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 .
Remarks
The 10/13/2025 amendments of claims 1, 7-9 and 21 have been noted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. The rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-15 and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. The rejections of record have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the newly added amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liao et al, US 20180315706 A1 (Liao) and Zhang et al, US 20210091016 A1 (Zhang).
New Grounds for Rejection
New grounds for rejection, prior art references Liao et al, US 20180315706 A1 (Liao) and Zhang et al, US 20210091016 A1 (Zhang) appear below.
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.
Claims 1-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al, US 12002770 B2 (Hsu) in view of Patten et al, US 20220376035 A1 (Patten) in further view of Sturcken et al, US 20180182841 A1 (Sturcken) in further view of Liao et al, US 20180315706 A1 (Liao).
Regarding claim 1; Hsu teaches a package comprising: a first redistribution structure (100); a die (300) disposed over the first redistribution structure (100); a molding material surrounding the die; a second redistribution structure over the die and the molding material (400); and an inductor (ID) comprising a permalloy core (800), wherein the permalloy core (800) is embedded in the molding material (400).
PNG
media_image1.png
798
1114
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hsu does not teach wherein the permalloy core comprises a plurality of vertically stacked alternating layers, wherein the permalloy core has the form of a closed loop having a rectangular shape in a top-down view, the vertically stacked alternating layers comprising: a plurality of epoxy layers; and a plurality of permalloy layers, wherein each of the plurality of permalloy layers is disposed between two epoxy layers of the plurality of epoxy layers. However, Patten teaches wherein the permalloy core comprises a plurality of vertically stacked alternating layers, wherein the permalloy core (206) has the form of a closed loop having a rectangular shape in a top-down view (Fig (4) – Patten), the vertically stacked alternating layers comprising: a plurality of epoxy layers; and a plurality of permalloy layers, wherein each of the plurality of permalloy layers is disposed between two epoxy layers of the plurality of epoxy layers (see paragraph [0031] of the specification of Patten: “[0031] In an additional aspect there is provided an integrated circuit comprising an integrated inductor or transformer having a magnetic core, wherein the magnetic core is formed from a stack of magnetic portions, each magnetic portion comprising a layer of magnetic material on an adhesion layer.”). Hsu and Patten are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu by making the magnetic core structure that of a vertically stacked layer of permalloy material alternated with adhesive layers as disclosed in Patten to reduce the effects of Eddie currents in the magnetic core thus ensuring better performance and longevity of the device.
PNG
media_image2.png
918
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hsu in view of Patten teach all the above disclosed subject matter.
Hsu in view of Patten does not teach wherein outer corners and inner corners of the single continuous closed loop are rounded. However, Sturcken teaches wherein outer corners and inner corners of the continuous closed loop (2202) are rounded (Fig (22B) – Sturcken). Hsu in view of Patten and Sturcken are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu in view of Patten by making the outer and inner corners of the closed loop rounded as disclosed in Sturcken to improve the electromagnetic properties of the loop without singular points.
PNG
media_image3.png
639
829
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken teach the above disclosed subject matter.
However, Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken does not teach the permalloy core has the form of a single continuous closed loop.
Liao teaches the permalloy core (110) has the form of a single continuous closed loop (see Fig (1C) of Liao reproduced in this OA for convenience). Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken and Liao are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken by making the permalloy core a single continuous loop as disclosed in Liao to simplify the manufacturing process of the device leading to a more efficient device production process.
PNG
media_image4.png
878
682
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2; Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Hsu teaches wherein each of the plurality of permalloy layers comprises Ni, Fe, Co, Mo, Si, Nb, B, or a combination thereof (see claim 2 of Hsu).
Regarding claim 3; Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Further, Hsu teaches wherein each of the plurality of permalloy layers comprises CoFeB (see claim 2 of Hsu).
Regarding claim 4; Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Hsu and Sturken and Liao do not teach wherein each of the plurality of permalloy layers has a thickness in a range that is from 1 µm to 50 µm.
Patten teaches wherein each of the plurality of permalloy layers has a thickness in a range that is from 1 µm to 50 µm (see paragraphs [0030] and [0031] of the specification of Patten: “[0030] In an additional aspect there is provided an integrated circuit comprising an integrated inductor or transformer having a magnetic core, wherein the magnetic core has a thickness of at least 10 μm. [0031] In an additional aspect there is provided an integrated circuit comprising an integrated inductor or transformer having a magnetic core, wherein the magnetic core is formed from a stack of magnetic portions, each magnetic portion comprising a layer of magnetic material on an adhesion layer.”. Hsu and Sturcken and Liao and Patten are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu and Sturcken and Liao by using the thickness of the magnetic core layer disclosed in Patten to ensure the suppression of Eddie currents through the very thin magnetic layers leading to less heating of the magnetic core and thus better performance of the device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al, US 12002770 B2 (Hsu) in view of Patten et al, US 20220376035 A1 (Patten) in further view of Sturcken et al, US 20180182841 A1 (Sturcken) in further view of Liao et al, US 20180315706 A1 (Liao) in further view of Lekas et al, US 20220173035 A1 (Lekas).
Regarding claim 5; Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao does not teach wherein each of the plurality of epoxy layers has a thickness in a range that is from 1 µm to 10 µm.
Lekas teaches wherein each of the plurality of epoxy layers has a thickness in a range that is from 1 µm to 10 µm (see paragraph [0049] of the specification of Lekas: “[0049] The thickness of each ferromagnetic layer 200 can be about 10 nm to about 1,000 nm. The thickness of each insulating layer 210 can be about 1 nm to about 50 nm. The total thickness of the core 20 can be less than or equal to about 100,000 nm (i.e., 100 microns).”). Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao and Lekas are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao by introducing the plurality of the epoxy layers in the thickness range disclosed in Lekas to reduce the effects of Eddie currents on the magnetic core thus improving the efficiency and longevity of the device.
Claim 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al, US 12002770 B2 (Hsu) in view of Patten et al, US 20220376035 A1 (Patten) in further view of Sturcken et al, US 20180182841 A1 (Sturcken) in further view of Liao et al, US 20180315706 A1 (Liao) in further view of Li et al, US 20190296100 A1 (Li).
Regarding claim 6; Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao does not teach wherein the plurality of permalloy layers comprises at least eight permalloy layers.
Li teaches wherein the plurality of permalloy layers comprises at least eight permalloy layers (see Fig (4) – Li). Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao and Li are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao by using at least eight permalloy layers as disclosed in Li to improve the performance of the device while reducing the possibilities of having Eddy currents in the magnetic core.
PNG
media_image5.png
837
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7; Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao in further view of Li teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
However, Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken and Li does not teach wherein the single continuous closed loop of the permalloy core encircles an entire perimeter of the die. However, Liao teaches wherein the single continuous closed loop of the permalloy core (110) encircles an entire perimeter of the die (102). Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken and Li and Liao are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken and Li by introducing the single continuous closed permalloy loop surrounding the entire perimeter of the die as disclosed in Liao to improve the efficiency of the device while reducing the complication of the processing steps of the manufacturing process of the device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al, US 12002770 B2 (Hsu) in view of Patten et al, US 20220376035 A1 (Patten) in further view of Sturcken et al, US 20180182841 A1 (Sturcken) in further view of Liao et al, US 20180315706 A1 (Liao) in further view of Zhang et al, US 20210091016 A1 (Zhang).
Regarding claim 8; Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao does not teach teaches wherein the permalloy core has a height that is in a range from 50 µm to 500 µm.
Zhang teaches wherein the permalloy core has a height that is in a range from 50 µm to 500 µm (see paragraph [0019] of the specifications of Zhang). Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao and Zhang are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Hsu in view of Patten in further view of Sturcken in further view of Liao by making the height of the permalloy core in the range disclosed in Zhang to improve the ability of the core to enhance the action of the inductor thus improving the performance of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 and 21-25 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9; Hsu alone or in combination with other available art does not teach A package comprising: a first redistribution structure; a molding material over the first redistribution structure; a first die and a second die embedded in the molding material; a second redistribution structure over the first die, the second die, and the molding material; and an inductor comprising: a first metallization pattern in the first redistribution structure; conductive vias extending through the molding material; a second metallization pattern in the second redistribution structure; and a magnetic bar comprising a first closed loop and a second closed loop adjacent to the first closed loop, wherein in a top-down view, the first closed loop of the magnetic bar encircles an entire perimeter of the first die, the second closed loop of the magnetic bar encircles an entire perimeter of the second die, wherein a topmost surface of the first closed loop is below a top surface of the first die, wherein a topmost surface of the second closed loop is below a top surface of the second die, and wherein the magnetic bar is embedded in the molding material.
Regarding claim 21; Hsu alone or in combination with other available art does not teach A package comprising: a first redistribution structure; a first die and a second die disposed over the first redistribution structure; a magnetic bar disposed over the first redistribution structure, wherein the magnetic bar comprises a first closed loop and a second closed loop adjacent to the first closed loop, wherein in a top-down view the first closed loop encircles an entire perimeter of the first die, the second closed loop encircles an entire perimeter of the second die, [[and]] a first portion of the first closed loop and a first portion of the second closed loop are disposed between the first die and the second die, wherein no portion of the first closed loop overlaps the first die, and wherein no portion of the second closed loop overlaps the second die; a molding material surrounding the first die, the second die, and the magnetic bar; and a second redistribution structure over the first die, the second die, the magnetic bar, and the molding material.
Claims 10-15 and 22-25 are allowed for their dependence on allowed claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moataz Khalifa whose telephone number is (703)756-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00).
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/MOATAZ KHALIFA/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815