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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 06/15/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 7 and 9-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species V (Figure 6), claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. However, the Examiner would like to point out that claims 7, 9 and 10-20 do not read on Species V (Figure 6, Applicant’s specification [0060]-[0061]). Thus, claims 7 and 9-20 have been withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RADHAKRISHNAN (US 20220093537 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 6 of RADHAKRISHNAN disclose an interconnect bridge, comprising:
a substrate (681, [0047]);
a first trace (643, [0049]) on the substrate;
a first layer (644, [0049]) on the first trace, wherein the first layer comprises a magnetic material;
a second layer (611, [0049]) over the substrate, wherein the second layer comprises an insulating material; and
a second trace (second trace from the top surface) embedded in the second layer (611).
Regarding claim 5, Figure 6 of RADHAKRISHNAN teaches that the interconnect bridge of claim 1, wherein the first trace (643) is an inductor trace ([0049]).
Regarding claim 6, Figure 6 of RADHAKRISHNAN teaches that the interconnect bridge of claim 1, wherein the first layer (644) is between the second layer (611) and the substrate (681).
Regarding claim 8, Figure 6 of RADHAKRISHNAN teaches that the interconnect bridge of claim 1, further comprising: a third trace (trace that in contact with 644) over the first trace (643), wherein the first layer is on (bottom side of) the third trace.
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 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 of this title, 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over RADHAKRISHNAN (US 20220093537 A1) in view of Male et al (US 20200365532 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Figure 6 of RADHAKRISHNAN does not explicitly teach that the interconnect bridge of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises silicon or glass.
However, Male is a pertinent art which teaches an integrated circuit with an embedded inductor or transformer. Figure 1 of Male teaches such an integrated circuit wherein an inductor coil 110 is formed on the substrate 108. Male teaches that such a substrate is made of silicon ([0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use material such as silicon in the device of RADHAKRISHNAN according to the teaching of Male for lower cost with improved performance, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as silicon used to form the device, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claims 3-4, Figure 6 of RADHAKRISHNAN does not explicitly teach that the interconnect bridge of claim 1, wherein the first trace is a spiral trace. Or
The interconnect bridge of claim 1, wherein the first trace is a serpentine trace.
However, Male is a pertinent art which teaches an integrated circuit with an embedded inductor or transformer. Figures 1B and 1C teaches that an inductor coil (trace) can be spiral or serpentine.
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first trace is a spiral trace or serpentine trace in the device of RADHAKRISHNAN according to the teaching of Male for lower cost with improved performance, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as spiral trace or serpentine trace for forming an inductor, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights