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 Species I in the reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10, recites “the laminating direction” which should be --a laminating direction--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kitajima et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0336110] in view of Iwasaki [JP 2006-294927].
Regarding Claim 1, Kitajima et al. shows a spin inductor (Figs. 3A-3C with teachings from Figs. 1A-2) comprising:
a first inductor layer (elements 32b, 22b combined) having a first wiring layer (32b) and a first ferromagnetic layer (22b, Paragraph [0051]) in contact with the first wiring layer (see Figs. 1A-3C);
a spacer layer (22c or 22a) in contact with the first inductor layer (see Figs. 1A-3C);
a first terminal (44a) in contact with a first lateral surface (S3) of the first inductor layer (see Figs. 3A-3C with teachings from Figs. 1A-2);
a second terminal (44b) in contact with a second lateral surface (S4) different from the first lateral surface (S3) of the first inductor layer (see Figs. 3A-3C with teachings from Figs. 1A-2),
wherein a virtual plane that connects a top edge and a bottom edge of the first lateral surface (S3) is inclined in the laminating direction (see Figs. 3A-3C, a virtual plane that connects a top edge and a bottom edge of element S3 is inclined in the laminating direction, Paragraph [0047]), and
wherein the first lateral surface (S3) is an inclined surface (see Figs. 3A-3C, Paragraph [0047]).
In the event that Kitajima et al. does not anticipate, Iwasaki clearly discloses a first ferromagnetic layer (5, see Figs. 1-2, Paragraph [0022], Ni is a ferromagnetic material).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a first ferromagnetic layer as taught by Iwasaki for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. to achieve desirable inductance values and magnetic characteristics with enhanced magnetic field and improving performance and efficiency such as lower core losses.
Regarding Claim 2, Kitajima et al. shows each of the first terminal (44a) and the second terminal (44b) is in contact with both the first wiring layer (32b) and the first ferromagnetic layer (22b, see Figs. 1A-3C).
Regarding Claim 4, Kitajima et al. shows a second inductor layer (elements 32d, 22d combined) including a second wiring layer (32d) and a second ferromagnetic layer (22d, Paragraph [0051]) in contact with the second wiring layer (see Figs. 1A-3C), wherein the spacer layer (22c) is sandwiched between the first ferromagnetic layer (22b) and the second wiring layer (32d, see Figs. 1A-3C).
Iwasaki shows a second inductor layer (elements 35, 7 combined) including a second wiring layer (35) and a second ferromagnetic layer (7, Paragraph [0022]) in contact with the second wiring layer (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the spacer layer (6) is sandwiched between the first ferromagnetic layer (5) and the second wiring layer (35, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 12, Kitajima et al. shows the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer (as of limitation "the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer", it is seen that the Kitajima et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. first ferromagnetic layer, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. capable of causing precession of magnetization. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Tsuduki [WO 2010/084794].
Regarding Claim 2, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Tsuduki shows (Figs. 1-3) each of the first terminal (14a) and the second terminal (14b) is in contact with both the first wiring layer (18a) and the first ferromagnetic layer (16d, see English translation, see Figs. 1-3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the first terminal and the second terminal is in contact with both the first wiring layer and the first ferromagnetic layer as taught by Tsuduki for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to form an inductive device to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics and obtain good DC superposition characteristics (see English translation) and facilitate mechanical stability and reliability when mounting.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Hirukawa [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0373070].
Regarding Claim 5, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Hirukawa shows a coil component (Figs. 2A-2C) teaching and suggesting the first wiring layer has a length (L2-2*E1, Paragraph [0042], L2 can be 0.57 mm to 0.63 mm, Paragraph [0045], E1 can be 0.12 mm to 0.22 mm) in a first direction (x-direction) in which the first terminal (21) and the second terminal (22) are connected (see Figs. 2A-2C), which is smaller than a length (W1, Paragraph [0040], W1 can be between 0.27 mm to 0.33 mm) in a second direction (y-direction) perpendicular to the first direction (see Figs. 2A-2C, for example, when L2 is 0.63 mm and E1 is 0.22 mm then L2-2*E1 is equal to 0.19 mm which is smaller than W1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Hirukawa for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to form an inductive device to decrease stray capacitance and improve high-frequency characteristic (Paragraph [0112]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Ota et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0239772].
Regarding Claim 5, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Ota et al. shows an electronic component (Fig. 9, claim 6) teaching and suggesting the first wiring layer has a length (L1 or L0) in a first direction (W-direction) in which the first terminal (13) and the second terminal (14) are connected (see Fig. 9), which is smaller than a length (L3, Paragraph [0122], claim 4) in a second direction (L-direction) perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 9, L3 is greater than L0 therefore, L1 or L0 is smaller than L3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Ota et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to form an inductive device to increase bonding strength (Paragraph [0122], Table 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Matsuura et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0241959].
Regarding Claim 5, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Matsuura et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the first wiring layer has a length (W) in a first direction (W-direction) in which the first terminal (13 or 15) and the second terminal (14 or 16) are connected (see Figs. 1-2), which is smaller than a length (L) in a second direction (L-direction) perpendicular to the first direction (see Figs. 1-2, Paragraph [0070]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Matsuura et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to improve performance, reliability, and operating characteristics based on design requirements (Paragraph [0009]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Yoon et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0368966].
Regarding Claim 5, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Yoon et al. shows an electronic component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the first wiring layer has a length (L2) in a first direction (Y-direction) in which the first terminal (104a) and the second terminal (104b) are connected (see Figs. 1-2), which is smaller than a length (L1) in a second direction (X-direction) perpendicular to the first direction (see Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Yoon et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to improve performance and reliability such as inductance characteristics (Paragraph [0049], Table 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Mori [JP H09-260184].
Regarding Claim 5, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Mori shows an electronic component (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting the first wiring layer has a length (L1 or L2 or length of any layers in between the top and bottom layers) in a first direction (left/right-direction) in which the first terminal (left element 4) and the second terminal (right element 4) are connected (see Fig. 1), which is smaller than a length (W) in a second direction (front/back-direction) perpendicular to the first direction (see Fig. 1, Abstract, since W is greater than L1 or L2 then W is also greater than a length of any layers in between the top and bottom layers).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer has a length in a first direction in which the first terminal and the second terminal are connected, which is smaller than a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as taught by Mori for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to improve performance and reliability such as mounting stability (Abstract, Advantage).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Yang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0375529].
Regarding Claim 11, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first inductor layer has a first region in contact with the first terminal, and in the first region, at least one of the first wiring layer and the first ferromagnetic layer contains an atom that constitutes the first terminal.
Yang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-5) teaching and suggesting the first inductor layer has a first region (first region R1, see Fig. 5 and Drawing 1 below) in contact with the first terminal (420, see Fig. 5 and Drawing 1 below), and in the first region (first region R1), at least one of the first wiring layer (310, 312) and the first ferromagnetic layer contains an atom that constitutes the first terminal (see Fig. 5 and Drawing 1 below, element 310, 312 contain an atom such as Cu that constitutes element 420, Paragraphs [0065], [0069], [0076]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first inductor layer has a first region in contact with the first terminal, and in the first region, at least one of the first wiring layer and the first ferromagnetic layer contains an atom that constitutes the first terminal as taught by Yang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to improve adhesive force between the coil portion and electrode (Paragraph [0076]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Motoki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0210564].
Regarding Claim 11, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first inductor layer has a first region in contact with the first terminal, and in the first region, at least one of the first wiring layer and the first ferromagnetic layer contains an atom that constitutes the first terminal.
Motoki et al. shows an electronic component (Fig. 2, Paragraph [0051]) teaching and suggesting the first inductor layer (Paragraph [0051]) has a first region (A, see Fig. 2) in contact with the first terminal (10), and in the first region (A), at least one of the first wiring layer (3) and the first ferromagnetic layer contains an atom that constitutes the first terminal (see Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0019], [0037], claim 7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first inductor layer has a first region in contact with the first terminal, and in the first region, at least one of the first wiring layer and the first ferromagnetic layer contains an atom that constitutes the first terminal as taught by Motoki et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to improve sealing properties (Paragraphs [0021], [0038]-[0039]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Ieda et al. [JP 2022-131304].
Regarding Claim 12, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Ieda et al. shows the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins (Paragraphs [0017], [0027]-[0029]) into the first ferromagnetic layer (Paragraph [0016]) and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer (Paragraphs [0016]-[0017], [0027]-[0029], as of limitation "be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer", it is seen that the Ieda et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer as taught by Ieda et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to achieve uniform magnetization structure with desirable inductance values (Abstract).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Okuda et al. [JP 2009-245959].
Regarding Claim 12, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Okuda et al. shows the first wiring layer (4) is configured to inject spins (Abstract, see English translation) into the first ferromagnetic layer (1 or 3) and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer (Abstract, see English translation, as of limitation "be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer", it is seen that the Okuda et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer as taught by Okuda et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to achieve uniform magnetization structure with desirable inductance values where power consumption can be reduced effectively (Abstract, Advantage).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. [WO 2021/149241].
Regarding Claim 12, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Sasaki et al. shows the first wiring layer (20) is configured to inject spins (Abstract, see English translation) into the first ferromagnetic layer (1) and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer (see English translation, as of limitation "be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer", it is seen that the Sasaki et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer as taught by Sasaki et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to desirable magnetization (see English translation).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki as applied above, and further in view of Nagaosa et al. [WO 2020/027268].
Regarding Claim 12, Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Nagaosa et al. shows the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins (Abstract, see English translation) into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer (see English translation, as of limitation "be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer", it is seen that the Nagaosa et al. reference has the same structural limitations as of the invention, therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the first wiring layer is configured to inject spins into the first ferromagnetic layer and be capable of causing precession of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic layer as taught by Nagaosa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kitajima et al. in view of Iwasaki to achieve desirable magnetization with desirable inductance values (Abstract, see English translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing 1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights