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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. During an interview with William Prorok (Reg. No. 76,864) on 01/22/2026, applicant elects Species I, FIGs. 1-3 and claims 1-12. Claims 13-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. At least claim 11 does not read on the elected species. In this Office action, claims 1-10 and 12 are examined, and claims 11 and 13-24 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 collective winding of the spiraling air gaps is 1 or more times around an associated central coil, and the air gaps are filled with at least one or more of: an epoxy, a volume of air, an oxide, or another insulator” as recited in claim 1, the “magnetic layers are more evenly deposited” as claimed in claim 6, the “the magnetic core operationally connected to the surface of a silicon wafer or operationally integrated within a multi-layer semiconductor epoxy-based substrate capable of integration with a bumped integrated circuit “IC” of claim 9 and the “he air gap spacing within each layer is less than the natural air gap space formed between adjacent layers” as recited in claim 12 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 Objections
Claims 1-10 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, it appears “At least” in line 2 should be --at least-- and “Wherein” in line 10 should be –wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 and 12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it’s not clear if “at least one spiraling air gap” in line 7 is the same as or different from “at least one spiraling air gap” in line 3. Applicant should also clarify if “at least one spiraling air gap” in lines 3 and 7 are the same as or different from “at least one air gap” in line 1. In addition, it’s not clear if “at least one spiraling air gap” in line 6 is the same as or different from “at least one spiraling air gap” in line 3. For examination purpose, claim 1 is interpreted as requiring a magnetic core with one gap, not three. Applicant should further clarify if “magnetic core layer” in line 2 is the same as or different from “magnetic core” of line 1. In Moreover, it’s not clear if “a magnetic core layer” in lines 3 and 4 is the same as or different from “At least one magnetic core layer” as recited inline 2. Furthermore, applicant should clarify if “the core” is the same as or different from “the magnetic core.” Even furthermore, it’s not clear if “a single magnetic layer” the same as or different from “one magnetic core layer” as recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the collective winding of the spiraling air gaps" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s not also clear what’s intended by “the collective winding of the spiraling air gaps is 1 or more times around an associated central coil. The examiner does not know how to interpret the limitations in question. Also, does the “central coil” refers to an electrical coil or the shape of the gap? Similar clarification needs to be made in claim 7. Applicant should further clarify if “the air gaps” is the same as or different from “the spiraling air gaps.”
Regarding claim 2, applicant should clarify what’s intended by “at least one of the spiraling air gaps is wider through any layered magnetic core areas which otherwise would receive a higher magnetic flux and is thinner in areas which would otherwise receive a lower magnetic flux such that the entire core has a uniform reluctance” as recited. For examination purpose, the limitation in question is interpreted as the air gap
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the inductor core” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Should “the inductor core” be --the magnetic core--? It’s also not clear what’s intended by “at least one of the spiraling air gaps is thinner near a center of the inductor core and thicker near any magnetic core surfaces such that a resulting magnetic core layer thermal profile is more uniform” as claimed. Specifically, “any magnetic core surfaces” could include inner surface near the center. So, in that regard, the thinner and the thicker gap
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of the claim is not fully understood.
Regarding claim 7, applicant should clarify if “a magnetic core” in line 2 is the same as or different from “a magnetic core” in claim 1. Claim 7 as a whole is not clearly understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the pattern” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the air gap spacing…the natural air gap space” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitations of claim 12 is not properly understood.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
These are mere examples claim limitations that are not clear. Applicant should review all claims to conform with the 35 USC 112(b) requirements.
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, 5-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D.C. Kaibfell (U.S. Patent No. 3,150,340) in view of Allen et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2021/0383958 A1).
With respect to claim 1, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Kaibfell teaches a magnetic core (magnetic core formed by magnetic sheet or loop 42, Fig. 3 provide below for convenience) with at least one air gap (air gap formed by spacer sheet 44), comprising:
At least one magnetic core layer 42;
at least one spiraling air gap (air gap formed by spacer sheet 44) starting from an outer edge (outer end) of a magnetic core layer and winding (spiraling) through the magnetic core to an inner edge (inner end) of the magnetic core layer such that all magnetic flux flowing in the core during operation is forced to cross at least one spiraling air gap;
[the?] at least one spiraling air gap uniformly covering as much surface area of a single magnetic layer (layer of magnetic sheet 42) as possible up to the point where a resulting inductance matches a specified minimum inductance requirement; and
Wherein the collective winding of the spiraling air gaps is 1 or more times around an associated central coil (col. 5, lines 58-62 and line 6, col. 4-25).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaibfell does not expressly teach
the air gaps are filled with at least one or more of: an epoxy, a volume of air, an oxide, or another insulator with a relative permeability of near 1.
Allen et al., hereinafter referred to as “Allen,” teaches a magnetic core (FIG. 2C provided for convenience below),
Wherein the air gaps (“Gap (air)”) are filled with at least one or more of: an epoxy, a volume of air, an oxide, or another insulator with a relative permeability of near 1 (paras. [0005] and [0039]).
PNG
media_image2.png
437
490
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 have the epoxy filled air gaps as taught by Allen to the magnetic core of Kaibfell to improve bonding strength between magnetic layers as epoxy is known to have good adhesive characteristic.
With respect to claim 5, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1, wherein the magnetic layer is a textured magnetic core layer (Allen, para. [0039]).
With respect to claim 6, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1, wherein the magnetic layers are more evenly deposited (Allen, para. [0039]). The process limitations “through the use of levelling agents, removal of sharp corners, pulse plating, or reverse pulse plating” does not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 7, best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1, wherein the spiraling air gap spirals around a magnetic core which has a square, a rectangular, or any other shape opening created by coils according to the pattern of the magnetic core designed to fit the coils (Kaibfell, col. 5, lines 58-62).
With respect to claim 8, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1, further comprising the magnetic core operationally integrated into a standalone inductor or transformer (Kaibfell, col. 5, lines 71-73).
With respect to claim 9, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1, further comprising the magnetic core operationally connected to the surface of a silicon wafer or operationally integrated within a multi-layer semiconductor epoxy-based substrate capable of integration with a bumped integrated circuit “IC” (Allen, para. [0023])
With respect to claim 10, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches a magnetic core of claim 1, wherein the magnetic core layers are made of at least one of: a NiFe 45/55 alloy, a NiFe 78/22 alloy, a NiFe 80/20 alloy or another alloy of the magnetic elements of Ni, Fe, Co (Allen, para. [0043]).
With respect to claim 12, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1, wherein the air gap spacing within each layer is less than the natural air gap space formed between adjacent layers (Kaibfell, col. 5, lines 58-62 and line 6, col. 4-25, Allen, para. [0039]).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaibfell in view of Allen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiura et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0261813 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1. Kaibfell in view of Allen does not expressly teach at least one of the spiraling air gaps is wider through any layered magnetic core areas which otherwise would receive a higher magnetic flux and is thinner in areas which would otherwise receive a lower magnetic flux such that the entire core has a uniform reluctance.
Best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Nishiura et al., hereinafter referred to as “Nishiura,” teaches a magnetic core with at least one air gap (FIG. 1), wherein at least one of the air gaps 4 is wider (wider at outer periphery areas) through any layered magnetic core areas (outer areas) which otherwise would receive a higher magnetic flux and is thinner (thinner at inner periphery areas) in areas (inner areas) which would otherwise receive a lower magnetic flux such that the entire core has a uniform reluctance (para. [0049]). 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 different gap sizes as taught by Nishiura to the magnetic core with at least one air gap of Kaibfell in view of Allen to equalize the magnetic flux density passing through the core section (para. [0052]).
With respect to claim 3, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1. Kaibfell in view of Allen does not expressly teach at least one of the spiraling air gaps is thinner near a center of the inductor core and thicker near any magnetic core surfaces such that a resulting magnetic core layer thermal profile is more uniform.
Best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Nishiura teaches a magnetic core with at least one air gap (FIG. 1), wherein the at least one of the spiraling air gaps 4 is thinner near a center (inner periphery) of the inductor core 1 and thicker near any magnetic core surfaces (outer surfaces) such that a resulting magnetic core layer thermal profile is more uniform (para. [0049]). 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 different gap sizes as taught by Nishiura to the magnetic core with at least one air gap of Kaibfell in view of Allen to equalize the magnetic flux density passing through the core section (para. [0052]).
With respect to claim 4, Kaibfell in view of Allen teaches the magnetic core with at least one air gap of claim 1. Kaibfell in view of Allen does not expressly teach there are at least two magnetic core layers having at least one spiral air gap wherein the spiral air gaps of each magnetic core layer are offset by a set percentage or degree, given the shape of the magnetic core, from the other air gaps, such that all the air gaps, including those of adjacent layers, are distributed in a manner as to achieve a uniform thermal profile in three dimensions throughout the magnetic core.
Best understood in view of 35 USC 112(b) rejection, Nishiura teaches a magnetic core with at least one air gap (FIG. 1), wherein there are at least two magnetic core layers 3 having at least one spiral air gap 4 wherein the spiral air gaps of each magnetic core layer are offset by a set percentage or degree, given the shape of the magnetic core, from the other air gaps, such that all the air gaps, including those of adjacent layers, are distributed in a manner as to achieve a uniform thermal profile in three dimensions throughout the magnetic core (para. [0049]). 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 offset gaps as taught by Nishiura to the magnetic core with at least one air gap of Kaibfell in view of Allen to equalize the magnetic flux density passing through the core section (para. [0052]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
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