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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recites “a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not explicitly state “a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element”. As best understood, the examiner may interpret “a vertical extension” as “height” or “thickness” of the at least one terminal section and the coil-like shape of the inductor element. Alternatively, the examiner may also interpret “a vertical extension” as extending at a different region of a device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recites “a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element” is unclear and indefinite regarding the term “a vertical extension”. The specification does not explicitly state “a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element”. As best understood, the examiner may interpret “a vertical extension” as “height” or “thickness” of the at least one terminal section and the coil-like shape of the inductor element. Alternatively, the examiner may also interpret “a vertical extension” as extending at a different region of a device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546], Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] (for clearer illustration), and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in claims 1, 6-7, and 10 shows an inductor inlay, comprising: a magnetic layer stack; and an electrically conductive structure embedded in the magnetic layer stack, wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises a coil-like shape.
U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 does not explicitly show a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers, the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material, an electrically conductive structure embedded in the magnetic layer stack, wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, and wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack; wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Yoshioka et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), comprising: a magnetic layer stack (20), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) comprising a magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]); and an electrically conductive structure (30, 42) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and wherein the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]); wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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 a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers, the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material, an electrically conductive structure embedded in the magnetic layer stack, wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, and wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack; wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by .S. Patent No. 12,543,267 to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
In addition, for clearer illustration, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
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 the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Nakagawa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in view of Yoshioka et al. to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in view of Yoshioka et al. and Nakagawa et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546], Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] (for clearer illustration), and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in claim 10 shows a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, wherein the inductor inlay includes: a magnetic layer stack; and an electrically conductive structure embedded in the magnetic layer stack, wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises a coil-like shape.
U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 does not explicitly show a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers, the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material, an electrically conductive structure embedded in the magnetic layer stack, wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, and wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack; wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Yoshioka et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), comprising: a magnetic layer stack (20), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) comprising a magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]); and an electrically conductive structure (30, 42) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and wherein the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]); wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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 a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers, the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material, an electrically conductive structure embedded in the magnetic layer stack, wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, and wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack; wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by .S. Patent No. 12,543,267 to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
In addition, for clearer illustration, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
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 the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Nakagawa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in view of Yoshioka et al. to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by U.S. Patent No. 12,543,267 in view of Yoshioka et al. and Nakagawa et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546] in view of Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshioka et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (20), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) comprising a magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]); and
an electrically conductive structure (30, 42) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]);
wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and
wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yoshioka et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshioka et al. shows the magnetic layer stack comprises exactly two magnetic layers or exactly three magnetic layers (21, 22, 23).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is embedded horizontally in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3), or
wherein the inductor element is embedded vertically in the magnetic layer stack.
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshioka et al. shows at least one of the magnetic layers (21) is partially (Paragraph [0048]) or entirely dielectric; and/or
wherein at least one of the magnetic layers comprises a magnetic matrix; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a dielectric material, in which magnetic particles are embedded,
wherein the magnetic particles comprise at least one of the group consisting of a ferrite, a 3d material, and a 4f material; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the inductor element; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a rigid solid and/or a paste; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix is electrically insulating; and/or
wherein a relative magnetic permeability µr of the magnetic matrix is in a range from 1.1 to 500; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises at least one material of the group consisting of a ferromagnetic material, a ferrimagnetic material, a permanent magnetic material, a soft magnetic material, a ferrite, a metal oxide, a dielectric matrix, a prepreg, and an alloy or alloyed silicon.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is meander-shaped and/or spiral-shaped (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (41, 42) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshioka et al. shows the at least two terminal sections (41, 42) have a larger vertical (TV1, TV2) and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections (see Figs. 1-3, elements 41, 42 have a larger vertical TV1, TV2 and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of element 30 such as element TI that is located between elements 41, 42, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor inlay further comprises:
at least one electrically conductive via (41), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 1-3), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3) and that connects the inductor element (30) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (main surface of element 20, Paragraphs [0070], [0140]),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (41) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs [0058], [0060]), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546] in view of Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] (for clearer illustration) and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshioka et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (20), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) comprising a magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]); and
an electrically conductive structure (30, 42) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]);
wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and
wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
In addition, for clearer illustration, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
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 the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Nakagawa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yoshioka et al. to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshioka et al. shows the magnetic layer stack comprises exactly two magnetic layers or exactly three magnetic layers (21, 22, 23).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is embedded horizontally in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3), or
wherein the inductor element is embedded vertically in the magnetic layer stack.
Regarding Claim 4, Yoshioka et al. shows at least one of the magnetic layers (21) is partially (Paragraph [0048]) or entirely dielectric; and/or
wherein at least one of the magnetic layers comprises a magnetic matrix; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a dielectric material, in which magnetic particles are embedded,
wherein the magnetic particles comprise at least one of the group consisting of a ferrite, a 3d material, and a 4f material; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the inductor element; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a rigid solid and/or a paste; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix is electrically insulating; and/or
wherein a relative magnetic permeability µr of the magnetic matrix is in a range from 1.1 to 500; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises at least one material of the group consisting of a ferromagnetic material, a ferrimagnetic material, a permanent magnetic material, a soft magnetic material, a ferrite, a metal oxide, a dielectric matrix, a prepreg, and an alloy or alloyed silicon.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is meander-shaped and/or spiral-shaped (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (41, 42) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshioka et al. shows the at least two terminal sections (41, 42) have a larger vertical (TV1, TV2) and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections (see Figs. 1-3, elements 41, 42 have a larger vertical TV1, TV2 and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of element 30 such as element TI that is located between elements 41, 42, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor inlay further comprises:
at least one electrically conductive via (41), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 1-3), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3) and that connects the inductor element (30) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (main surface of element 20, Paragraphs [0070], [0140]),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (41) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs [0058], [0060]), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aria et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0362873] in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546], Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] (for clearer illustration), and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 1, Aria et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 6A-6C with teachings from Figs. 1-3B), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (10), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (Paragraphs [0071]-[0073]), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material (magnetic grain, Paragraphs [0061], [0071]-[0073]); and
an electrically conductive structure (element 30 having elements 32, 50) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 6A-6C and see Figs. 1-3B), wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element (element 32, 50 configured as an inductor element 110) that comprises at least one terminal section (50) and a coil-like shape (32, Paragraph [0062]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (32) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic grain, Paragraphs [0061], [0071]-[0073]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (Paragraphs [0071]-[0073]) of the magnetic layer stack (10, see Figs. 6A-6C and see Figs. 1-3B, element 32 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic grain of element 10);
wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section (50) is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape (32) of the inductor element (see Figs. 6A-6C and see Figs. 1-3B, according to the figures, it is clearly shown a vertical extension of element 50 is different from a vertical extension of element 32), and
wherein the at least one terminal section (50) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Moreover, Yoshioka et al. clearly disclose in the specification a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]). Yoshioka et al. also shows the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
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 a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
In addition, for clearer illustration, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
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 the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Nakagawa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. and Nakagawa et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoshioka et al. shows the magnetic layer stack comprises exactly two magnetic layers or exactly three magnetic layers (21, 22, 23).
Regarding Claim 3, Arai et al. shows the inductor element is embedded horizontally in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 6A-6C and Figs. 1-3B), or
wherein the inductor element is embedded vertically in the magnetic layer stack.
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is embedded horizontally in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3), or
wherein the inductor element is embedded vertically in the magnetic layer stack.
Regarding Claim 4, Arai et al. shows at least one of the magnetic layers is partially (Paragraph [0061]) or entirely dielectric; and/or
wherein at least one of the magnetic layers comprises a magnetic matrix; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a dielectric material, in which magnetic particles are embedded,
wherein the magnetic particles comprise at least one of the group consisting of a ferrite, a 3d material, and a 4f material; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the inductor element; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a rigid solid and/or a paste; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix is electrically insulating; and/or
wherein a relative magnetic permeability µr of the magnetic matrix is in a range from 1.1 to 500; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises at least one material of the group consisting of a ferromagnetic material, a ferrimagnetic material, a permanent magnetic material, a soft magnetic material, a ferrite, a metal oxide, a dielectric matrix, a prepreg, and an alloy or alloyed silicon.
Yoshioka et al. shows at least one of the magnetic layers (21) is partially (Paragraph [0048]) or entirely dielectric; and/or
wherein at least one of the magnetic layers comprises a magnetic matrix; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a dielectric material, in which magnetic particles are embedded,
wherein the magnetic particles comprise at least one of the group consisting of a ferrite, a 3d material, and a 4f material; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the inductor element; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a rigid solid and/or a paste; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix is electrically insulating; and/or
wherein a relative magnetic permeability µr of the magnetic matrix is in a range from 1.1 to 500; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises at least one material of the group consisting of a ferromagnetic material, a ferrimagnetic material, a permanent magnetic material, a soft magnetic material, a ferrite, a metal oxide, a dielectric matrix, a prepreg, and an alloy or alloyed silicon.
Regarding Claim 5, Arai et al. shows the inductor element is meander-shaped and/or spiral-shaped (see Figs. 1-3B, Paragraph [0062]).
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is meander-shaped and/or spiral-shaped (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6, Arai et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (50, 52) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 6A-6B and see Figs. 1-3B).
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (41, 42) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 7, Arai et al. shows the at least two terminal sections (50, 52) have a larger vertical and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections (see Figs. 6A-6B and see Figs. 1-3B).
Yoshioka et al. shows the at least two terminal sections (41, 42) have a larger vertical (TV1, TV2) and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections (see Figs. 1-3, elements 41, 42 have a larger vertical TV1, TV2 and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of element 30 such as element TI that is located between elements 41, 42, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]).
Regarding Claim 8, Arai et al. shows the inductor inlay further comprises:
at least one electrically conductive via (50), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 6A-6C and see Figs. 1-3B), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 6A-6C and see Figs. 1-3B) and that connects the inductor element (32) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (see Figs. 6A-6C and see Figs. 1-3B),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (50) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 6A-6C and see Figs. 1-3B), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor inlay further comprises:
at least one electrically conductive via (41), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 1-3), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3) and that connects the inductor element (30) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (main surface of element 20, Paragraphs [0070], [0140]),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (41) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs [0058], [0060]), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] in view of Kanemoto et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0233701].
Regarding Claim 1, Nakagawa et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (3, 5), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) comprising a magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]); and
an electrically conductive structure (4) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 3), wherein the electrically conductive structure (4) is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0050]) that comprises a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
Nakagawa et al. does not explicitly disclose the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Kanemoto et al. shows an inductor component (Figs. 1-5 and see Figs. 11-14) teaching and suggesting the electrically conductive structure (43, 60) is configured as an inductor element (10, Paragraph [0052]) that comprises at least one terminal section (60) and a coil-like shape (43), wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section (60) is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape (43) of the inductor element (see Figs. 3-4 and see Figs. 11-14, a vertical extension of element 60 is different from a vertical extension of element 43), and wherein the at least one terminal section (60) is a plated structure (62, Paragraph [0103], see Figs. 3-4 and see Figs. 11-14).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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 the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Kanemoto et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. to increase connection strength between the inductor wire and the vertical wire (Paragraph [0007]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakagawa et al. shows the magnetic layer stack comprises exactly two magnetic layers (3, 5) or exactly three magnetic layers.
Regarding Claim 3, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor element is embedded horizontally in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3), or
wherein the inductor element is embedded vertically in the magnetic layer stack.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakagawa et al. shows at least one of the magnetic layers (3 or 5) is partially (Abstract) or entirely dielectric; and/or
wherein at least one of the magnetic layers comprises a magnetic matrix; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a dielectric material, in which magnetic particles are embedded,
wherein the magnetic particles comprise at least one of the group consisting of a ferrite, a 3d material, and a 4f material; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the inductor element; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a rigid solid and/or a paste; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix is electrically insulating; and/or
wherein a relative magnetic permeability µr of the magnetic matrix is in a range from 1.1 to 500; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises at least one material of the group consisting of a ferromagnetic material, a ferrimagnetic material, a permanent magnetic material, a soft magnetic material, a ferrite, a metal oxide, a dielectric matrix, a prepreg, and an alloy or alloyed silicon.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor element is meander-shaped and/or spiral-shaped (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (60, 72) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor inlay further comprises:
at least one electrically conductive via (72), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 1-4), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-4) and that connects the inductor element (43) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (see Figs. 1-4),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (72) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 1-4), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546] and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 1, Nakagawa et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (3, 5), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) comprising a magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]); and
an electrically conductive structure (4) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 3), wherein the electrically conductive structure (4) is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0050]) that comprises a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
Nakagawa et al. does not explicitly disclose the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Yoshioka et al. shows an inductor component (Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14) teaching and suggesting the electrically conductive structure (30, 42) is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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 the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 2, Nakagawa et al. shows the magnetic layer stack comprises exactly two magnetic layers (3, 5) or exactly three magnetic layers.
Yoshioka et al. shows the magnetic layer stack comprises exactly two magnetic layers or exactly three magnetic layers (21, 22, 23).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor element is embedded horizontally in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3), or
wherein the inductor element is embedded vertically in the magnetic layer stack.
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is embedded horizontally in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3), or
wherein the inductor element is embedded vertically in the magnetic layer stack.
Regarding Claim 4, Nakagawa et al. shows at least one of the magnetic layers (3 or 5) is partially (Abstract) or entirely dielectric; and/or
wherein at least one of the magnetic layers comprises a magnetic matrix; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a dielectric material, in which magnetic particles are embedded,
wherein the magnetic particles comprise at least one of the group consisting of a ferrite, a 3d material, and a 4f material; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the inductor element; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a rigid solid and/or a paste; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix is electrically insulating; and/or
wherein a relative magnetic permeability µr of the magnetic matrix is in a range from 1.1 to 500; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises at least one material of the group consisting of a ferromagnetic material, a ferrimagnetic material, a permanent magnetic material, a soft magnetic material, a ferrite, a metal oxide, a dielectric matrix, a prepreg, and an alloy or alloyed silicon.
Yoshioka et al. shows at least one of the magnetic layers (21) is partially (Paragraph [0048]) or entirely dielectric; and/or
wherein at least one of the magnetic layers comprises a magnetic matrix; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a dielectric material, in which magnetic particles are embedded,
wherein the magnetic particles comprise at least one of the group consisting of a ferrite, a 3d material, and a 4f material; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the inductor element; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises a rigid solid and/or a paste; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix is electrically insulating; and/or
wherein a relative magnetic permeability µr of the magnetic matrix is in a range from 1.1 to 500; and/or
wherein the magnetic matrix comprises at least one material of the group consisting of a ferromagnetic material, a ferrimagnetic material, a permanent magnetic material, a soft magnetic material, a ferrite, a metal oxide, a dielectric matrix, a prepreg, and an alloy or alloyed silicon.
Regarding Claim 5, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor element is meander-shaped and/or spiral-shaped (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0018]).
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element is meander-shaped and/or spiral-shaped (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (60, 72) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-4).
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (41, 42) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoshioka et al. shows the at least two terminal sections (41, 42) have a larger vertical (TV1, TV2) and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections (see Figs. 1-3, elements 41, 42 have a larger vertical TV1, TV2 and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of element 30 such as element TI that is located between elements 41, 42, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]).
Regarding Claim 8, Nakagawa et al. shows the inductor inlay further comprises:
at least one electrically conductive via (72), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 1-4), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-4) and that connects the inductor element (43) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (see Figs. 1-4),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (72) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 1-4), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor inlay further comprises:
at least one electrically conductive via (41), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 1-3), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3) and that connects the inductor element (30) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (main surface of element 20, Paragraphs [0070], [0140]),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (41) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs [0058], [0060]), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546].
Regarding Claim 6, Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Yoshioka et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (41, 42) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0070]).
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 the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. to facilitate electrical connection to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics.
Regarding Claim 7, Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the at least two terminal sections have a larger vertical and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections.
Yoshioka et al. shows the at least two terminal sections (41, 42) have a larger vertical (TV1, TV2) and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections (see Figs. 1-3, elements 41, 42 have a larger vertical TV1, TV2 and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of element 30 such as element TI that is located between elements 41, 42, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]).
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 the at least two terminal sections have a larger vertical and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0126711].
Regarding Claim 6, Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Park et al. shows the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections (107, 108) exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 2).
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 the inductor element comprises at least two terminal sections exposed with respect to the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Park et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. to facilitate electrical connection to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics.
Regarding Claim 7, Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the at least two terminal sections have a larger vertical and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections.
Park et al. shows (Fig. 2) the at least two terminal sections (107, 108) have a larger vertical (T2) and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections (see Fig. 2, elements 107, 108 have a larger vertical T2 than a central section of element 103 such as less than element T3 that is located between elements 107, 108).
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 the at least two terminal sections have a larger vertical and/or larger horizontal extension than a central section of the inductor element that is located between the at least two terminal sections as taught by Park et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. to sufficiently secured magnetic grains and improve Ls property (Paragraph [0041]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. in view of Hirai et al. OR Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. and Hirai et al. OR Aria et al. in view of Yoshioka et al., Nakagawa et al., and Hirai et al. OR Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. OR Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. and Hirai et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsurumi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0042440].
Regarding Claim 8, Yoshioka et al. in view of Hirai et al. OR Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. and Hirai et al. OR Aria et al. in view of Yoshioka et al., Nakagawa et al., and Hirai et al. OR Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. OR Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. and Hirai et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Tsurumi et al. shows at least one electrically conductive via (23), being a blind via or a through-hole via (see Figs. 4(a)-4(c)), that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 4(a)-4(c)) and that connects the inductor element (22) to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay (lower surface of element 4, Paragraph [0103]),
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via (23) is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material (see Figs. 4(a)-4(c), Paragraphs [0084], [0103]), or
wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is a hollow lining which is filled at least partially with an electrically insulating material.
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 at least one electrically conductive via, being a blind via or a through-hole via, that extends at least partially through the magnetic layer stack and that connects the inductor element to an exterior surface of the inductor inlay, wherein the at least one electrically conductive via is filled at least partially with electrically conductive material as taught by Tsurumi et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yoshioka et al. in view of Hirai et al. OR Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. and Hirai et al. OR Aria et al. in view of Yoshioka et al., Nakagawa et al., and Hirai et al. OR Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. OR Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. and Hirai et al. to facilitate electrical connection to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics and inductance values (Paragraph [0016]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0310408] in view of Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] (for clearer illustration).
Regarding Claim 14, Hamada et al. shows a component carrier (Fig. 2 and Figs. 4A-4P), comprising:
a stack (20A, 20B) comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure (26, 26a) and at least one electrically insulating layer structure (28); and
an inductor inlay (10), wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack (see Fig. 2),
wherein the inductor inlay (10) includes:
a magnetic layer stack (stack of elements 11a or element 10), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (elements 11a or elements 65, 71, 73, see Fig. 2 and Figs. 4A-4P), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068], [0091]); and
an electrically conductive structure (element 12, element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65, see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H), wherein the electrically conductive structure (element 12, element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65, see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H) is configured as an inductor element (elements 12, 15b configured as an inductor element) that comprises at least one terminal section (element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65, see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H) and a coil-like shape (Paragraph [0068]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (12) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 2 and Figs. 4A-4P, element 12 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic filler of elements 11a or elements 65, 71, 73 of stack of elements 11a or element 10, Paragraphs [0067]-[0068], [0091]);
wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element (see Fig. 2 and Figs. 4A-4P, a vertical extension of element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65 is different from a vertical extension of element 12 at middle element 11a or element 71), and
wherein the at least one terminal section (element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65) is a plated structure (Paragraphs [0102]-[0103], see Figs. 4E-4F).
In addition, for clearer illustration, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
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 the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Nakagawa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Hamada et al. to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamada et al. shows the component carrier is configured as an integrated circuit, or an IC substrate; and/or
wherein at least one electrically conductive layer structure (26, 26a) of the stack (20A, 20B) is electrically connected to the inductor element (12) of the inductor inlay via terminal sections (elements 16 or 27, see Fig. 2, Paragraphs [0079]-[0080]); and/or
wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, such that directions of main extension of the inductor inlay are essentially parallel or essentially perpendicular to the directions of main extension of the component carrier.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0098997] (hereinafter as “Hamada ‘997”) in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546] and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 14, Hamada ‘997 shows a component carrier (Fig. 9 with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220] discloses where the features of each of the first to the fifth embodiments may variously be combined with each other), comprising:
a stack (2) comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) and at least one electrically insulating layer structure (85); and
an inductor inlay (element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack (see Fig. 9 with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220]),
wherein the inductor inlay (1) includes:
a magnetic layer stack (30), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (elements 31, 32, 33, 34, Paragraph [0158]), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material (magnetic substance, Paragraph [0111]); and
an electrically conductive structure (22, 27) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the electrically conductive structure (22) is configured as an inductor element (elements 22, 27 configured as an inductor element 1) that comprises at least one terminal section (27) and a coil-like shape (Paragraph [0186], see Figs. 1A-1B), and
wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1A-1B, element 22 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic substance of elements 31, 32, 33, and 34 of element 30, Paragraph [0111]).
Hamada ‘997 does not explicitly show a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Yoshioka et al. clearly disclose in the specification a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]). Yoshioka et al. also shows the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
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 a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Hamada ‘997 to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Hamada ‘997 in view of Yoshioka et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamada ‘997 shows the component carrier is configured as an integrated circuit, or an IC substrate; and/or
wherein at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) of the stack (2) is electrically connected to the inductor element (22) of the inductor inlay via terminal sections (elements 11, 12, see Fig. 9, Paragraph [0201]); and/or
wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, such that directions of main extension of the inductor inlay are essentially parallel or essentially perpendicular to the directions of main extension of the component carrier.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0098997] (hereinafter as “Hamada ‘997”) in view of Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] (for clearer illustration), Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546], and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743].
Regarding Claim 14, Hamada ‘997 shows a component carrier (Fig. 9 with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220] discloses where the features of each of the first to the fifth embodiments may variously be combined with each other), comprising:
a stack (2) comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) and at least one electrically insulating layer structure (85); and
an inductor inlay (element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack (see Fig. 9 with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220]),
wherein the inductor inlay (1) includes:
a magnetic layer stack (30), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (elements 31, 32, 33, 34, Paragraph [0158]), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material (magnetic substance, Paragraph [0111]); and
an electrically conductive structure (22, 27) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the electrically conductive structure (22) is configured as an inductor element (elements 22, 27 configured as an inductor element 1) that comprises at least one terminal section (27) and a coil-like shape (Paragraph [0186], see Figs. 1A-1B), and
wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1A-1B, element 22 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic substance of elements 31, 32, 33, and 34 of element 30, Paragraph [0111]).
Hamada ‘997 does not explicitly show a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
In addition, for clearer illustration, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
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 the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Nakagawa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Hamada ‘997 to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
Hamada ‘997 in view of Nakagawa et al. does not explicitly show a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Yoshioka et al. clearly disclose in the specification a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]). Yoshioka et al. also shows the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
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 a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Hamada ‘997 in view of Nakagawa et al. to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Hamada ‘997 in view of Nakagawa et al. and Yoshioka et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamada ‘997 shows the component carrier is configured as an integrated circuit, or an IC substrate; and/or
wherein at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) of the stack (2) is electrically connected to the inductor element (22) of the inductor inlay via terminal sections (elements 11, 12, see Fig. 9, Paragraph [0201]); and/or
wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, such that directions of main extension of the inductor inlay are essentially parallel or essentially perpendicular to the directions of main extension of the component carrier.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546] in view of Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] (for clearer illustration) and Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743] and Hamada et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0098997] (hereinafter as “Hamada ‘997”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoshioka et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (20), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) comprising a magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]); and
an electrically conductive structure (30, 42) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]);
wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and
wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Yoshioka et al. does not show a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack.
In addition, for clearer illustration, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
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 the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack as taught by Nakagawa et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yoshioka et al. to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. does not show a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack.
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. and Hirai et al. does not show a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack.
Hamada ‘997 shows a component carrier (Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220] discloses where the features of each of the first to the fifth embodiments may variously be combined with each other), comprising: a stack (2) comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) and at least one electrically insulating layer structure (85); and an inductor inlay (element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack (see Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220]).
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 a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack as taught by Hamada ‘997 for the inductor as disclosed by Yoshioka et al. in view of Nakagawa et al. and Hirai et al. to form a package component with desirable operating characteristics such as having the ESR and ESL of the smoothing capacitor on the output side can be reduced and the ripple voltage of the output can be reduced (Paragraphs [0211], [0219]). In addition, an IVR technique attracts attention as a technique of reducing power consumption of a CPU (Paragraph [0004]) that can support high frequency and maintains the strength and can facilitate reduction of the height and downsizing (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamada ‘997 shows the component carrier is configured as an integrated circuit, or an IC substrate; and/or
wherein at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) of the stack (2) is electrically connected to the inductor element (22) of the inductor inlay via terminal sections (elements 11, 12, see Fig. 9, Paragraph [0201]); and/or
wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, such that directions of main extension of the inductor inlay are essentially parallel or essentially perpendicular to the directions of main extension of the component carrier.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] in view of Kanemoto et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0233701] and Hamada et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0098997] (hereinafter as “Hamada ‘997”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakagawa et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (3, 5), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) comprising a magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]); and
an electrically conductive structure (4) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 3), wherein the electrically conductive structure (4) is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0050]) that comprises a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
Nakagawa et al. does not explicitly disclose a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Kanemoto et al. shows an inductor component (Figs. 1-5 and see Figs. 11-14) teaching and suggesting the electrically conductive structure (43, 60) is configured as an inductor element (10, Paragraph [0052]) that comprises at least one terminal section (60) and a coil-like shape (43), wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section (60) is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape (43) of the inductor element (see Figs. 3-4 and see Figs. 11-14, a vertical extension of element 60 is different from a vertical extension of element 43), and wherein the at least one terminal section (60) is a plated structure (62, Paragraph [0103], see Figs. 3-4 and see Figs. 11-14).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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 the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Kanemoto et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. to increase connection strength between the inductor wire and the vertical wire (Paragraph [0007]).
Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. does not explicitly disclose a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack.
Hamada ‘997 shows a component carrier (Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220] discloses where the features of each of the first to the fifth embodiments may variously be combined with each other), comprising: a stack (2) comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) and at least one electrically insulating layer structure (85); and an inductor inlay (element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack (see Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220]).
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 a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack as taught by Hamada ‘997 for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Kanemoto et al. to form a package component with desirable operating characteristics such as having the ESR and ESL of the smoothing capacitor on the output side can be reduced and the ripple voltage of the output can be reduced (Paragraphs [0211], [0219]). In addition, an IVR technique attracts attention as a technique of reducing power consumption of a CPU (Paragraph [0004]) that can support high frequency and maintains the strength and can facilitate reduction of the height and downsizing (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamada ‘997 shows the component carrier is configured as an integrated circuit, or an IC substrate; and/or
wherein at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) of the stack (2) is electrically connected to the inductor element (22) of the inductor inlay via terminal sections (elements 11, 12, see Fig. 9, Paragraph [0201]); and/or
wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, such that directions of main extension of the inductor inlay are essentially parallel or essentially perpendicular to the directions of main extension of the component carrier.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0045905] in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0068546], Hirai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0244743], and Hamada et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0098997] (hereinafter as “Hamada ‘997”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakagawa et al. shows an inductor inlay (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a magnetic layer stack (3, 5), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) comprising a magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]); and
an electrically conductive structure (4) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 3), wherein the electrically conductive structure (4) is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0050]) that comprises a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and
wherein the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]).
Nakagawa et al. does not explicitly disclose a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure.
Yoshioka et al. shows an inductor component (Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14) teaching and suggesting the electrically conductive structure (30, 42) is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please 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, i.e. at least one terminal section, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. plated. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
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 the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element that comprises at least one terminal section and a coil-like shape, wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element, and wherein the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Yoshioka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. to achieve improvement of inductance (Paragraphs [0089], [0091], [0153], [0161]).
Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. does not explicitly disclose a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack.
Furthermore, Hirai et al. shows the at least one terminal section (31 or 32) is a plated structure (Paragraph [0113]-[0114]).
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 the at least one terminal section is a plated structure as taught by Hirai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. to achieve low resistance and inexpensively formed which result in good conductivity and low electrical loss (Paragraph [0113]).
Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. and Hirai et al. does not explicitly disclose a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack.
Hamada ‘997 shows a component carrier (Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220] discloses where the features of each of the first to the fifth embodiments may variously be combined with each other), comprising: a stack (2) comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) and at least one electrically insulating layer structure (85); and an inductor inlay (element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B), wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack (see Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A with teachings from Figs. 1A-2J where element 1B of Fig. 9 or Fig. 11A is replaced by element 1 of Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraph [0220]).
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 a component carrier, comprising: a stack comprising at least one electrically conductive layer structure and at least one electrically insulating layer structure; and an inductor inlay, wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack as taught by Hamada ‘997 for the inductor as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. in view of Yoshioka et al. and Hirai et al. to form a package component with desirable operating characteristics such as having the ESR and ESL of the smoothing capacitor on the output side can be reduced and the ripple voltage of the output can be reduced (Paragraphs [0211], [0219]). In addition, an IVR technique attracts attention as a technique of reducing power consumption of a CPU (Paragraph [0004]) that can support high frequency and maintains the strength and can facilitate reduction of the height and downsizing (Paragraph [0013]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamada ‘997 shows the component carrier is configured as an integrated circuit, or an IC substrate; and/or
wherein at least one electrically conductive layer structure (81, 82) of the stack (2) is electrically connected to the inductor element (22) of the inductor inlay via terminal sections (elements 11, 12, see Fig. 9, Paragraph [0201]); and/or
wherein the inductor inlay is embedded in the stack, such that directions of main extension of the inductor inlay are essentially parallel or essentially perpendicular to the directions of main extension of the component carrier.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Yoshioka et al. does not shows “wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack; wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element” is found not persuasive because Yoshioka et al. shows a magnetic layer stack (20), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) comprising a magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]); and an electrically conductive structure (30, 42) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14), wherein the electrically conductive structure is configured as an inductor element (element 30, 42 configured as an inductor element 10, Paragraph [0046]) that comprises at least one terminal section (42) and a coil-like shape (30, Paragraph [0051]), and wherein the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (magnetic powder, Paragraph [0083]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (21, 22, 23) of the magnetic layer stack (20, see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20, Paragraph [0056]); wherein a vertical extension (TV2) of the at least one terminal section (42) is different from a vertical extension (TI) of the coil-like shape (30) of the inductor element (see Figs. 1-3 and Figs. 4-14, element TV2 of element 42 is different from element TI of element 30, Paragraphs [0055], [0059], [0061]), and wherein the at least one terminal section (42) is a plated structure (the term “plated” appear to be a method step, Paragraph [0117] discloses element 142 is a plated structure by the plating process). Applicant fails to explain how Yoshioka et al. does not show “the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack”.
Furthermore, Yoshioka et al. in Paragraph [0056] (see also Figs. 10-11) discloses that element 22 is disposed in the same layer as element 30 which means the magnetic material of element 22 fills a volume between windings of element 30. Therefore, element 30 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic powder of elements 21, 22, 23 of element 20. The claim limitations “the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack” still appear to be broad and does not narrowly equate to “the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the electrically conductive structure and between windings of the electrically conductive structure” as argued by applicant. The examiner suggests being more specific regarding the claim limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the electrically conductive structure and between windings of the electrically conductive structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]) to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
In response to applicant’s arguments that Hamada et al. does not shows “wherein the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack; wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element” is found not persuasive because Hamada et al. shows a magnetic layer stack (stack of elements 11a or element 10), comprising a plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (elements 11a or elements 65, 71, 73, see Fig. 2 and Figs. 4A-4P), the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers comprising a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0067]-[0068], [0091]); and an electrically conductive structure (element 12, element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65, see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H) embedded in the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H), wherein the electrically conductive structure (element 12, element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65, see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H) is configured as an inductor element (elements 12, 15b configured as an inductor element) that comprises at least one terminal section (element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65, see Fig. 2 and see Figs. 4E-4H) and a coil-like shape (Paragraph [0068]), and wherein the coil-like shape (12) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack (see Fig. 2 and Figs. 4A-4P, element 12 is directly and fully encapsulated by magnetic filler of elements 11a or elements 65, 71, 73 of stack of elements 11a or element 10, Paragraphs [0067]-[0068], [0091]); wherein a vertical extension of the at least one terminal section is different from a vertical extension of the coil-like shape of the inductor element (see Fig. 2 and Figs. 4A-4P, a vertical extension of element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65 is different from a vertical extension of element 12 at middle element 11a or element 71), and wherein the at least one terminal section (element 15b at lower element 11a or element 65) is a plated structure (Paragraphs [0102]-[0103], see Figs. 4E-4F). Applicant fails to explain how Hamada et al. does not show “the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack”. The claim limitations “the coil-like shape of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers of the magnetic layer stack” still appear to be broad and does not narrowly equate to “the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the electrically conductive structure and between windings of the electrically conductive structure” as argued by applicant. The examiner suggests being more specific regarding the claim limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the magnetic matrix continuously fills a volume around the electrically conductive structure and between windings of the electrically conductive structure) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, Nakagawa et al. clearly shows the coil-like shape (4) of the inductor element is directly and fully encapsulated by the magnetic material (7, Paragraph [0023]) of the plurality of interconnected magnetic layers (3, 5) of the magnetic layer stack (see Figs. 1-3, element 4 is directly and fully encapsulated by element 7 of elements 3, 5, Paragraph [0055]) to exhibit high magnetic permeability and sufficiently high inductance (Paragraph [0055]).
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 TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Shawki 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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights