Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/18/2025 has been accepted and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks/Arguments pages 5-7, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue the capping layer 158 is central to the overall configuration of the device, and therefore argues it would not be obvious to remove the capping layer resulting in the claimed invention. Ganesan states in [0040], “It is understood that the thickness T of the dielectric capping layer 158 is a tradeoff between having to be thick enough to prevent the leaching of the material of the first magnetic element 150 into the deposition chemistries/plating solutions that may be used in subsequent processing steps, but thin enough to not be unacceptably detrimental to the efficiency of the inductor being formed” However, Itoi teaches, see generally paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0020], and [0029] (using espacenet machine translation of Itoi) forming the first and second magnetic layers to directly contact each other without an insulating layer therebetween, a closed magnetic circuit can be formed that can suppress leakage of the magnetic field to the outside. Additionally, doing so can form the magnetic circuit in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the current flowing through the inductor, and a structure can be created in which magnetic flux is not generated in a perpendicular direction to the semiconductor substrate 1, see specifically Itoi [0015].
MPEP 2143.01 (V) states: “ ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’ ” In this case, a choice may be made by a person of ordinary skill in the art between leaching of a material of the first magnetic element into deposition chemistries that may be used in further processing steps (Ganesan), or alternatively optimizing for a closed magnetic circuit to suppress leakage of the magnetic field to the outside of the deposited magnetic layers. Therefore, in this case, the person of ordinary skill in the art having the benefits of Itoi may value suppressing magnetic leakage while taking into account deposition chemistries mentioned by Ganesan, arriving at the claimed invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-12 are pending.
Claims 6 and 8 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 9, and subsequently dependent claims 10 and 11, 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 claims 9-11, the term “thickness” in claim 9, with respect to the thickness of the first soft magnetic material and/or the thickness of the combined first and second insulating films, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thickness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “thickness” without the context of a specific direction with respect to the claimed device renders the claim indefinite. For example, thickness could be interpreted as thickness in a vertical direction with respect to the page, thickness in a horizontal direction with respect to the page, or thickness in a direction going into / coming out of the page.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0293327 A1 Ganesan et al (herein referred to as “Ganesan”) in view of JP 2007/019333 A Itoi et al (herein referred to as “Itoi”).
Regarding Claim 1,
Ganesan discloses:
A semiconductor device (#100, see generally Figs. 1-14, specifically Fig. 14 showing completed semiconductor device) comprising: a semiconductor substrate (#100, also referenced using #100) including a circuit region (#110/#120);
a first insulating film (#124, Fig. 12) covering at least a portion of the circuit region (#120) of the semiconductor substrate (#100), the first insulating film (#124) including a first aperture (see annotated Fig. 14 below, per Webster’s Online Dictionary “aperture” is defined as “an opening or open space”, therefore looking at Fig. 14, there is an opening in the first insulating film and can therefore be considered an aperture in the insulating film, additionally, the same logic applies to the second aperture wherein there is a second opening in the second insulating layer) extending therethrough and aligned over a first predetermined surface region (from top down view wherein magnetic material #150 is subsequently deposited) of the substrate (#100);
redistribution wiring (#132) disposed on the first insulating film (#124);
a coil (#160) formed by the redistribution wiring (#132) on the first insulating film (#124), the coil (#160) being connected to the circuit region (#110/#120) and located over the first predetermined surface region (see annotated Fig. 14 below);
a first soft magnetic material film (#150) disposed over the first predetermined surface region (see annotated Fig. 14 below) of the substrate (#100) at least partially in the first aperture (see annotated Fig. 14 below) of the first insulating film (#124), the first soft magnetic film (#150) located between the substrate (#100) and of the coil (#160); and
a second insulating film (#134) covering at least a portion of the first insulating film (#124, covers from a top down view), the second insulating film (#134) including a second aperture (see annotated Fig. 14 below) at least partially overlapping the first aperture (see annotated Fig. 14 below) of the first insulating film (#150) in a plane view;
a second soft magnetic material film (#170) that is disposed on the first soft magnetic material film (#150) over the second aperture (see annotated Fig. 14 below) in the second insulating film (#134), the second soft magnetic material film (#170) covering at least a portion of the coil (#160).
Note, under BRI, “on” may include Layer A disposed directly on Layer B, or, Layer A disposed directly on an intervening layer which is disposed directly on Layer B.
Ganesan does not explicitly disclose:
a second soft magnetic material film that is disposed directly on the first soft magnetic material film
However, in analogous art, Itoi teaches:
See generally Fig. 1
a second soft magnetic material film (#14) that is disposed directly on the first soft magnetic material film (#12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Itoi to the device disclosed by Ganesan and deposit the second magnetic material directly on the first magnetic material in order to integrate them to have a consistent magnetic material covering and surrounding the coil of the inductor without any dielectric layers or other impurities within the device for efficient use. Additionally, by depositing the magnetic layers onto one another, a closed magnetic circuit may be formed in the plane vertical to the direction of a current flowing in the inductor. See response to arguments above, see also paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0020], and [0029] (using espacenet machine translation of Itoi) forming the first and second magnetic layers to directly contact each other without an insulating layer therebetween, a closed magnetic circuit can be formed that can suppress leakage of the magnetic field to the outside. Additionally, doing so can form the magnetic circuit in a plane perpendicular to the direction of the current flowing through the inductor, and a structure can be created in which magnetic flux is not generated in a perpendicular direction to the semiconductor substrate 1, see specifically Itoi [0015].
PNG
media_image1.png
567
842
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ganesan Fig. 14 – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 2, Ganesan in view of Itoi discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1.
Ganesan further discloses:
wherein: the first insulating film (#124) encircles the first soft magnetic material film (#150), and
the second insulating film (#134) encircles the second soft magnetic material film (#170).
Regarding Claim 3, Ganesan in view of Itoi discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1.
Ganesan further discloses:
wherein: the first soft magnetic material film (#150) and second soft magnetic material film (#170) are integrated, and
the coil (#160) is buried inside the integrated first soft magnetic material film (#150) and second soft magnetic material film (#170).
Ganesan does not explicitly disclose:
the first soft magnetic material film and second soft magnetic material film are integrated by contacting an upper surface of the first soft magnetic material film with a lower surface of the second soft magnetic material film
However, in analogous art, Itoi teaches:
the first soft magnetic material film (#12) and second soft magnetic material film (#14) are integrated by contacting an upper surface (top surface) of the first soft magnetic material film (#12) with a lower surface (bottom surface) of the second soft magnetic material film (#14)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Itoi to the device disclosed by Ganesan and deposit the second magnetic material directly on the first magnetic material in order to integrate them to have a consistent magnetic material covering and surrounding the coil of the inductor without any dielectric layers or other impurities within the device for efficient use. Additionally, by depositing the magnetic layers onto one another, a closed magnetic circuit may be formed in the plane vertical to the direction of a current flowing in the inductor.
Regarding Claim 4, Ganesan in view of Itoi discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1.
Ganesan does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the coil is connected to the circuit region via a via provided in the first soft magnetic material film.
However, in analogous art, Itoi teaches:
wherein the coil (#13a) is connected to the circuit region (electrode #2 provided) via a via (see annotated Fig. 1 below) provided in the first soft magnetic material film (#12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Itoi to the device disclosed by Ganesan and include a via connecting the inductor to the larger IC device by forming the via in the magnetic material, like Itoi shows in Fig. 1. Within the layer structure providing two consecutive magnetic layers surrounding the inductor and therefore forming a closed magnetic circuit, a via passing vertically through the magnetic layers would be necessary in order for the device to function properly, which would be obvious to try by a person skilled in the art when designing the device.
Regarding Claim 5, Ganesan in view of Itoi discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 1.
Ganesan does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a terminal extending outside the semiconductor device, the terminal being provided on the first insulating film and being connected to the circuit region via a via provided in the first insulating film.
However, in analogous art, Itoi teaches:
further comprising a terminal extending outside the semiconductor device, the terminal being provided on the first insulating film and being connected to the circuit region via a via provided in the first insulating film.See paragraph [0021], “Although FIG. 1 shows only a portion corresponding to one inductive element on a semiconductor substrate, the present invention can also be applied to a semiconductor device having a plurality of inductive elements. Furthermore, although not shown, in the semiconductor device of the present invention, if necessary, a sealing resin layer can be formed on the second magnetic layer, and structures such as output terminals to the outside, such as bumps, can be added.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Itoi to the device disclosed by Ganesan and include terminals that electrically connect to the circuit region. Although Itoi does not explicitly disclose vias being the method of connection, a person skilled in the art would recognize vias as a reasonable choice to operably connect the terminals in a similar manner that the through via (shown in annotated Fig. 1 above) electrically connects to the electrode #2 in the circuit region shown in Fig. 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose, in conjunction with other claimed limitations and/or features of the respective claims, “forming a first insulating film in a region that includes an upper portion of the circuit region and excludes a first predetermined region; forming a first soft magnetic material film inside the first predetermined region; forming a second insulating film in a region of an upper portion of the first insulating film, the region excluding a second predetermined region that overlaps with at least a portion of the first predetermined region in a plan view” in such a manner as to anticipate the claims or render the claims obvious.
Claim 9 and corresponding dependent claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 9-11, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein: a thickness of the first soft magnetic material film is the same as a combined thickness of the first and second insulating films.” Dependent claims 10 and 11 depend on claim 9, and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record as considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations. The prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely: “wherein the first soft magnetic material film completely fills the first and second apertures of the respective first and second insulating films.”
Citation of Other Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210273036 A1 – Figs. 2A-2M, [0035]-[0036] and [0046]-[0047].
Statement of Relevance – The integrated circuit (IC) package substrate, comprising a magnetic
material embedded within a dielectric material, shows processing steps of depositing dielectric material
layers on a substrate, etching a portion of the material away leaving an aperture, and subsequently
depositing magnetic material in the aperture. A trace structure is formed on the deposited metallic
material and then the dielectric deposition, etch, metallic material deposition is repeated.
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 Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571) 272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812