2.png Greyscale It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the adhesive layer as taught by Nakamura to the thin-film power inductor of Jeong to improve mechanical bonding between the coils and the insulating layers. With respect to claim 5, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 1, wherein each two coils are coupled to each other and have a same shape (Jeong, para. [0033]). With respect to claim 6, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 1, wherein the thin-film power inductor is a common-mode power inductor or a differential-mode power inductor (Jeong, para. [0003]). With respect to claim 7, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 6, wherein in a case where the thin-film power inductor is the common-mode power inductor, the each two coils are designed in a same direction (Jeong, paras. [0003] and [0033]). The thin-film inductor of Jeong would have this functionality to provide the required magnetic path for the claimed limitations. With respect to claim 8, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 6, wherein in a case where the thin-film power inductor is the differential-mode power inductor, the each two coils are designed in opposite directions (Jeong, paras. [0003] and [0033]). The thin-film inductor of Jeong would have this functionality to provide the required magnetic path for the claimed limitations. With respect to claim 9, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 1, wherein functional layers of the thin-film power inductor are made of a magnetic material (Jeong, para. [0020]). With respect to claim 11, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 1, wherein coils of the thin-film power inductor are made of a metal or a metal alloy (Jeong, para. [0061]). With respect to claim 12, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 11, wherein coils of the thin-film power inductor are made of a metal or a metal alloy with low resistivity (Jeong, para. [0061]). Claims 3, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Nakamura, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2022/0037083 A1). With respect to claim 3, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 1. Jeong in view of Nakamura does not expressly teach the magnet further comprises one second sub-structure, and the n first sub-structures and the second sub-structure are stacked; wherein the second sub-structure comprises a second functional layer, a second coil, a second adhesive layer, and a second insulating layer that are stacked in sequence; and wherein the second coil comprises a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the second coil, the first end of the first upper coil, and the first end of the first lower coil are exposed to a same surface of the magnet and are all electrically connected to the first port electrode, and wherein the second end of the second coil, the second end of the first upper coil, and the second end of the first lower coil are exposed to a same surface of the magnet and are all electrically connected to the second port electrode. Arai et al., hereinafter referred to as “Arai,” teaches a thin-film power inductor 2 (Fig. 14), wherein the magnet 10 comprises one second sub-structure (structure for conductors 25A and 25B), wherein the n first sub-structures (structure for 25C) and the second sub-structure are stacked; wherein the second sub-structure comprises a second functional layer (layer similar to layers 11e as seen in Fig. 8), a second coil 25C, a second adhesive layer 11d, and a second insulating layer 11c that are stacked in sequence; and wherein the second coil comprises a first end 125B1 and a second end 125B2 (para. [0138]). The combination of Arai to the thin-film power inductor of Maeda would result in “the first end of the second coil, the first end of the first upper coil, and the first end of the first lower coil are exposed to a same surface of the magnet and are all electrically connected to the first port electrode, and wherein the second end of the second coil, the second end of the first upper coil, and the second end of the first lower coil are exposed to a same surface of the magnet and are all electrically connected to the second port electrode” as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the second sub-structure as taught by Arai to the thin-film power inductor of Jeong in view of Nakamura to reduce resistance. With respect to claim 10, Jeong in view of Nakamura teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 9. Jeong in view of Nakamura does not expressly teach the magnetic material is a soft magnetic alloy. Arai teaches a thin-film power inductor 2 (Fig. 1), wherein the magnetic material is a soft magnetic alloy (para. [0093]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the soft magnetic alloy as taught by Arai to the thin-film power inductor of Jeong in view of Nakamura to provide the desired permeability to meet design requirements. With respect to claim 13, Jeong in view of Nakamura and Arai teaches the thin-film power inductor according to claim 10, wherein the soft magnetic alloy is a magnetic material with high saturation flux density, low coercive force, and high magnetic permeability (Arai, para. [0093]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700. 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 S. 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. /MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 28, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 18, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 21, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603211
COIL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597557
Dry High Voltage Instrument Transformer
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597554
ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597556
TRANSFORMER DEVICE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586715
Coil Component
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+26.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1312 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month