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
Acknowledgement has been made to the amendment received on 07/08/2026. Claims 1-10 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 11-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10 are being examined in this office action.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-22 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the newly presented product claims are directed to a product invention that is independent and distinct from the method invention previously claimed, and the product claims require a different field of search and different search strategies from those required for the elected method claims.
Since applicants have received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicants traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 20150287772A1) in view of Marcoci et al (US20140259643A1)
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];
positioning a plurality of preformed coated conductor wires (103, fig 1C) within said plurality of trenches (150, fig 1A) in said substrate core (100, fig 1A) [0038];
laminating a magnetic material (105-NiFe, fig 1E) [0043] on a first surface (160, fig 1C) [0043] of said substrate core (100, fig 1C) over said plurality of coated conductor wires (103, fig 1C) positioned within said plurality of trenches (150, fig 1C);
laminating an insulative layer (108, fig 1E) [0045] on a surface of said magnetic material (105, fig 1E),
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 least one of said plurality of coated conductor wires (103, fig 1E) [0047], and depositing conductive material (voltage source wires, see fig 11E) in said second via hole (109B, fig 1E) to electrically couple with said at least one coated conductor wire (103, fig 1E) [0047].
Wang does not teach forming a first via hole, beginning at a surface of said magnetic material, through said magnetic material, terminating; at least one of said plurality of coated conductor wires; and laminating the insulating material in said first via hole in said magnetic material, and over at least portions of said coated conductor wires.
Marcoci teaches a first via hole (16, fig 5) [0053] , beginning at a surface of said magnetic material (14, fig 5) [0053], through said magnetic material (16, fig 5) [0053], terminating; at least one of said plurality of coated conductor wires (15, fig 4-5) [0052]; and laminating the insulating material in said first via hole in said magnetic material, and over at least portions of said coated conductor wires.(19, fig 5) [0056]. (parylene coating is applied on the top and bottom surfaces of the substrate 10 and inside the via holes 16 to for form an insulator).
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 Marcoci into the structure of Wang to include forming a first via hole, beginning at a surface of said magnetic material, through said magnetic material, terminating; at least one of said plurality of coated conductor wires; and laminating the insulating material in said first via hole in said magnetic material, and over at least portions of said coated conductor wires as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang based on the teaching of Marcoci in the above manner for the purpose of reduces and prevents leakage inductance [0044].
Re claim 2 Wang in view of Marcoci teaches t he method of claim 1, wherein said substrate core (100, fig 1) is further characterized as formed of a semiconductor material (silicon, fig 1E) [Wang 0038].
Re claim 5 Wang in view of Marcoci teaches said substrate core is further characterized as formed of an insulative material (substrate 10, fig 9-11) [ Marcoci, 0047].
Re claim 6 Wang in view of Marcoci teaches the method of claim 1,
Wang and Marcoci do not teach said plurality of coated conductor wires are arranged to define a square spiral geometry.
Wang fig 1C teaches said plurality of coated conductor wires are arranged to define a square spiral geometry. (inductor coil loop , fig1C 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 byWang into the structure of to include plurality of coated conductor wires are arranged to define a square spiral geometry as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang in the above manner for the purpose of achieving 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 Marcoci teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of coated conductor wires (103, fig 1E) are arranged to define a transformer inductor geometry [Wang, 0035].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang modified by Marcoci as applied to claim 1 and further on view of Harding et al (US 20020070831A1).
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 Marcoci 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 Marcoci 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 Marcoci and Harding teaches the method of claim 3, wherein each coated conductor wire (103, fig 1E) [Wang, 0042] includes an electrically insulative coating (101, fig 1E) [Wang, 0042] that electrically insulates a conductor of the coated conductor wire (103, fig 1E) [Wang 0042] from the ferromagnetic material of the substrate core (100, fig 1E) [Wang, 0042].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang modified by Marcoci as applied to claim 1 further in view of Sullivan et al (US 20160149122 A1).
Re claim 7 Wang in view of Marcoci teach the method of claim 1.
Wang andMarcoci 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 Marcoci 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).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang modified by Marcoci as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hsu et al (US 20220157745A1).
Re claim 9 Wang in view of Marcoci the method of claim 1.
Wang and Marcoci do not teach the substrate core comprises a core of a package substrate or an interposer.
Hsu teaches the substrate core comprises a core of a package substrate (4, fig 7) [0040] or an interposer.
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 Wang and Marcoci to include the substrate core comprises a core of a package substrate or an interposer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang and Marcoci based on the teaching Hsu in the above manner for the purpose of improving reliability of the device [0042].
Re claim 10. Wang in view of Marcoci the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate (10, fig 67) [Hsu, 0040] is implemented in an integrated circuit (IC) package (100, fig 7) comprising a die (60, fig 7) [0040], such that the substrate is coupled to the die (fig 7) [0040].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crawford et al (US20040195647A1) teaches magnetic layer processing.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Webb et al (US20130093032A1) teaches semiconductor trench inductor and transformer.
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 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 9/23/26
Prosecution Insights