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 .
Drawings
The drawings received on 01/10/2023 are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pg.8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to claims 1, 11, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the amendments to these claims necessitated a new search and grounds of rejection. The amended claims do overcome Choi et al., but do not overcome rejection in view of Fontanella et al., as written below. For this reason and the reasons discussed under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, on pg. 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to claims 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant remarks, “referring to FIG. 6B of Yoshioka and FIG. 1A of Khan, either Yoshioka or Khan explicitly discloses a structure including a plurality of conductive cores (i.e., Yoshioka: inductor wiring 23, Khan: conductive traces 144) arranged as a collective array, an insulator layer (i.e., Yoshioka: insulating layer 15, Khan: insulator layer 146) is formed surrounding the plurality of conductive cores and bridging between adjacent conductive cores within the collective array, and a magnetic shell (i.e., Yoshioka: main body 10, Khan: magnetic shells 120 and 122, magnetic core plane 130 and magnetic vias 150) is disposed around the insulator layer.” However, Yoshioka was used only to teach orientation of the inductor, and Khan to teach a magnetic film with a thickness less than 0.5um. Choi was used to teach the main structure (now taught by Fontanella et al. as written below), while the above references were used for other teachings as part of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Further, Tomohiro was relied upon to teach a dielectric film and magnetic film which covered end surfaces. Tomohiro in combination with Choi had taught the claim limitations prior to amendment. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). For these reasons and the reasons in reference to their respective independent claims, these arguments were fully considered, but were not persuasive. The rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 8, and 10 are maintained.
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.
(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, 6, 11-12, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fontanella et al. (US 20030080845 A1), hereinafter Fontanella.
Regarding Claim 1, Fontanella teaches an inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2), comprising: a patterned wire structure, comprising: a conductive core (54) comprising a pair of end surfaces (front and rear surfaces, when viewed from zx-plane) and an outer surface (side surfaces) between the pair of end surfaces; a dielectric film (56) covering the outer surface; and a magnetic shell (58) covering the dielectric film, wherein the dielectric film is between the conductive core and the magnetic shell, and the magnetic shell is formed radially outward from and concentrically aligned with the conductive core (Par [0039]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 1, wherein the patterned wire structure extends along a line path (Par [0039]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Fontanella teaches an inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2), comprising: a patterned wire structure, comprising: a conductive core (54) comprising a pair of end surfaces (front and rear surfaces, when viewed from zx-plane) and an outer surface (side surfaces) between the pair of end surfaces; a dielectric film (56) covering the outer surface; and a magnetic shell (58) disposed coaxially around the conductive core (Par [0039]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 11, which includes a magnetic shell (58) disposed on two opposite sides of the dielectric film respectively.
Fontanella does not explicitly state an inductor wherein the magnetic shell comprises a first portion and a second portion. However, the reference meets the claim limitation since the magnetic shell does cover two opposite sides.
Regarding Claim 21, Fontanella teaches an inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2), comprising: a patterned wire structure, comprising: a conductive core (54) comprising a pair of end surfaces (front and rear surfaces, when viewed from zx-plane) and an outer surface (side surfaces) between the pair of end surfaces; a dielectric film (56) conformally covering the outer surface of the conductive core; and a magnetic shell (58) conformally covering the dielectric film, wherein the conductive core is electrically isolated from the magnetic shell by the dielectric film (Par [0039]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 22, Fontanella teaches an inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 21, wherein the dielectric film (56) has four sides covering the outer surface (side surfaces) of the conductive core (54), and the pair of end surfaces (front and rear surfaces, when viewed from zx-plane) of the conductive core is exposed (Par [0039]; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Fontanella teaches an inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 22, wherein the magnetic shell (58) covers the four sides of the dielectric film (56; Par [0039]; Fig. 2).
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.
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontanella as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yoshioka et al, (US PG Pub 20210125776A1), hereinafter Yoshioka.
Regarding Claim 2, Fontanella teaches an inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) inductor according to claim 1, wherein a shape of a cross-section of the conductive core comprises a circular shape, an oval shape or a polygonal shape (construed from Fig. 2; the cross-section is a polygonal shape), but does not explicitly teach wherein a normal line of the cross-section parallels to an extending direction of the conductive core.
Yoshioka teaches an inductor (1B) wherein an extending direction of a portion of the conductive core (28) is substantially parallel to a normal line (z-direction) of the cross-section (Fig. 6B, Paragraph [0082, 0140]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Yoshioka in order minimize or maximize inductance depending on alignment and to control magnetic coupling.
Regarding Claim 5, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 1, but does not disclose an embodiment wherein an extending direction of a portion of the patterned wire structure is substantially perpendicular to a normal line of the semiconductor substrate.
However, Yoshioka teaches an inductor (1B) wherein an extending direction of a portion of the patterned wire structure (23) is substantially perpendicular to a normal line (z-direction) of the semiconductor substrate (10) (Paragraph [0136]; Fig 6A).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Yoshioka in order to mitigate any unwanted interference between components.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontanella as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Choi et al (US-20220085142-A1), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding Claim 3, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the patterned wire structure is embedded in a semiconductor die, and the semiconductor die comprising a semiconductor substrate and an interconnect structure on the semiconductor substrate.
Choi teaches an inductor wherein the patterned wire structure is embedded in a semiconductor die (653), and the semiconductor die comprising a semiconductor substrate (601) and an interconnect structure (619) on the semiconductor substrate (Fig 6B; Paragraph [0040-0044]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Choi by embedding the inductor in a semiconductor die in order to in order to use the device in voltage regulation applications (Par [0044]; Choi)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontanella in view of Choi as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Yoshioka
Regarding Claim 4, Fontanella in view of Choi teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 3, but does not explicitly teach an embodiment wherein an extending direction of a portion of the patterned wire structure is substantially parallel to a normal line of the semiconductor substrate.
Yoshioka teaches an inductor (1B) wherein an extending direction of a portion of the patterned wire structure (51) is substantially parallel to a normal line (z-direction) of the semiconductor substrate (10) (Fig. 6B, Paragraph [0082, 0140]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Yoshioka in order minimize or maximize inductance depending on alignment and to control magnetic coupling.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontanella as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tomohiro et al, (US10971310B2), hereinafter Tomohiro.
Regarding Claim 8, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetic shell comprises magnetic films covering the dielectric film, and the dielectric film covers the outer surface and the pair of end surfaces of the conductive core.
Tomohiro teaches an inductor (731) wherein the magnetic shell (50) comprises magnetic films covering the dielectric film (47), and the dielectric film covers the outer surface and the pair of end surfaces of the conductive core (Paragraph [79-82], Fig. 13).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Tomohiro by covering the end surfaces in order to avoid generating parasitic capacitance which would decrease inductor efficiency (Tomohiro, Paragraph [82]).
Regarding Claim 16, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 11, wherein the inductor is covered by a dielectric layer (56) and magnetic layer (54). However, Fontanella does not teach an inductor wherein the dielectric film covers the outer surface and the pair of end surfaces of the conductive core and the magnetic shell surrounds the dielectric film.
Tomohiro teaches an inductor (731) wherein the dielectric film (47) covers the outer surface and the pair of end surfaces of the conductive core and the magnetic shell (50) surrounds the dielectric film (Paragraph [79-82], Fig. 13).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Tomohiro by covering the end surfaces in order to avoid generating parasitic capacitance which would decrease inductor efficiency (Tomohiro, Paragraph [82]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontanella as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Khan et al, (EP2940700B1), hereinafter Khan.
Regarding Claim 10, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 1, including a magnetic shell (115). Fontanella does not explicitly teach an inductor wherein the magnetic shell comprises a magnetic film having a thickness between about 0.06 um and about 0.5 um.
Khan teaches an inductor (100B), wherein the magnetic shell (132) comprises a magnetic film having a thickness less than 0.5 um (Paragraph [0018]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Khan by having a magnetic shell less than 0.5um in order to minimize eddy currents (Khan, Paragraph [0018]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontanella as applied to claim 2, in further view of Choi.
Regarding Claim 24, Fontanella teaches the inductor (52; Par [0039]; Fig. 2) according to claim 21, but does not explicitly teach wherein the inductor is embedded in a semiconductor die and extends along a line path, a spiral path or a serpentine path over a substrate of the semiconductor die.
Choi teaches an inductor (120) wherein the inductor is embedded in a semiconductor die (653) and extends along a line path (Fig 6B; Paragraph [0040-0044]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the inductor of Fontanella with the teachings of Choi by embedding the inductor in a semiconductor die in order to use the device in voltage regulation applications (Par [0044]; Choi)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AISLIN WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-0552. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 S 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.
/AISLIN M WEST/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights