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 1, Figures 1-3, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 10/7/2025 is 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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen et al. [US 2021/0074465 A1] in view of Rabjohn [US 4,816,784].
Regarding claims 1-2, Yen et al. discloses an inductor device [figures 2A-2B, comprising:
- a first trace [1100], comprising: at least two sub-traces [1110, 1120], wherein one terminal of the at least two sub-traces is coupled to a first node [N1];
- a second trace [1200], comprising: at least two sub-traces [1210, 1220], wherein one terminal of the at least two sub-traces coupled to a second node [N2]; and
- a capacitor [C], coupled between the first node and the second node.
Yen et al. in other embodiment of figures 5-7, discloses a crossing connection arrangement between traces [1100C, 1200C] of the inductor device in an interlaced manner.
Yen et al. disclose the instant claimed invention except for a first crossing connection portion, coupled between the at least two sub-traces of the first trace in an interlaced manner.
Rabjohn discloses an inductor [or transformer, figure 2] using first and second crossing connection portions [18] between at least two sub-traces [or patterns] of two coils/conductors [14, 16] in an interlaced manner [figure 2].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the crossing connection portions of Rabjohn Yen et al. for the purpose of improving/enhancing magnetic and/or inductance coupling [abstract].
Regarding claims 3-5, the coil structure of Yen et al. in view of Rabjohn would have the at least two sub-traces of the first trace comprise: a first sub-trace, comprising: a first terminal, coupled to the first node [N1 of Yen et al]; and a second terminal; and a second sub-trace, comprising: a first terminal, coupled to the first terminal of the first sub-trace at the first node [N1 of Yen et al.]; and a second terminal, wherein the first sub-trace comprises: a first half-trace, coupled to the first node; and a second half-trace and the second sub-trace comprises: a third half-trace, coupled to the first half-trace at the first node; and a fourth half-trace [figure 2 of Rabjohn in combination of the traces from Yen et al.]
Regarding claims 6-7, Rabjohn discloses the first crossing connection portion [18] comprises: a first crossing connection element, coupled to the first half-trace and the fourth half-trace; and a second crossing connection element, coupled to the second half-trace and the third half-trace, wherein the first crossing connection element and the second crossing connection element are coupled to each other in an interlaced manner [figure 2], wherein the at least two sub-traces of the second trace comprise: a third sub-trace, comprising: a first terminal, coupled to the second node; and a second terminal; and a fourth sub-trace, comprising: a first terminal, coupled to the first terminal of the third sub-trace at the second node; and a second terminal [Figures 2A-2B of Yen et al. in combination of Figure 2 of Rabjohn].
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination of Yen et al. in view of Rabjohn would have the half trace structure, as claimed [Figures 2A-2B of Yen et al. in view of Figure 2 of Rabjohn].
Regarding claim 10, Rabjohn discloses the second crossing connection portion [18] comprises: a third crossing connection element, coupled to the fifth half-trace and the eighth half-trace; and a fourth crossing connection element, coupled to the sixth half-trace and the seventh half-trace, wherein the third crossing connection element and the fourth crossing connection element are coupled to each other in an interlaced manner.
Regarding claims 11-12, Yen et al. discloses a connection element [1300], wherein the capacitor and the connection element are located at two sides of the inductor device respectively [Figures 2A-2B].
Regarding claim 13, Rabjohn discloses the first crossing connection portion [18] and the second crossing connection portion [18] are located at two sides of the inductor device respectively [figure 2].
Regarding claim 14, Yen et al. discloses the capacitor and the connection element are disposed in a first direction [figures 2A-2B]. Rabjohn discloses the first crossing connection portion and the second crossing connection portion are disposed in a second direction perpendicular to nodes/terminals and other connections [figure 2].
The combination arrangement of Yen et al. with Rabjohn would have the capacitor and the connection element perpendicular with the crossing connection portions.
Regarding claim 15, both Yen et al. and Rabjohn discloses input/output terminals for the inductor device.
The specific arrangement and/or location of the input/output terminals would have been an obvious design consideration for the purpose of improving internal/external connections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/014,063 in view of Rabjohn [US 4,816,784].
Copending Application No. 17/014,063 [or US 2202/0139608 A1] discloses inductor device [figure 1], comprising:
- a first trace [1100], comprising: at least two sub-traces [1110A, 1120A], wherein one terminal of the at least two sub-traces is coupled to a first node [N1];
- a second trace [1200], comprising: at least two sub-traces [1210, 1220], wherein one terminal of the at least two sub-traces is coupled to a second node [N2]; and
- a capacitor [C], coupled between the first node and the second node [figure 1].
Copending Application No. 17/014,063 [or US 2202/0139608 A1] disclose the instant claimed invention except for crossing connection portion(s), coupled between the at least two sub-traces of the first trace in an interlaced manner.
Rabjohn discloses an inductor [or transformer, figure 2] using crossing connection portions [18] between at least two sub-traces [or patterns] of two coils/conductors [14, 16] in an interlaced manner [figure 2].
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the crossing connection portions of Rabjohn in Copending Application No. 17/014,063 [or US 2202/0139608 A1] for the purpose of improving/enhancing magnetic and/or inductance coupling [abstract].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1996. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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.
/TUYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837