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 .
Status of the Application
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, he/she requested to cite it on form PTO-1449 in accordance with the guideline set fort in M.P.E.P. 609.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 and 6-8 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.
Claim 4 recite “the first insulative layer” in line 2 is unclear because claim 4 depends on claims 3 and 1, However, this element has not been introduced before. Claim 1 recites “ an insulative layer ”, It is unclear whether the element of claim 4 is the same as that of claim 1 or different. One ordinary skill in the art would not know what structure is covered by the limitation. For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6-8 recite “inductor pattern” is unclear because this claim does not clearly specify and define the claimed feature. One ordinary skill in the art would not know what structure is covered by the limitation. For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
For best understanding and examination purpose , the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20150287772A1) in view of Hsu et al (US 20220157745A1).
Re claim 1 Wang teaches a method of fabricating an inductor (fig 1A-1E ) having an inductance comprising the steps of:
routing a plurality of trenches (150, fig 1A) [0039] in a substrate core (100, fig 1A) [0038];
depositing a conductive material (103, fig 1C) [0041] in said plurality of trenches (150) in said substrate core (100);
depositing a magnetic material (105-NiFe, fig 1E) [0043] on a first surface (160, fig1C) [0043] of said substrate core (100) and a first surface (top of 103) of said conductive material (103) deposited in said plurality of trenches (150, fig 1C) in said substrate core (100, fig 1C);
depositing an insulative layer (108, fig 1E) [0045] on a surface of said magnetic material (105, fig 1E), and on said surface (top of 103) of said conductive material (103) deposited in said plurality of trenches (150, fig 1E) [0046] in said substrate core (100, fig 1E); and
forming a second via hole (109B from top of 108, fig 1E), beginning at a surface (top of 108) of said insulative layer (108), through said insulative layer (108), terminating at said surface of said conductive material (103, fig 1E) deposited in said plurality of trenches (in about the center, 150) in said substrate core (100).
Wang does not teach forming a first via hole, beginning at a surface of said magnetic material, through said magnetic material, terminating at a surface of said conductive material and the insulating layer on in said the first via hole in said magnetic material deposited in said plurality of trenches in said substrate core and depositing the insulating material in said first via hole in said magnetic material.
Hsu teaches forming a first via hole (first recess 22R1, fig 1B) [0025], beginning at a surface of said magnetic material (22, fig 1B) [0025], through said magnetic material (22), terminating at a surface of said conductive material (242U, fig 1B) [0025] deposited in said plurality of trenches (trench in 24, fig 1B) in said substrate core (24, fig 1B); and depositing the insulating material (40, fig 1B) [0025] in said first via hole (22R1) in said magnetic material (22.fig 1 B) [0025].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Hsu into the structure of Hsu to include forming a first via hole, beginning at a surface of said magnetic material, through said magnetic material, terminating at a surface of said conductive material and the insulating layer on in said the first via hole in said magnetic material deposited in said plurality of trenches in said substrate core and depositing the insulating material in said first via hole in said magnetic material as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang based on the teaching of Hsu in the above manner for the purpose of increasing the reliability of the connections [0042].
Re claim 2 Wang in view of Hsu teach, said substrate core (100, Silicon fig 1E) [Wang, 0038] is further characterized as formed of semiconductor material (silicon) [Wang, 0038].
Re claim 6 Wang in view of Hsu teaches the method of claim 1,
Wang and Hsu do not teach said inductor pattern is a square spiral.
Wang fig 1C teaches said inductor pattern is a square spiral.(inductor coil loop, fig 1C top view) [0036].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Wang to include said inductor pattern is a square spiral as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve more turns and a higher inductance [0035].
Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. /n re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Re claim 8 Wang in view of Bhushan teaches the substrate core (100 fig 1E) [Wang 0038] of claim 1, wherein the inductor pattern (fig 1E) comprises a transformer inductor [Wang 0035].
Re claim 9 Wang in view of Hsu teaches the substrate core of claim 1, wherein the substrate (10, fig 7) [Hsu, 0040] comprises a package substrate (4, fig 7) [Hsu, 0040] or an interposer.
Re claim 10 Wang in view of Hsu teaches the substrate core of claim 1,wherin the substrate (10, fig 7) [Hsu, 0040] is implemented in an integrated circuit package (100, fig 7) [Hsu, 0040] comprising a die (60, fig 7), such that the substrate (10, fig 7) is coupled to the die (60, fig 7) [Hsu, 0040].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang modified Hsu as applied to claim 1 further in view of Harding et al (US 20020070831 A1).
Re claim 3 Wang in view of Hsu teach the method of claim 1.
Wang and Hsu do not teach said substrate core is further characterized as formed of a ferromagnetic material.
Harding teach said substrate core (core 90) [0041] is further characterized as formed of a ferromagnetic material [0041].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Harding into the structure of Wang and Hsu to include substrate core is further characterized as formed of a ferromagnetic material as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang and Gardner based on the teaching of Harding in the above manner for the purpose of improvement in fabricating high frequency inductors and transformers [0007].
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re claim 4 Wang in view of Hsu and Harding teach the substrate core of claim 3, wherein the ferromagnetic material (22U, fig 1B) [Hsu, 0025] is at least partially located in the first insulative layer (40 fig 1B) [Hsu 0025].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang modified by Hsu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lambert et al (US20200066659A1).
Re claim 5 Wang in view of Hsu teaches the method of claim 1,
Wang and Hsu do not teach said substrate core is further characterized as formed of an insulative material.
Lambert teaches substrate core (100, fig 2C)[0034-0035] is further characterized as formed of an insulative material (103, epoxies, crystalline polymers, polyamides or polyimides. Other suitable package dielectric material fig 2C) [0038].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lambert into the structure of Wang and Hsu to include substrate core is further characterized as formed of an insulative material as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang and Hsu based on the teaching of Lambert in the above manner for the purpose of to reduce the crosstalk so improve the performance of the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang modified by Hsu as applied to claim 1further in view of Sullivan et al (US 20160149122 A1).
Re claim 7 Wang in view of Hsu teach the method of claim 1.
Wang and Hsu do not teach said inductor pattern is a racetrack pot-core strip.
Sullivan does teach said inductor pattern is a racetrack pot-core strip (the inductor has a racetrack shape and includes two magnetic cores surrounding the inductor's winding) [0054].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Sullivan into the structure of Wang and Hsu to include said inductor pattern is a racetrack pot-core strip as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang and Bhushan based on the teaching Harding in the above manner for the purpose of potentially achieving a monolithically integrated power converter [0055].
Further, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. /n re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/9/26