CTNF 18/182,080 CTNF 87597 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions 1 . Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-22 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner. This office action consider claims 1-30 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 23-30 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-22 are presented for examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. Notes : when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as ( 100 ; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100 ; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document. 07-15 AIA 2. Claim s 1-2, 5-6, 9, 11-16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Alam (US 20220247231A1; hereinafter Alam ) . Regarding claim 1 , Alam teaches a coupled inductor ( see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0004+], and as cited below ), comprising: a pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), each inductor (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprising an alternating series of metallization structures and wire bonds forming a spiral topology around a common central axis (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), wherein the pair of inductors are interleaved with each other along the common central axis (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), such that at least some of the metallization structures of one of the pair of inductors are electrically coupled with at least some of the metallization structures of the other of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), and at least some of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are electrically coupled with at least some of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). Regarding claim 2 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 1. Alam further teaches wherein a mutual inductance between the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) is controlled at least in part by shapes and orientations of the respective wire bonds of each inductor of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of “wherein a mutual inductance between the pair of inductors is controlled at least in part by shapes and orientations of the respective wire bonds of each inductor of the pair of inductors” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber , 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of Alam has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Alam teaches the structure of the claim as detailed above. Thus, Alam teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Regarding claim 5 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 1. Alam further teaches wherein the metallization structures (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) of each of the pair of inductors comprises a plurality of metal layers electrically connected in parallel with each other (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). Regarding claim 6 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 5. Alam further teaches wherein the plurality of metal layers (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) electrically connected in parallel with each other comprises a plurality of metal layers in a vertical stack, separated from each other by a respective insulating layer (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), and electrically connected to each other by one or more vias through the respective insulating layer (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). Regarding claim 9 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 1. Alam further teaches wherein the wire bonds (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) are surrounded by an insulating material (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). Regarding claim 11 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 1. Alam further teaches wherein the coupled inductor (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Figs. 6-7; [0077-0084]) is incorporated into an integrated voltage regulator circuit. Regarding claim 12 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 11. Alam further teaches wherein the integrated voltage regulator circuit (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Figs. 6-7; [0061, 0077-0084]) is incorporated into system-on-chip (SOC) device. Regarding claim 13 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 12. Alam further teaches wherein the SOC device (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Figs. 6-7; [0061, 0077-0084]) is incorporated into an apparatus selected from the group consisting of a music player, a video player, an entertainment unit, a navigation device, a communications device, a mobile device, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a fixed location terminal, a tablet computer, a computer, a wearable device, an Internet of things (IoT) device, a laptop computer, a server, and a device in an automotive vehicle (see [0061, 0077-0084]). Regarding claim 14 , Alam teaches a coupled inductor ( see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0004+], and as cited below ), comprising: a pair of inductors(see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), each inductor (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprising an alternating series of lower-layer metallization structures and upper-layer metallization structures separated by an insulating layer (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) and electrically connected to each other by vias through the insulating layer (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), and forming a spiral topology around a common central axis (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), wherein the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) are interleaved with each other along the common central axis such that at least some of the lower-layer metallization structures of one of the pair of inductors are electrically coupled with at least some of the lower-layer metallization structures of the other of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), and at least some of the upper-layer metallization structures of one of the pair of inductors are electrically coupled with at least some of the upper-layer metallization structures of the other of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). Regarding claim 15 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 14. Alam further teaches wherein at least some of the lower-layer metallization structures or upper-layer metallization structures of each of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprises a plurality of metal layers electrically connected in parallel with each other (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). Regarding claim 16 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 15. Alam further teaches wherein the plurality of metal layers (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) electrically connected in parallel with each other comprises a plurality of metal layers in a vertical stack, separated from each other by a respective insulating layer (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]), and electrically connected to each other by one or more vias through the respective insulating layer (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]). Regarding claim 20 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 14. Alam further teaches wherein the coupled inductor (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Figs. 6-7; [0077-0084]) is incorporated into an integrated voltage regulator circuit. Regarding claim 21 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 20. Alam further teaches wherein the integrated voltage regulator circuit (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Figs. 6-7; [0061, 0077-0084]) is incorporated into system-on-chip (SOC) device. Regarding claim 22 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 21. Alam further teaches wherein the SOC device (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Figs. 6-7; [0061, 0077-0084]) is incorporated into an apparatus selected from the group consisting of a music player, a video player, an entertainment unit, a navigation device, a communications device, a mobile device, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a fixed location terminal, a tablet computer, a computer, a wearable device, an Internet of things (IoT) device, a laptop computer, a server, and a device in an automotive vehicle (see [0061, 0077-0084]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. Notes : when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as ( 30A ; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A ; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document. 07-21-aia AIA 3. Claim s 3-4, 7-8, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Alam (US 20220247231A1; hereinafter Alam ), in view of the following statement . Regarding claim 3 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 2. Alam further teaches wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) are (see below for “ substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of ”) the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) (see below for “ to minimize an average distance between ”) wire bond portions of the respective inductors. As noted above, Alam does not expressly disclose “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors”. However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wwherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, claim 4 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is not critical to the invention. Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See 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.). PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is not patentable over Alam . Regarding claim 4 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 2. Alam further teaches wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) are (see below for “ substantially different from the shapes and orientations of ”) the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) (see below for “ to maximize an average distance between ”) wire bond portions of the respective inductors. As noted above, Alam does not expressly disclose “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors”. However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, claim 4 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are substantially identical to the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to minimize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is not critical to the invention. Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See 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.). PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of one of the pair of inductors are s ubstantially different from the shapes and orientations of the wire bonds of the other of the pair of inductors to maximize an average distance between wire bond portions of the respective inductors” is not patentable over Alam . Regarding claim 7 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 5. Alam further teaches wherein the metallization structures (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprise metallization structures (see below for “ created using a wafer-level process (WLP) ”) In reference to the language in claim 7 referring to wherein the metallization structures comprise metallization structures created using a wafer-level process (WLP) , it is important to note that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly the limitation " wherein the metallization structures comprise metallization structures created using a wafer-level process (WLP) " is not patentable over prior art as the structure of the prior art cannot be differentiate from the structural limitation as claimed. Therefore, in reference to the language in claim 7 referring to the metallization structures comprise metallization structures created using a wafer-level process (WLP) , it is noted that Alam teaches all the structural elements in claim 7 according to the instant invention and that the annealing in a nitrogen atmosphere process does not affect the structure of the final device. Regarding claim 8 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 7. Alam further teaches wherein the metallization structures (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprise at least one redistribution layer (RDL). Regarding claim 17 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 15. Alam further teaches wherein the metallization structures (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprise metallization structures (see below for “ created using a wafer-level process (WLP) ”) In reference to the language in claim 7 referring to wherein the metallization structures comprise metallization structures created using a wafer-level process (WLP) , it is important to note that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly the limitation " wherein the metallization structures comprise metallization structures created using a wafer-level process (WLP) " is not patentable over prior art as the structure of the prior art cannot be differentiate from the structural limitation as claimed. Therefore, in reference to the language in claim 17 referring to the metallization structures comprise metallization structures created using a wafer-level process (WLP) , it is noted that Alam teaches all the structural elements in claim 17 according to the instant invention and that the annealing in a nitrogen atmosphere process does not affect the structure of the final device. Regarding claim 18 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 17. Alam further teaches wherein the metallization structures (see Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprise at least one redistribution layer (RDL) . 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claim s 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Alam (US 20220247231A1; hereinafter Alam ), in view of Lambert et al. (US 20200066659 A1; hereinafter Lambert ) . Regarding claim 10 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 9. Alam further teaches wherein the insulating material (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprises (see below for “ a magnetic molding compound ”). As noted above, Alam does not expressly disclose “(wherein the insulating material comprises) a magnetic molding compound ”. However, in the analogous art, Lambert teaches a microelectronics package that comprises of an Inductor([Abstract]), wherein (Figs. 1A-1B; [0003+]) a wirebond inductor ( 101 ; Fig. 1A; [0035]) comprising of one bondwire trace ( 109 ; Fig. 1A; [0041]) embedded in an inductor core layer ( 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0035]), where the inductor core layer ( 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0046-0049]) comprises of polymer material with magnetic particles. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alam’s insulator material in view of Lambert’s polymer material with magnetic particles, and thereby, modified Alam’s (by Lambert ) device will have wherein the insulating material ( Alam specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Lambert material of 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0035, 0046-0049]) comprises a magnetic molding compound (in view of Lambert material of 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0035, 0046-0049]). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Alam in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a inductor core layer comprising of polymer material with magnetic particles ( Lambert [0035, 0046-0049]), where inductance density is a function of the permeability of the magnetic core material in inductor core layer. Regarding claim 19 , Alam teaches all of the features of claim 14. Alam further teaches wherein the insulating material (specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060]) comprises (see below for “ a magnetic molding compound ”). As noted above, Alam does not expressly disclose “(wherein the insulating material comprises) a magnetic molding compound ”. However, in the analogous art, Lambert teaches a microelectronics package that comprises of an Inductor([Abstract]), wherein (Figs. 1A-1B; [0003+]) a wirebond inductor ( 101 ; Fig. 1A; [0035]) comprising of one bondwire trace ( 109 ; Fig. 1A; [0041]) embedded in an inductor core layer ( 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0035]), where the inductor core layer ( 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0046-0049]) comprises of polymer material with magnetic particles. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alam’s insulator material in view of Lambert’s polymer material with magnetic particles, and thereby, modified Alam’s (by Lambert ) device will have wherein the insulating material ( Alam specifically see [0092]; see also Fig. 9; see [0086-0093] in view of [0057-0060] in view of Lambert material of 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0035, 0046-0049]) comprises a magnetic molding compound (in view of Lambert material of 102 ; Fig. 1A; [0035, 0046-0049]). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Alam in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a inductor core layer comprising of polymer material with magnetic particles ( Lambert [0035, 0046-0049]), where inductance density is a function of the permeability of the magnetic core material in inductor core layer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.. 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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. /OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/182,080 Page 2 Art Unit: 2898
Prosecution Insights