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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, and 11-14 in the reply dated 15 July 2026 are acknowledged.
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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow et al (US 20190006296 A1, hereinafter “Morrow”), in view of Sturcken et al (US 20170250134 A1, hereinafter “Sturcken”).
Regarding Claim 1 - Morrow discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device comprising: an interconnect region of a die (120 [0019] and Fig. 1), the interconnect region comprising a plurality of metal layers (metal lines in 120 [0019] and Fig. 1); a device layer of the die (115 [0019] and Fig. 1), the device layer comprising a plurality of transistors (transistors in 115 [0019] and Fig. 1), the device layer over the interconnect region (toward 190, Fig. 1); and an inductor in the die and over a front side of the device layer (135 on side of 115 toward 190 [0019] and Fig. 1).
Morrow describes magnetic inductors containing magnetic materials (Several ferroelectric material examples containing Fe and Co listed in [0042]), but fails to expressly disclose a metal coil and a ferroelectric material inside the metal coil.
However, Sturcken discloses the inductor comprising a metal coil (Combination of 210, 220, 230, and 240, Sturcken [0028] and Fig. 2) and a ferroelectric material inside the metal coil (250, Sturcken [0028] and Fig. 2).
Sturcken discloses a semiconductor die with integrated inductor analogous to Morrow. Sturcken teaches placing ferroelectric material (magnetic film) inside an inductor coil for the benefit of enabling efficient switched inductor power conversion (Sturcken [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sturcken and Morrow to include ferroelectric material (magnetic film) inside an inductor coil for the benefit of enabling efficient switched inductor power conversion.
PNG
media_image1.png
456
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
292
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 – Morrow modified by Sturcken discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Morrow and Sturcken further discloses the interconnect region comprises a voltage input on a back side of the interconnect region (Electrical connections such as VDD on backside, Morrow [0021]), the back side on an opposite side of the interconnect region from the device layer (VDD input through 150 on opposite side of 115 from 120 as in Morrow Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4 - Morrow modified by Sturcken discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Morrow and Sturcken further discloses a support structure over the inductor (e.g. 355D, Morrow [0043] and Fig. 11A).
PNG
media_image3.png
730
385
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5 - Morrow modified by Sturcken discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Morrow and Sturcken further discloses the inductor is formed in a plurality of metallization layers over the device layer (130, Morrow [0019] and Fig. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow et al (US 20190006296 A1, hereinafter “Morrow”), in view of Sturcken et al (US 20170250134 A1, hereinafter “Sturcken”), and further in view of Cho et al (US 20170338171 A1, hereinafter “Cho”).
Regarding Claim 3 - Morrow modified by Sturcken discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
The combination of Morrow and Sturcken further discloses the voltage input is to receive a first voltage (VDD, Morrow [0020]).
The combination of Morrow and Sturcken fails to expressly disclose the inductor is to step down the first voltage to a second voltage having a lower amplitude than the first voltage.
However, Morrow teaches “On-die voltage regulation can be used to locally change the voltage, e.g., within core voltage changes, for active power management.” (Morrow [0018])
Furthermore, Cho teaches a buck converter may be used to power integrated circuits, producing a lower output voltage than the input (Cho [0019] and Fig. 1). Integrated circuits with multiple processing cores (the stated application of the instant application, [0001]) utilize switching voltage regulation circuits, each incorporating an inductor to step down and control the voltage as described above by Morrow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second voltage (output) would have a lower amplitude than the first voltage (input).
PNG
media_image4.png
501
699
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow et al (US 20190006296 A1, hereinafter “Morrow”), in view of Cho et al (US 20170338171 A1, hereinafter “Cho”).
Regarding Claim 11 - Morrow discloses an integrated circuit (IC) die comprising: an interconnect region comprising a pad to receive a first voltage from a power source (130 [0019] and Fig. 1); a device region comprising a plurality of semiconductor devices (115 [0019] and Fig. 1); and an inductor (135 [0019] and Fig. 1), the inductor is electrically coupled to the pad to receive the first voltage (135 connected to 150 through 130 for VDD input [0019] and Fig. 1).
Morrow fails to disclose the device region is between the inductor and the interconnect region, and the inductor is to step down the first voltage to a second voltage.
However, Cho discloses the device region is between the inductor and the interconnect region (Cho Fig. 4), and the inductor is to step down the first voltage to a second voltage (Cho [0019] and Fig. 1).
Cho discloses an analogous power conversion device to Morrow. Cho teaches transistor connection between the interconnection region containing the input voltage and the inductor leading to the output voltage for the benefit of the most direct connection in sequence with circuit function (As seen in Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Morrow and Cho to achieve the most direct connection in sequence with circuit function.
PNG
media_image5.png
365
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12 – Morrow modified by Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Morrow and Cho further discloses the IC device further comprising an internal power rail at the second voltage (“Connected to devices of die 110 … are interconnects 130 and one or more inductors 135”, Morrow [0019]. The second voltage power rail is the output of Morrow’s inductor 135, as demonstrated by node 106 (VOUT) in Cho Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13 - Morrow modified by Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Morrow and Cho further discloses the inductor is formed in a plurality of metallization layers over the device region (130, Morrow [0019] and Fig. 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morrow et al (US 20190006296 A1, hereinafter “Morrow”), in view of Cho et al (US 20170338171 A1, hereinafter “Cho”), and further in view of Sturcken et al (US 20170250134 A1, hereinafter “Sturcken”).
Regarding Claim 14 - Morrow modified by Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
The combination of Morrow and Cho describes magnetic inductors containing magnetic materials, but fails to expressly disclose a ferroelectric material in a region surrounded by the conductive coil.
However, Sturcken discloses the inductor comprising a metal coil (Combination of 210, 220, 230, and 240, Sturcken [0028] and Fig. 2) and a ferroelectric material inside the metal coil (250, Sturcken [0028] and Fig. 2).
Sturcken discloses a semiconductor die with integrated inductor analogous to Morrow. Sturcken teaches placing ferroelectric material (magnetic film) inside an inductor coil for the benefit of enabling efficient switched inductor power conversion (Sturcken [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sturcken and Morrow to include ferroelectric material (magnetic film) inside an inductor coil for the benefit of enabling efficient switched inductor power conversion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571) 272-5944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-6p Eastern, alternating Fridays out of office.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/JASON MCDONALD/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights