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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 3-5 and 11-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are under consideration.
Election/Restriction
The examiner notes that the restriction requirement mailed March 5, 2026 incorrectly listed claims 7-10 as being drawn to Species I. Applicant elected Species I and correctly identified claims 1-2 and 6-10 as being drawn to, or otherwise readable on, the elected species. Applicant further indicated that claims 3-5 and 11-20 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected species.
Examiner further notes that claims 15-16 are improperly labeled as “(Original)” rather than “(Withdrawn)” in the claims filed May 5, 2026.
Claims 1-2 and 6-10 are examined herein as being drawn to or otherwise readable on elected Species I. Claims 3-5 and 11-20 are withdrawn as being directed to non-elected species.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I, directed to a dry film substrate having slits created by dry film patterning and dry film etching, in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traverse is on the grounds that the identified species are alternative modes of practicing the same inventive method, share the common inventive concept of creating pillars, plating one or more core layers, and grinding the plated structure, would be found in overlapping classifications, and would not impose a serious search or examination burden because a search of generic claim 1 would encompass the subject matter of each species.
This is not found persuasive because, although the identified species share the general process of creating pillars, plating core material onto the pillars, and grinding the plated structure, the species require materially different techniques for forming the pillars. Species I requires forming and patterning a dry film, including dry film etching. Species II requires laser drilling an epoxy plastic substrate. Species III requires chemically etching, such as wet etching, an epoxy plastic substrate. These different pillar-forming techniques involve different substrate materials, mechanisms of material removal, processing equipment, process conditions, and fields of search. Examination of the dry film species requires searching dry film formation, photolithographic patterning, and dry film etching art; examination of the laser-drilled epoxy species requires searching laser drilling or laser micromachining of polymeric materials; and examination of the chemically etched epoxy species requires searching chemical or wet etching of epoxy materials. A search directed to the generic sequence of creating pillars, plating core material, and grinding the plated structure would not necessarily locate prior art addressing each materially different species-specific pillar-forming technique. Examination of all three species would therefore impose a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3-5 and 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on May 5, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, claim 1 recites creating a series of pillars upon a carrier, wherein the height of the pillars is equal to the width of the magnetic cores. However, the claim recites a series of pillars and subsequently produced straight magnetic core elements without specifying whether the height of every pillar must equal the width of every magnetic core element, whether each pillar height is associated with the width of a corresponding magnetic core element, or whether the limitation concerns an average, nominal, or selected pillar height and magnetic-core width. Therefore, the dimensional relationship required by the claim is unclear.
Claim 1 further recites spacing the pillars according to the height of the magnetic cores. However, according to does not establish an objective dimensional relationship between the spacing of the pillars and the height of the magnetic cores. The claim does not state whether the pillar spacing must equal, be proportional to, fall within a particular range relative to, or otherwise vary as a specified function of the magnetic-core height. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the required pillar spacing with reasonable certainty.
Claim 1 further recites plating at least one core layer into plating slits between the pillars and subsequently grinding away excess core layers. It is unclear whether excess core layers refers to excess portions of the previously recited at least one core layer or to additional core layers that have not previously been recited. Therefore, it is unclear whether the material being ground away is a portion of the previously recited core layer or one or more separately plated core layers.
For purposes of examination, the height of the pillars is interpreted as the height of each pillar, the width of the magnetic cores is interpreted as the width of the magnetic-core elements formed in the respective plating slits, and the pillar spacing is interpreted as being selected based on the intended height of the magnetic-core elements. Excess core layers is interpreted as excess portions of the previously plated at least one core layer. Applicant is advised that the claim should be amended if a different interpretation is intended.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As to claim 6, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and is indefinite for the reasons discussed above.
Claim 6 further recites placing a substrate onto a wafer. However, claim 1 recites creating a series of pillars upon a carrier, and claim 6 does not identify the relationship among the carrier, the substrate, and the wafer. It is unclear whether the wafer is the carrier recited in claim 1, whether the substrate is an additional layer placed between the pillars and the carrier, or whether the carrier, substrate, and wafer are three distinct structures. Therefore, the structure upon which the pillars and slits are formed is unclear.
Claim 6 further recites patterning a series of slits according to the shape of the substrate. However, according to the shape of the substrate does not establish an objective relationship between the slit pattern and the substrate shape. The claim does not identify what aspect of the substrate shape controls the slit pattern or whether the slit pattern must conform to, correspond to, or merely be selected in view of the substrate shape. Therefore, the required arrangement of the series of slits cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 6 further recites creating in the substrate a series of slits producing pillars according to the pattern, creating a slitted substrate. In view of the preceding step of placing the substrate onto the wafer, it is unclear whether the slits are formed only through the substrate, extend into the wafer, or are formed in a combined substrate-and-wafer structure. The claim also does not clearly identify whether the substrate remaining between the slits constitutes the pillars recited in claim 1 or whether separate pillars are subsequently produced within the slits. Therefore, the relationship among the substrate, slits, and pillars is unclear.
For purposes of examination, the carrier recited in claim 1 and the wafer recited in claim 6 are interpreted as the same underlying support. The substrate is interpreted as a separate layer placed on that support. Patterning a series of slits is interpreted as defining the intended slit pattern, and creating in the substrate a series of slits is interpreted as transferring that pattern into the substrate such that the portions of the substrate remaining between adjacent slits form the series of pillars. Applicant is advised that the claim should be amended if a different interpretation is intended.
Claims 2 and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because they depend from claims 1 and 6 and do not cure the deficiencies discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeys et al. (US 2009/0094818 A1) in view of Tzanavaras et al. (US 5,421,987), and further in view of Sturcken et al. (US 2021/0065959 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smeys teaches a method of producing straight magnetic core elements in vertical plating (forming elongated electroplated magnetic core elements using a permanent SU-8 mold and electroplating process; paragraphs [0002], [0023], [0026]-[0029]), comprising:
creating a series of pillars on the surface of a carrier (forming a permanent SU-8 mold having raised mold features on a substrate over a seed layer, the raised mold features defining trenches for subsequent electroplating; paragraph [0026], Figure 5A);
plating at least one core layer on the upper and side surfaces of the pillars in the series (electroplating magnetic material into the trenches defined by the raised mold features such that the plated material is formed adjacent the sidewalls and extends above the mold prior to planarization; paragraphs [0026]-[0028], Figure 5A); and
grinding off the core layers on the upper surface of the pillars forming a series of cores (planarizing the electroplated magnetic material by grinding/CMP to remove excess plated material above the mold, leaving a series of magnetic core elements; paragraph [0028]).
Smeys does not expressly teach the pillars having a height equal to the width of a magnetic core to be formed.
Tzanavaras teaches forming electroplating molds having an aspect ratio of mask thickness to opening width ranging from greater than about 3:1 to less than about 1:10, which encompasses a 1:1 relationship between mold height and opening width and therefore encompasses a pillar height equal to the width of the plated magnetic core, to achieve acceptable electroplating characteristics and deposit quality (col. 1, lines 34-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the series of pillars of Smeys so that the pillars have a height equal to the width of the magnetic core to be formed because Tzanavaras teaches that the aspect ratio of the electroplating mold affects plating quality. Selecting a workable aspect ratio, including a 1:1 relationship, would have involved routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
The combination of Smeys and Tzanavaras does not expressly teach the pillars being spaced according to the height of the magnetic core to be formed.
Sturcken teaches controlling the dimensions of electroplated magnetic columns through the dimensions and arrangement of patterned voids and teaches magnetic-column aspect ratios from about 1 to about 20,000, including an aspect ratio of about 1:1. Sturcken further teaches that the AC-frequency range in which eddy currents are reduced or suppressed is a function of the width of the vertically laminated ferromagnetic columns and the electrical resistivity of the ferromagnetic material (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the series of pillars of modified Smeys so that the pillars are spaced according to the height of the magnetic core to be formed because Sturcken teaches controlling the dimensions and aspect ratio of vertically laminated electroplated magnetic columns through the patterned mold geometry. Applying Sturcken’s known dimensional-control technique to the similar electroplated magnetic-core structure of modified Smeys would have predictably controlled the relationship between pillar spacing and magnetic-core height in the same way. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(C)
Regarding claim 6, modified Smeys teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Smeys does not expressly teach wherein the creation of a series of pillars comprises (i) placing a substrate onto a wafer; (ii) patterning a series of slits according to the shape of the substrate; and (iii) creating in the substrate a series of slits producing pillars according to the pattern, creating a slitted substrate.
Sturcken teaches placing a substrate onto a wafer (depositing a masking layer over a conductive seed layer supported on an underlying substrate, wherein the masking layer corresponds to the claimed substrate and the underlying substrate corresponds to the claimed wafer; paragraph [0017]).
Sturcken teaches patterning a series of slits according to the shape of the substrate (defining in the masking layer a pattern corresponding to the laminated ferromagnetic core to be formed, including a series of elongated voids corresponding to the claimed series of slits; paragraphs [0017] and [0019]).
Sturcken further teaches creating in the substrate a series of slits producing pillars according to the pattern, creating a slitted substrate (removing portions of the masking layer according to the defined pattern to form a series of elongated voids extending through the masking layer to the conductive seed layer, wherein the portions of the masking layer remaining between adjacent voids correspond to the claimed pillars and the resulting patterned masking layer corresponds to the claimed slitted substrate; paragraphs [0017] and [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of modified Smeys such that the creation of the series of pillars comprises placing a substrate onto a wafer, patterning a series of slits according to the shape of the substrate, and creating in the substrate a series of slits producing pillars according to the pattern, creating a slitted substrate, because Sturcken teaches defining a pattern in a masking layer and removing portions of the masking layer according to the pattern to form elongated voids separated by remaining masking-layer portions for subsequent electroplating of magnetic structures. Applying Sturcken’s known masking-layer patterning technique to the permanent mold of modified Smeys would have predictably formed the pillars separated by intervening slits for defining the subsequently plated magnetic-core elements. See MPEP § 2141(III)(C).
Claims 2, 7, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeys et al. in view of Tzanavaras et al. and Sturcken et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Trezza (US 2009/0174079 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Smeys teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Smeys does not expressly teach wherein the creation of a series of pillars comprises plating up pillars on a carrier.
Trezza teaches wherein the creation of a series of pillars comprises plating up pillars on a carrier (plating pillars of electrically conductive material upward from a seed layer located on a substrate; plating exposed portions of the seed layer until plating metal has been built up to a desired height; and removing the photoresist to leave a series of upstanding plated pillars anchored to the seed layer; paragraphs [0020]–[0021] and [0033]–[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Smeys such that the creation of the series of pillars comprises plating up pillars on a carrier because Trezza teaches electroplating accurately positioned pillars upward from a seed layer on a supporting substrate to a selected height. Applying Trezza’s known pillar-forming technique to form the pillars of modified Smeys would have predictably provided vertically extending pillars having controlled locations and heights for defining the intervening plating slits. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 7, modified Smeys teaches the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Modified Smeys does not expressly teach wherein the substrate is a dry film.
Trezza teaches wherein the substrate is a dry film (the patterned photoresist layer may be a solid dry-film photoresist, including Riston PlateMaster, EtchMaster, or TentMaster dry-film photoresist; paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of modified Smeys such that the substrate is a dry film because Trezza teaches using commercially available solid dry-film photoresist as the patterned layer through which openings are formed for a subsequent plating operation. Selecting Trezza’s known dry-film photoresist for the patterned substrate of modified Smeys would have amounted to the predictable use of a known photoresist material suitable for defining plating features. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 8, modified Smeys as further modified by Trezza teaches the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Trezza further teaches wherein the patterning is a dry film patterning (applying and patterning photoresist to create openings extending through the photoresist to an underlying seed layer, wherein the patterned photoresist may be a solid dry-film photoresist; paragraphs [0030]–[0031]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Smeys as further modified by Trezza teaches the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Sturcken further teaches wherein the creation of slits is achieved by dry film etching (forming voids in a polymer masking layer according to a defined pattern using a subtractive dry etch, wherein the polymer masking layer corresponds to the claimed dry film; paragraph [0018] and claims 12–13).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smeys et al. in view of Tzanavaras et al. and Sturcken et al., further in view of Trezza as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Allen et al. (US 2020/0335275 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Smeys as further modified by Trezza teaches the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Modified Smeys as further modified by Trezza does not expressly teach wherein there are at least two layers of core material plated.
Allen teaches wherein there are at least two layers of core material plated (forming a laminated magnetic core by depositing a first magnetic layer, depositing an interlamination layer over the first magnetic layer, and depositing a second magnetic layer over the interlamination layer; sequentially electrodepositing magnetic layers and interlamination layers in an alternating fashion; and forming an exemplary laminated magnetic alloy having four electrodeposited permalloy layers; paragraphs [0008], [0020]–[0021], [0025], and [0029]). Allen further teaches that the multilayer magnetic alloy may be formed by bottom-up through-mold electrodeposition using a photoresist mold that remains intact throughout the multilayer deposition (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the magnetic-core elements of modified Smeys such that there are at least two layers of core material plated because Allen teaches forming laminated magnetic cores by sequentially electrodepositing multiple magnetic-alloy layers and further teaches performing the multilayer deposition by bottom-up through-mold electrodeposition using a photoresist mold that remains intact throughout deposition. Applying Allen’s known multilayer electrodeposition technique within the previously established dry-film mold and slit structure of modified Smeys would have predictably produced magnetic-core elements having at least two plated layers of core material while suppressing eddy-current losses at high operating frequencies. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights