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 I, Figures 1-3, 7A-E, 8, and claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 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)). Claims 7, 9, and 13-15 are withdrawn. Claims 17-20 are cancelled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-12, 16, and 21-24 are being examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received on 01/10/2023 are acceptable.
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, 3, 6, 11-12, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. Claims 1,3,11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Choi et al. (US PG Pub 20220085142A1), hereinafter Choi.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches an inductor (transformer module 120, Fig. 1A), comprising: a patterned wire structure (not numbered), comprising: a conductive core (110A) comprising a pair of end surfaces (first and second end surfaces) and an outer surface (side surfaces) between the pair of end surfaces; a dielectric film (112) covering the outer surface; and a magnetic shell (115) covering the dielectric film, wherein the dielectric film is between the conductive core and the magnetic shell (Fig. 1A; Paragraph [0025-0027]).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 1, 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]).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 1, wherein the patterned wire structure extends along a line path (Fig 6B; Paragraph [0040-0044]).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi teaches an inductor (transformer module 120, Fig. 1A), comprising: a patterned wire structure (not numbered), comprising: a conductive core (110A) comprising a pair of end surfaces (first and second end surfaces) and an outer surface (side surfaces) between the pair of end surfaces; a dielectric film (112) covering the outer surface; and a magnetic shell (115) disposed on at least two sides of the dielectric film (Fig. 1A; Paragraph [0025-0027]).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 11, which includes a magnetic shell (115) disposed on two opposite sides of the dielectric film respectively.
Choi 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, Choi teaches an inductor (transformer module 120, Fig. 1A), comprising: a patterned wire structure, (not numbered), comprising: a conductive core (110A) comprising a pair of end surfaces (first and second end surfaces) and an outer surface (side surfaces) between the pair of end surfaces; a dielectric film covering the outer surface (112) of the conductive core; and a magnetic shell (115) covering the dielectric film, wherein the conductive core is electrically isolated from the magnetic shell by the dielectric film (Fig. 1A; Paragraph [0025-0027]).
Regarding Claim 22, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 21, wherein the dielectric film (112) has four sides covering the outer surface (side surfaces) of the conductive core (110A), and the pair of end surfaces of the conductive core is exposed (Fig. 1A; Paragraph [0025-0027]).
Regarding Claim 23, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 22, wherein the magnetic shell (115) covers the four sides of the dielectric film (Fig. 1A; Paragraph [0025-0027]).
Regarding Claim 24, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 21, wherein the inductor is embedded in a semiconductor die (653) and extends along a line path (Fig 6B; Paragraph [0040-0044]).
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and further in view of Yoshioka et al, (US PG Pub 20210125776A1), hereinafter Yoshioka.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 1, wherein a shape of a cross-section of the conductive core comprises a circular shape (construed from Fig. 1A), an oval shape or a polygonal shape (Fig. 1A; Paragraph [0025-0027]). Choi does not explicitly teach an embodiment where 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 Choi with the teachings of Yoshioka in order minimize or maximize inductance depending on alignment and to control magnetic coupling.
Regarding Claim 4, Choi teaches the inductor (120) 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 Choi with the teachings of Yoshioka in order minimize or maximize inductance depending on alignment and to control magnetic coupling.
Regarding Claim 5, Choi teaches the inductor (120) 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 Choi with the teachings of Yoshioka in order to mitigate any unwanted interference between components.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and further in view of Tomohiro et al, (US10971310B2), hereinafter Tomohiro.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic shell (115) comprises magnetic films covering the dielectric film (112, Fig. 1A). Choi does not teach a dielectric film that 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 Choi 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, Choi teaches the inductor according to claim 11, wherein the inductor (120) is covered by a dielectric layer and magnetic layer. However, Choi 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 Choi 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 Choi and further in view of Khan et al, (EP2940700B1), hereinafter Khan.
Regarding Claim 10, Choi teaches the inductor (120) according to claim 1, including a magnetic shell (115). Choi does not teach an inductor according to claim 1, 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 Choi with the teachings of Khan by having a magnetic shell less than 0.5um in order to minimize eddy currents (Khan, Paragraph [0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in document PTO-892 Notice of References. Hamada et al. (US PG Pub US20200098506A1) is considered pertinent based on teachings regarding line paths of wire structures.
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