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 with respect to claims 1-11 and 15-24 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radhakrishnan (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2022/0093537 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Radhakrishnan teaches a package structure 400 (FIG. 4A), comprising:
an inductor 425 comprising a conductive wire 443 and a magnetic layer 444 encapsulating the conductive wire;
a first connection element (446 or 446a, annotated FIG. 4A below) penetrating the inductor and contacting the conductive wire; and
a first conductive via (445c or 431B1) electrically connected to the first connection element, wherein a contact interface 446b or 448a between the first conductive via and the first connection element substantially aligns with a first surface (top surface) of the inductor, wherein the magnetic layer includes an upper layer (layer above conductive wire 443) and a lower layer (layer below conductive wire 443), wherein a bottom surface (lower surface) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer contacts a top surface (upper surface) of the conductive wire and a top surface (upper surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer contacts a bottom surface (lower surface) of the conductive wire (paras. [0037]-[0040]). When the annotated solder bump 431B1 is interpreted as the claimed first conductive via, the interface 448a is vertically aligned with the inductor, including the upper surface thereof, and when the annotated element 446c is considered as the claimed first conductive via, the interface 446b is horizontally aligned with the upper surface of the inductor. While claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it’s improper to read the specification into the claims. The claim does not define how the interface and the first conductive via are aligned. So, under broadest reasonable interpretation, it’s proper to interpret either way as in the rejection body.
PNG
media_image1.png
420
739
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan, as applied to claim 17, in view of Hong et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2020/0260586 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Radhakrishnan teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 17. Radhakrishnan does not expressly teach wherein a first outermost side surface of the upper layer of the magnetic layer is substantially continuous with a second outermost side surface of the conductive wire, and wherein the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire is substantially continuous with a third outermost side surface of the lower layer of the magnetic layer.
Hong et al., hereinafter referred to as “Hong,” teaches a package structure 1c (FIG. 7), wherein a first outermost side surface (left or right vertical surface) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer is substantially continuous with a second outermost side surface (left or right surface vertical surface in which the conductive wire is connected to the connection element, which is the vertically formed conductive wire) of the conductive wire, and wherein the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire is substantially continuous with a third outermost side surface (left or right vertical surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer (Hong, paras. [0046] and [0047]). 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 conductive wire and the magnetic layer as taught by Hong to the package structure of Radhakrishnan to provide the desired inductance with the extended conductive wire length to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 19, Radhakrishnan teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 18, further comprising a substrate, wherein the electronic component is surrounded by the substrate 411, 412A and 412B, wherein the substrate includes a two-layer core substrate 411, and 412A and 412B including a core layer 411 and a conductive structure 412A and 412B disposed on an upper surface and a bottom surface of the core layer (Radhakrishnan, paras. [0038]. Hong also teaches a package structure 1c (FIG. 7), further comprising a substrate 10 and 30, wherein the electronic component 20 and 26 is surrounded by the substrate, wherein the substrate includes a two-layer core substrate 10 and 30 including a core layer 30 and a conductive structure 30 disposed on an upper surface and a bottom surface of the core layer (para. [0047]).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Hong, as applied to claim 19, in view of Mano et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2013/0342301 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Radhakrishnan in view of Hong teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 19. Radhakrishnan in view of Hong does not expressly teach a dielectric structure disposed between the electronic component and the substrate, wherein a first side surface of the dielectric structure respectively contacts the first outermost side surface of the upper layer of the magnetic layer, the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire, and the third outermost side surface of the lower layer of the magnetic layer.
Mano et al., hereinafter referred to as “Mano,” teaches a package structure 10 (FIG. 1), further comprising a dielectric structure 50 disposed between the electronic component 110 and the substrate 30, wherein a first side surface (left or right side surface, depending on left or right dielectric structure 50 is interpreted as the claimed dielectric structure) of the dielectric structure respectively contacts the first outermost side surface (right side surface of upper magnetic layer 172, see FIG. 2 for clearer view) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer 172, the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire 158A-G, and the third outermost side surface (left or right surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer 172 (paras. [0037], [0038], [0040] and [0042]). 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 dielectric structure as taught by Mano to the package structure of Radhakrishnan in view of Hong to improve the insulation of the electronic component.
With respect to claim 21, Radhakrishnan in view of Hong and Manno teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 20, wherein a top surface (upper surface) of the substrate is coplanar with a top surface (upper surface) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer and a bottom surface (lower surface) of the substrate is coplanar with a bottom surface (lower surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer, and wherein a second outermost side surface (the other of left or right surface) of the dielectric structure contacts a side surface (left or right surface) of a supporting portion 30 of the core layer of the substrate (Mano, paras. [0037] and [0040]).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Hong, as applied to claim 17, in view of Ning et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2022/0406512 A1).
With respect to claim 22, Radhakrishnan teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 17. Radhakrishnan does not expressly teach wherein a side surface of a recessed portion of the conductive wire contacts a portion of a side surface of the first connection element from a top view, wherein the first connection element is of cylindrical.
Ning et al., hereinafter referred to as “Ning,” teaches a package structure (FIG. 6G), wherein a side surface (left or right terminal end surface) of a recessed portion (curvature portion) of the conductive wire 630 contacts a portion of a side surface (contact surface with the terminal) of the connection element (left or right connection element 632) from a top view, wherein the connection element is of cylindrical (para. [0091]). 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 connection of the conductive wire and the connection element as taught by Ning to the package structure of Radhakrishnan to improve connection strength between the conductive wire the connection element.
With respect to claim 23, Radhakrishnan in view Ning teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 22, further comprising a second connection element (the other of left or right connection element 632), wherein a second side surface (the other of left or right surface) of a second recessed portion (curvature portion) of the conductive wire contacts a portion of a second side surface (contact surface with the terminal) of the second connection element from the top view, wherein the second connection element is of cylindrical (Ning, para. [0091]).
With respect to claim 24, Radhakrishnan in view Ning teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 23, wherein the connection element and the second connection element are disposed symmetrically with respect to a central line of the conductive wire from the top view, and a minimum distance between a central line (an imaginary line at the middle of the first and second connection elements in into the page direction of Zeng and Hong, or vertical line at midpoint between the first and second connections in Ning) of the connection element and the central line of the conductive wire is the same as a minimum distance between a central line of the second connection element and the central line of the conductive wire from the top view (Zeng, para. [0070], Ning, para. [0091]). The claim does not define the central line direction.
Claim 1-3, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2017/0229963 A1) in view of Hong.
With respect to claim 1, Zeng et al., hereinafter referred to as “Zeng,” teaches a package structure (annotated Fig. 10 below), comprising:
an electronic component 10 comprising a conductive wire 13 or 1302 and a magnetic layer 11 and 12 encapsulating the conductive wire; and
a connection element 131 penetrating and contacting the magnetic layer and the conductive wire (paras. [0070] and [0091]).
PNG
media_image2.png
224
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zeng does not expressly teach
wherein the magnetic layer includes an upper layer and a lower layer, wherein a bottom surface of the upper layer of the magnetic layer contacts a top surface of the conductive wire and a top surface of the lower layer of the magnetic layer contacts a bottom surface of the conductive wire.
Hong teaches a package structure 1c (FIG. 7),
wherein the magnetic layer 20 includes an upper layer (layer above conductive wire 26) and a lower layer (layer below conductive wire 26), wherein a bottom surface (lower surface) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer contacts a top surface (upper surface) of the conductive wire and a top surface (upper surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer contacts a bottom surface (lower surface) of the conductive wire (paras. [0046] and [0047]).
PNG
media_image3.png
437
698
media_image3.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 conductive wire contacting the magnetic layer as taught by Hong to the package structure of Zeng to improve magnetic coupling between the magnetic layer and the conductive wire.
With respect to claim 2, Zeng teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 1. Zeng does not expressly teach a first outermost side surface of the upper layer of the magnetic layer is substantially continuous with a second outermost side surface of the conductive wire, and wherein the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire is substantially continuous with a third outermost side surface of the lower layer of the magnetic layer.
Hong teaches a package structure 1c (FIG. 7), wherein a first outermost side surface (left or right vertical surface) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer is substantially continuous with a second outermost side surface (left or right surface vertical surface in which the conductive wire is connected to the connection element, which is the vertically formed conductive wire) of the conductive wire, and wherein the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire is substantially continuous with a third outermost side surface (left or right vertical surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer (Hong, paras. [0046] and [0047]). 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 conductive wire and the magnetic layer as taught by Hong to the package structure of Zeng to provide the desired inductance with the extended conductive wire length to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 3, Zeng Hong teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 2. Zeng does not expressly teach a substrate, wherein the electronic component is surrounded by the substrate, wherein the substrate includes a two-layer core substrate including a core layer and a conductive structure disposed on an upper surface and a bottom surface of the core layer.
Hong teaches a package structure 1c (FIG. 7), further comprising a substrate 10 and 30, wherein the electronic component 20 and 26 is surrounded by the substrate, wherein the substrate includes a two-layer core substrate including a core layer 30 and a conductive structure 30 disposed on an upper surface and a bottom surface of the core layer (para. [0047]). 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 substrate as taught by Hong to the package structure of Zeng to increase functionality of the package structure by adding more electrical components.
With respect to claim 8, Zeng in view of Hong teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 1, wherein a lateral surface of the connection element is covered by the conductive wire (Zeng, para. [0091]).
With respect to claim 9, Zeng in view of Hong teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the electronic component has a structure which is substantially symmetrical with a horizontal plane (Zeng, para. [0091]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Hong, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mano.
With respect to claim 4, Zeng in view of Hong teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 3. Zeng in view of Hong does not expressly teach a dielectric structure disposed between the electronic component and the substrate, wherein a first side surface of the dielectric structure respectively contacts the first outermost side surface of the upper layer of the magnetic layer, the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire, and the third outermost side surface of the lower layer of the magnetic layer.
Mano teaches a package structure 10 (FIG. 1), further comprising a dielectric structure 50 disposed between the electronic component 110 and the substrate 30, wherein a first side surface (left or right side surface, depending on left or right dielectric structure 50 is interpreted as the claimed dielectric structure) of the dielectric structure respectively contacts the first outermost side surface (right side surface of upper magnetic layer 172, see FIG. 2 for clearer view) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer 172, the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire 158A-G, and the third outermost side surface (left or right surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer 172 (paras. [0037], [0038], [0040] and [0042]). 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 dielectric structure as taught by Mano to the package structure of Zeng in view of Hong to improve the insulation of the electronic component.
With respect to claim 5, Zeng in view of Hong and Manno teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 4, wherein a top surface (upper surface) of the substrate is coplanar with a top surface (upper surface) of the upper layer of the magnetic layer and a bottom surface (lower surface) of the substrate is coplanar with a bottom surface (lower surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic layer, and wherein a second outermost side surface (the other of left or right surface) of the dielectric structure contacts a side surface (left or right surface) of a supporting portion 30 of the core layer of the substrate (Mano, paras. [0037] and [0040]).
Claims 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Hong, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ning.
With respect to claim 6, Zeng in view of Hong teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 1. Zeng in view of Hong does not expressly teach a side surface of a recessed portion of the conductive wire contacts a portion of a side surface of the connection element from a top view, wherein the connection element is of cylindrical.
Ning teaches a package structure (FIG. 6G), wherein a side surface (left or right terminal end surface) of a recessed portion (curvature portion) of the conductive wire 630 contacts a portion of a side surface (contact surface with the terminal) of the connection element (left or right connection element 632) from a top view, wherein the connection element is of cylindrical (para. [0091]). 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 connection of the conductive wire and the connection element as taught by Ning to the package structure of Zeng in view of Hong to improve connection strength between the conductive wire the connection element.
With respect to claim 7, Zeng in view of Hong and Ning teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 6, further comprising a second connection element (the other of left or right connection element 632), wherein a second side surface (the other of left or right surface) of a second recessed portion (curvature portion) of the conductive wire contacts a portion of a second side surface (contact surface with the terminal) of the second connection element from the top view, wherein the second connection element is of cylindrical (Ning, para. [0091]).
With respect to claim 10, Zeng in view of Hong and Ning teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 7, wherein the connection element and the second connection element are disposed symmetrically with respect to a central line of the conductive wire from the top view, and a minimum distance between a central line (an imaginary line at the middle of the first and second connection elements in into the page direction of Zeng and Hong, or vertical line at midpoint between the first and second connections in Ning) of the connection element and the central line of the conductive wire is the same as a minimum distance between a central line of the second connection element and the central line of the conductive wire from the top view (Zeng, para. [0070], Ning, para. [0091]). The claim does not define the central line direction.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Nelson et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2024/0428981 A1). The provisional application filing date of Nelson predates the earliest effective filing date of the instant application.
With respect to claim 11, Radhakrishnan teaches a package structure 400 (FIG. 4A), comprising:
an electronic component 425 comprising a magnetic body 444 and a conductive wire 443 embedded in the magnetic body; and
a conductive connector 445 and or 445 penetrating the magnetic body and contacting the conductive wire,
wherein the magnetic body includes an upper layer (upper side layer of conductive wire 443) and a lower layer (lower side layer of conductive wire 443), wherein a bottom surface (lower surface) of the upper layer of the magnetic body contacts a top surface (upper surface) of the conductive wire and a top surface (upper surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic body contacts a bottom surface (lower surface) of the conductive wire (paras. [0037] and [0038]).
PNG
media_image4.png
397
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Radhakrishnan does not expressly teach a conductive gel.
Nelson et al., hereinafter referred to as “Nelson,” teaches a package structure 102 (FIG. 1) comprising:
a conductive gel 114 (para. [0016]). Paragraph [0015] of the provisional application number 63270589 discloses conductive gel 114. 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 conductive gel as taught by Nelson to the package structure of Radhakrishnan to facilitate electrical connection between the conductive wire of the electronic component and other electrical elements of the package structure.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Nelson, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Hong.
With respect to claim 15, Radhakrishnan in view of Nelson teaches the package structure as claimed in Claim 11. Radhakrishnan in view of Nelson does not expressly teach a first outermost side surface of the upper layer of the magnetic body is substantially continuous with a second outermost side surface of the conductive wire, and wherein the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire is substantially continuous with a third outermost side surface of the lower layer of the magnetic body.
Hong teaches a package structure 1c (FIG. 7), wherein a first outermost side surface (left or right vertical surface) of the upper layer (layer above conductive wire 26) of the magnetic body 20 is substantially continuous with a second outermost side surface (left or right surface vertical surface in which the conductive wire is connected to the connection element, which is the vertically formed conductive wire) of the conductive wire, and wherein the second outermost side surface of the conductive wire is substantially continuous with a third outermost side surface (left or right vertical surface) of the lower layer of the magnetic body (Hong, paras. [0046] and [0047]). 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 conductive wire and the magnetic layer as taught by Hong to the package structure of Zeng to provide the desired inductance with the extended conductive wire length to meet design requirements.
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
Prosecution Insights