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 of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim s 6-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, Species II and Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 . 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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. [U.S. Patent No. 9,854,671] in view of Horiuchi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0080247] and Soendker et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0164669]. Regarding Claim 1, Lin et al. shows an embedded inductor structure (Figs. 8A-9C), comprising: a board (112), having a first surface (top surface), a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to the first surface (see Figs. 8A-9C), and multiple through vias (164) in communication with the first surface and the second surface (see Figs. 8A-9C); an electromagnet core (120), mounted on the first surface (top surface) of the board (112, see Figs. 8A-9C); wherein the through vias (164) are located on two opposite sides of the electromagnet core (see Figs. 8A-9C); a coil (162, 166), mounted through the through vias (164) to wrap around the electromagnet core (see Figs. 8A-9C). Lin et al. does not explicitly disclose having the board is made of aluminum and an inside wall of each of the through vias forms an anodic aluminum oxide (AAO) formed by an anodizing process. Horiuchi et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-6 and 8) teaching and suggesting an aluminum board (4, Paragraphs [0043] -[ 0044], claims 6, 10, see Fig. 8) and an inside wall of each of the through vias (holes) forms an anodic aluminum oxide (AAO) formed by an anodizing process (inside wall of each holes of element 4 forms an anodic aluminum oxide, Paragraphs [0043]-[0044], claims 6, 10, see Fig. 8). 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 an aluminum board and an inside wall of each of the through vias forms an anodic aluminum oxide (AAO) formed by an anodizing process as taught by Horiuchi et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. to achieve a coil structure being small size because a density of the column-like electrical conductors arranged in the core substrate can be very high where a shape of the coil can be changed easily by changing a position of the connection electrical conductors where an inductance of the coil can be varied easily (Paragraph [0048]). Furthermore, Soendker et al. clearly shows an electromagnet core (24), mounted on the first surface (top surface) of the aluminum board (18, see Fig. 5, Paragraph [0027]). 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 an electromagnet core, mounted on the first surface of the aluminum board as taught by Soendker et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability and achieve quality. Regarding Claim 2, Lin et al. and Horiuchi et al. shows a first dielectric layer (element 114 of Lin et al.), mounted on the first surface (top surface) of the aluminum board (element 4 of Horiuchi et al. or plate 112 of Lin et al.), covering the electromagnet core (element 120 of Lin et al.); a second dielectric layer (element 150 of Lin et al.), mounted on the second surface (bottom surface) of the aluminum board (element 4 of Horiuchi et al. or plate 112 of Lin et al.); wherein the through vias (element 164 of Lin et al.) penetrate through the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see Figs. 8A-9C of Lin et al.); wherein the coil (elements 162, 166 of Lin et al.) wraps around the electromagnet core (element 120 of Lin et al.) and parts of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see Figs. 8A-9C of Lin et al.). Horiuchi et al. shows a first dielectric layer (6), a second dielectric layer (8); wherein the through vias (6a, 8a, 2) penetrate through the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see Figs. 1-6 and 8); wherein the coil (10-1, 12-1) wraps around parts of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see Figs. 1-6 and 8). Regarding Claim 5, Horiuchi et al. shows each of the through vias (2) is a hexagonal through via (Paragraph [0044]) . Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al. and Soendker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0406882] and Liu et al. [CN 106208408]. Regarding Claim 4, Horiuchi et al. shows each of the through vias (2) is a hexagonal through via (Paragraph [0044]). Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al. and Soendker et al. does not show each of the through vias comprises at least one sub-through via. Kim et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 4A-5B) teaching and suggesting each of the through vias (420-1, 420-2) comprises at least one sub-through via (see Figs. 4A-5B). 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 through vias comprises at least one sub-through via as taught by Kim et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al. and Soendker et al. to improve Q-factor (Paragraph [0028]). Furthermore, Liu et al. shows each of the through vias (via hole) is a hexagonal through via (see English translation). 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 through vias is a hexagonal through via as taught by Liu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al., Soendker et al., and Kim et al. to facilitate desirable electrical connection and achieve desirable inductance values. The combination of Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al., Soendker et al., Kim et al., and Liu et al. shows each of the at least one sub-through via (elements 420-1, 420-2 of Kim et al.) of the through vias is at least one hexagonal sub-through via (Paragraph [0044] of Horiuchi et al. and see English translation of Liu et al.). Moreover, having each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical connection characteristics. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al. and Soendker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. [CN 106208408]. Regarding Claim 5, Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al. and Soendker et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above. In addition, Liu et al. shows each of the through vias (via hole) is a hexagonal through via (see English translation). 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 through vias is a hexagonal through via as taught by Liu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Horiuchi et al. and Soendker et al. to facilitate desirable electrical connection and achieve desirable inductance values. Moreover, having each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical connection characteristics. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. [U.S. Patent No. 9,854,671] in view of Voiron et al. [EP 3799084] and Soendker et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0164669]. Regarding Claim 1, Lin et al. shows an embedded inductor structure (Figs. 8A-9C), comprising: a board (112), having a first surface (top surface), a second surface (bottom surface) opposite to the first surface (see Figs. 8A-9C), and multiple through vias (164) in communication with the first surface and the second surface (see Figs. 8A-9C); an electromagnet core (120), mounted on the first surface (top surface) of the board (112, see Figs. 8A-9C); wherein the through vias (164) are located on two opposite sides of the electromagnet core (see Figs. 8A-9C); a coil (162, 166), mounted through the through vias (164) to wrap around the electromagnet core (see Figs. 8A-9C). Lin et al. does not explicitly disclose having the board is made of aluminum and an inside wall of each of the through vias forms an anodic aluminum oxide (AAO) formed by an anodizing process. Voiron et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-11H) teaching and suggesting an aluminum board (S, 1A, Paragraphs [0028], [0039], [0056]-[0057]) and an inside wall of each of the through vias forms an anodic aluminum oxide (AAO) formed by an anodizing process (inside wall of each holes of element S, 1A forms an anodic aluminum oxide, Paragraphs [0013], [0028], [0031], [0039], [0042], [0056]-[0057], [0068]-[0069]). 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 an aluminum board and an inside wall of each of the through vias forms an anodic aluminum oxide (AAO) formed by an anodizing process as taught by Voiron et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. to enable the fabrication of nanoporous tubular self-organized structures which are easily processable and inexpensive (Paragraph [0014]) with excellent performance and low losses (Paragraph [0025]). Furthermore, Soendker et al. clearly shows an electromagnet core (24), mounted on the first surface (top surface) of the aluminum board (18, see Fig. 5, Paragraph [0027]). 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 an electromagnet core, mounted on the first surface of the aluminum board as taught by Soendker et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. to facilitate mechanical stability and reliability and achieve quality. Regarding Claim 2, Lin et al. and Voiron et al. shows a first dielectric layer (element 114 of Lin et al.), mounted on the first surface (top surface) of the aluminum board (element S, 1A of Voiron et al. or plate 112 of Lin et al.), covering the electromagnet core (element 120 of Lin et al.); a second dielectric layer (element 150 of Lin et al.), mounted on the second surface (bottom surface) of the aluminum board (element S, 1A of Voiron et al. or plate 112 of Lin et al.); wherein the through vias (element 164 of Lin et al.) penetrate through the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see Figs. 8A-9C of Lin et al.); wherein the coil (elements 162, 166 of Lin et al.) wraps around the electromagnet core (element 120 of Lin et al.) and parts of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see Figs. 8A-9C of Lin et al.). Voiron et al. shows a first dielectric layer (12), a second dielectric layer (11); wherein the coil (14, 13) wraps around parts of the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (see Figs. 1-11H). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0406882] and Horiuchi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0080247]. Regarding Claim 4, Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show each of the through vias comprises at least one sub-through via and each of the at least one sub-through via of the through vias is at least one hexagonal sub-through via. Kim et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 4A-5B) teaching and suggesting each of the through vias (420-1, 420-2) comprises at least one sub-through via (see Figs. 4A-5B). 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 through vias comprises at least one sub-through via as taught by Kim et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. to improve Q-factor (Paragraph [0028]). Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al., Soendker et al., and Kim et al. does not show each of the at least one sub-through via of the through vias is at least one hexagonal sub-through via. Horiuchi et al. shows each of the through vias (2) is a hexagonal through via (Paragraph [0044]). 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 through vias is a hexagonal through via as taught by Horiuchi et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. to achieve a coil structure being small size because a density of the column-like electrical conductors arranged in the core substrate can be very high where a shape of the coil can be changed easily by changing a position of the connection electrical conductors where an inductance of the coil can be varied easily (Paragraph [0048]). The combination of Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al., Soendker et al., Kim et al., and Horiuchi et al. shows each of the at least one sub-through via (elements 420-1, 420-2 of Kim et al.) of the through vias is at least one hexagonal sub-through via (Paragraph [0044] of Horiuchi et al.). Moreover, having each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical connection characteristics. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0406882] and Liu et al. [CN 106208408]. Regarding Claim 4, Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show each of the through vias comprises at least one sub-through via and each of the at least one sub-through via of the through vias is at least one hexagonal sub-through via. Kim et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 4A-5B) teaching and suggesting each of the through vias (420-1, 420-2) comprises at least one sub-through via (see Figs. 4A-5B). 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 through vias comprises at least one sub-through via as taught by Kim et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. to improve Q-factor (Paragraph [0028]). Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al., Soendker et al., and Kim et al. does not show each of the at least one sub-through via of the through vias is at least one hexagonal sub-through via. Liu et al. shows each of the through vias (via hole) is a hexagonal through via (see English translation). 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 through vias is a hexagonal through via as taught by Liu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al., Soendker et al., and Kim et al. to facilitate desirable electrical connection and achieve desirable inductance values. The combination of Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al., Soendker et al., Kim et al., and Liu et al. shows each of the at least one sub-through via (elements 420-1, 420-2 of Kim et al.) of the through vias is at least one hexagonal sub-through via (see English translation of Liu et al.). Moreover, having each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical connection characteristics. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horiuchi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0080247]. Regarding Claim 5, Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via. Horiuchi et al. shows each of the through vias (2) is a hexagonal through via (Paragraph [0044]). 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 through vias is a hexagonal through via as taught by Horiuchi et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. to achieve a coil structure being small size because a density of the column-like electrical conductors arranged in the core substrate can be very high where a shape of the coil can be changed easily by changing a position of the connection electrical conductors where an inductance of the coil can be varied easily (Paragraph [0048]). Moreover, having each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical connection characteristics. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. [CN 106208408]. Regarding Claim 5, Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via. Liu et al. shows each of the through vias (via hole) is a hexagonal through via (see English translation). 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 through vias is a hexagonal through via as taught by Liu et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Lin et al. in view of Voiron et al. and Soendker et al. to facilitate desirable electrical connection and achieve desirable inductance values. Moreover, having each of the through vias is a hexagonal through via would have been an obvious design choice based on intended and/or environmental use to achieve desirable electrical connection characteristics. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7981 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shawki Ismail can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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