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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant disagrees the combination of Yagisawa to Hansen because applicant asserts that Hansen inherently discloses a circuit board with a conductive trace that connects to the inductor. Therefore, applicant concludes that the motivation “to provide an electrical line to connect the inductor to the desired external circuit” does not explain why a skilled person specifically provide a high-speed trace within the claimed distance of the inductor’s edge. Applicant asserts that Yagisawa likewise does not supply that missing rationale.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. Hansen does not expressly teach “a high-speed signal trace” as claimed. Since applicant admits on the record that Hansen inherently teaches the inductor is connected to an external circuit with a conductive trace, in future Office actions, the examiner will interpret that Hansen teaches all the features of claim 1 as currently recited, including the “high-speed signal trace” limitation. Yagisawa reference is used for the express teaching of the high-speed signal trace 12 on the circuit board 11, similar to the high-speed signal traces on the circuit board in the present invention. The trace 12 is connected to the inductor IL. Therefore, it’s reasonable to combine the express teaching of the trace 12 on the circuit board connected to the inductor as taught by Yagisawa to the device of Hansen with the motivation as set forth in the Office action dated 08/21/2025.
With respect to the drawings objection, 37 CFR 1.83(a) requires the drawing much show every feature of the claimed invention. Therefore, the drawings objection is maintained.
Drawings
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 “the high-speed signal trace is part of a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) interconnect” as recited in claim 5, the “the high-speed signal trace is part of a compute express link (CXL) interconnect” as claimed in claim 6, the “at least a portion of the high-speed signal trace is positioned directly below the inductor” of 26 and the “the conductor meanders two or more times forming a W shape” as recited in claim 28 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.
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, 5-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2007/0252669 A1) in view of Yagisawa (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2008/0042785 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hansen et al., hereinafter referred to as “Hansen,” teaches a device comprising:
a circuit board (“circuit board” para. [0044], not expressly shown);
an inductor 50 mounted on the circuit board, wherein the inductor comprises:
a first conductive strip 52 or 54 extending along a length (length in x direction, annotated Fig. 3) of the inductor;
a second conductive strip (the other of strip 52 or 54) extending parallel to the first conductive strip; and
a bridging conductive strip 51 connecting the first conductive strip and the second conductive strip;
a first contact pad (contact pad 52a or 54a, annotated Fig. 3, similar to contact pad 93 or 95, Fig. 7) connected to the first conductive strip;
a second contact pad5 (the other of contact pad 54a, annotated Fig. 3, similar to the other of contact pad 93 or 95, Fig. 7) connected to the second conductive strip; and
a magnetic core 56 and or 58 adjacent the first conductive strip and the second conductive strip,
wherein, in use, current passes from the circuit board to the first contact pad, from the first contact pad to the first conductive strip, from the first conductive strip to the bridging conductive strip, from the bridging conductive strip to the second conductive strip, from the second conductive strip to the second contact pad, and from the second contact pad to the circuit board (para. [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
431
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hansen does not expressly teach the circuit board comprises a high-speed signal trace, the high-speed signal trace positioned less than 5 millimeters from a nearest edge of the inductor.
Yagisawa teaches a device (FIG. 1), wherein the circuit board 11 comprises a high-speed signal trace 12, the high-speed signal trace positioned less than 5 millimeters from a nearest edge of the inductor 14L (para. [0113]). 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 signal line as taught by Hansen to the device of Hansen to provide an electrical line to connect the inductor to the desired external circuit.
With respect to claim 5, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1. The “the high-speed signal trace is part of a peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) interconnect” is merely a functional or intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-31 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claim 6, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1. The “wherein the high-speed signal trace is part of a compute express link (CXL) interconnect” is merely a functional or intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-31 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With respect to claim 7, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the inductor comprises a first conductive riser strip (riser strip, 52b or 54b, annotated Fig. 3 above, similar to riser strip 96 or 98 as shown in Fig. 6) connecting the first contact pad and the first conductive strip, and a second conductive riser strip (the other of riser strip, 52b or 54b, annotated Fig. 3 above, similar to the other of riser strip 96 or 98 as shown in Fig. 6) connecting the second conductive strip and the second contact pad,
wherein a current path through the inductor consists of the first contact pad, the first conductive riser strip, the first conductive strip, the bridging conductive strip, the second conductive strip, the second conductive riser strip, and the second contact pad (Hansen, para. [0042]).
With respect to claim 21, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein, during operation of the inductor, a peak magnitude of a noise voltage induced on the high-speed signal trace by the inductor is less than 5 millivolts (Hansen, para. [0042]). Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device structure as claimed. Therefore, the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa would have the functionality as claimed.
With respect to claim 22, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein, during operation, a magnetic-field magnitude at the high-speed signal trace attributable to the inductor is less than about 20 amperes per meter (Hansen, para. [0042]). Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device structure as claimed. Therefore, the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa would have the functionality as claimed.
With respect to claim 23, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1, wherein, under a same operating condition, the noise voltage induced on the high-speed signal trace by the inductor is no more than one-fourth of noise induced on an otherwise identical high-speed signal trace by a strip inductor (Hansen, para. [0042]). Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device structure as claimed. Therefore, the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa would have the functionality as claimed.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Yagisawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0128274 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1. Hansen in view of Yagisawa does not expressly teach a voltage regulator, wherein the voltage regulator comprises the inductor.
Park teaches a device 200 (Figure 2) comprising a voltage regulator (“voltage regulator” para. [0013]), wherein the voltage regulator comprises the inductor 100 (para. [0013]). 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 inductor in a voltage regulator as taught by Park to the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa to provide a different intended use of the inductor, such as in a voltage regulator in high frequency applications that require high current capabilities (para. [0013]).
With respect to claim 3, Hansen in view of Yagisawa and Park teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the voltage regulator is configured to have an input current of at least 25 amps (Park, para. [0023] and or claims 2 and or 11).
Claims 24, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Yagisawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balakrishnan et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2020/0373081 A1).
With respect to claim 24, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1. Hansen in view of Yagisawa does not expressly teach wherein the high-speed signal trace is not electrically connected to the inductor.
Balakrishnan et al., hereinafter referred to as “Balakrishnan,” teaches a device 250 (FIG. 2), wherein the high-speed signal trace (e.g. traces 256 or traces in layers “L3 ONWARDS”) is not electrically connected to the inductor 252 (paras. [0026]). 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 high-speed signal trace as taught by Balakrishnan to the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa to provide connection between different circuits to increase functionality of the device.
With respect to claim 26, Hansen in view of Yagisawa the device of claim 1. Hansen in view of Yagisawa does not expressly teach a voltage regulator mounted on the circuit board, wherein the voltage regulator comprises the inductor, and wherein at least a portion of the high-speed signal trace is positioned directly below the inductor.
Balakrishnan teaches a device 250 (FIG. 2) comprising a voltage regulator (“voltage regulator” para. [0045]) mounted on the circuit board 254, wherein the voltage regulator comprises the inductor 252, and wherein at least a portion of the high-speed signal trace (trace in “L3 ONWARDS”) is positioned directly below the inductor (paras. [0045], [0027]). 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 high-speed signal trace as taught by Balakrishnan to the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa to provide connection between different circuits to increase functionality of the device.
With respect to claim 27, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1. Hansen in view of Yagisawa does not expressly teach a keep-out zone between the inductor and the high-speed signal trace, measured from an edge of the inductor, is less than 3 millimeters.
Balakrishnan teaches a device 250 (FIG. 2), wherein a keep-out zone (space between inductor 250 and signal trace 256) between the inductor 252 and the high-speed signal trace 256, measured from an edge of the inductor, is less than 3 millimeters (para. [0033], claims 17 and or 18). 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 high-speed signal trace as taught by Balakrishnan to the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa to provide connection between different circuits to increase functionality of the device.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Yagisawa, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,060,976).
With respect to claim 25, Hansen in view of Yagisawa teaches the device of claim 1. Hansen in view of Yagisawa does not expressly teach a gap between the first conductive strip and the second conductive strip is less than one millimeter.
Yamaguchi et al., hereinafter referred to as “Yamaguchi,” teaches a device (FIG. 15), wherein a gap (space between turns of the conductive strip 35 as shown in FIG. 6) between the first conductive strip (one straight strip as shown in Fig. 6) and the second conductive strip (a second straight strip parallel to the one strip) is less than one millimeter (“0.8mm” as shown in FIG. 15) (col. 12, lines 51-60). 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 gap length as taught by Yamaguchi to the device of Hansen in view of Yagisawa to provide the desired number turns and inductance to meet design requirements.
Claims 10, 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Yamaguchi.
With respect to claim 10, Hansen teaches an inductor 50 (Fig. 3) comprising:
a bottom side (lower side) to be mounted adjacent a circuit board (“circuit board” para. [0044], not expressly shown);
a conductor 51-52 and 54 in a magnetic core 56 and 58, wherein the conductor follows a U-shaped meandering path in a plane parallel to the bottom side,
wherein the conductor comprising a first conductive strip 51 extending along a length of the inductor and a second conductive strip 54 extending parallel to the first conductive strip (para. [0042]). Hansen does not expressly teach
wherein a gap between the first conductive strip and the second conductive strip is less than one millimeter.
Yamaguchi teaches an inductor (FIG. 15),
wherein a gap (space between turns of the conductive strip 35 as shown in FIG. 6) between the first conductive strip (one straight strip as shown in Fig. 6) and the second conductive strip (a second straight strip parallel to the one strip) is less than one millimeter (“0.8mm” as shown in FIG. 15) (col. 12, lines 51-60). 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 gap length as taught by Yamaguchi to the device of Hansen to provide the desired number turns and inductance to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 16, Hansen teaches an inductor 50 (Fig. 3) comprising:
a first conductive strip 52 or 54 extending along a length (length in x axis direction, annotated Fig. 3 above) of the inductor;
a second conductive strip (the other of conductive strip 52 or 54) extending parallel to the first conductive strip; and
a bridging conductive strip 51 connecting the first conductive strip and the second conductive strip;
a first contact pad (contact pad 52a or 54a, annotated Fig. 3, similar to contact pad 93 or 95, Fig. 7) connected to the first conductive strip;
a second contact pad (the other of contact pad 52a or 54a, annotated Fig. 3, similar to the other of contact pad 93 or 95, Fig. 7) connected to the second conductive strip;
a first conductive riser strip (riser strip, 52b or 54b, annotated Fig. 3 above, similar to riser strip 96 or 98 as shown in Fig. 6) connecting the first contact pad and the first conductive strip;
a second conductive riser strip (the other of riser strip, 52b or 54b, annotated Fig. 3 above, similar to the other of riser strip 96 or 98 as shown in Fig. 6) connecting the second conductive strip and the second contact pad, and
a magnetic core 56 and 58 surrounding the first conductive strip and the second conductive strip (para. [0042]). Hansen does not expressly teach
wherein a gap between the first conductive strip and the second conductive strip is less than one millimeter.
Yamaguchi teaches an inductor (FIG. 15),
wherein a gap (space between turns of the conductive strip 35 as shown in FIG. 6) between the first conductive strip (one straight strip as shown in Fig. 6) and the second conductive strip (a second straight strip parallel to the one strip) is less than one millimeter (“0.8mm” as shown in FIG. 15) (col. 12, lines 51-60). 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 gap length as taught by Yamaguchi to the device of Hansen to provide the desired number turns and inductance to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 28, Hansen in view of Yamaguchi teaches the inductor of claim 10, wherein the conductor meanders two or more times forming a W shape (Yamaguchi, col. 12, lines 58-60).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Hansen in view of Yamaguchi.
With respect to claim 11, Park teaches a voltage regulator (“voltage regulator” para. [0013]) (Figure. 2) comprising an inductor 100 (para. [0013]). Park does not expressly teach the inductor of claim 10.
Hansen in view of Yamaguchi teaches the inductor of claim 10 as stated above. 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 inductor as taught by Hansen in view of Yamaguchi to the voltage regulator of Park to provide an inductor with low core losses at high ripple currents and frequencies in a thin package while having high saturation current performance (para. [0004]).
With respect to claim 12, Park in view of Hansen and Yamaguchi teaches the voltage regulator of claim 11, wherein the voltage regulator is configured to have an input current of at least 25 amps (Park, para. [0023] and or claims 2 and or 11).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Yamaguchi, as applied to claims 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Balakrishnan.
With respect to claim 13, Hansen and Yamaguchi teaches the teaches a device comprising the inductor of claim 10, wherein the inductor is mounted on a circuit board (“circuit board” para. [0044], not expressly shown). Hansen does not expressly teach the circuit board comprising a high-speed signal trace, the high-speed signal trace positioned less than 5 millimeters from a nearest edge of the inductor.
Balakrishnan teaches a device 250 (FIG. 2), wherein the circuit board 254 comprising a high-speed signal trace 12, the high-speed signal trace (e.g. traces 256 or traces in layers “L3 ONWARDS”) positioned less than 5 millimeters from a nearest edge of the inductor 252 (paras.[0027], [0033], claims 17 and or 18). 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 high-speed signal trace as taught by Balakrishnan to the device of Hansen in view of Yamaguchi to provide connection between different circuits to increase functionality of the device.
With respect to claim 19, Hansen teaches a device comprising the inductor of claim 16, further comprising a circuit board (“circuit board” para. [0044], not expressly shown). Hansen and Yamaguchi does not expressly teach the circuit board comprising a high-speed signal trace, the high-speed signal trace positioned less than 5 millimeters from a nearest edge of the inductor.
Balakrishnan teaches a device 250 (FIG. 2), wherein the circuit board 254 comprising a high-speed signal trace 12, the high-speed signal trace (e.g. traces 256 or traces in layers “L3 ONWARDS”) positioned less than 5 millimeters from a nearest edge of the inductor 252 (paras.[0027], [0033], claims 17 and or 18). 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 high-speed signal trace as taught by Balakrishnan to the device of Hansen in view of Yamaguchi to provide connection between different circuits to increase functionality of the device.
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 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