DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 29 June 2026. Claims 1-15, 17-20, and 22 are pending in the application. Claims 16 and 21 have been cancelled. Claim 22 is newly submitted.
This application is a continuation of application Serial No. 17/167,273, filed on 04 February 2021, now US Patent 11,688,685; which is a continuation of application Serial No. 15/897,272, filed on 15 February 2018, now US Patent 10,923,417; which claims priority to provisional application 62/490,063, filed 26 April 2017.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on 27 January 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patents 10,923,417 and the expiration date of US Patent 11,688,685 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of Applicant’s Amendment, the rejection of claims 11-15, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s Amendment, the rejection of claims 11-15, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jou et al., US 2014/0111273, in view of Kroener, US 8,072,042, both of record.
With respect to claim 11, Jou et al. disclose a method comprising:
forming a molding material 302 around a die 904 (see paragraph [0027]) and vias, as shown in Fig. 9, see paragraph [0020];
forming a magnetic material 202 within the molding material 302, see Figs. 3B and 3C and paragraph [0019];
recessing the magnetic material 202 with respect to a top surface of the molding material 302, as shown in Fig. 9; and
forming trace portions covering a top surface of the molding material 302, the vias and the trace portions surrounding the magnetic material 202, as shown in Figs. 5B, 6B, 7, 8, and 9.
Although Jou et al. disclose recessing the magnetic material 202 with respect to a top surface of the molding material 302, as shown in Fig. 9, Jou et al. fail to disclose recessing the magnetic material with respect to a top surface of the molding material to define a recess in the magnetic material, the recess being open at the top surface of the molding material. In the same field of endeavor, Kroener discloses a method which includes recessing a magnetic material 41 with respect to a top surface of a molding material 30/31 to define a recess 21 in the magnetic material 41, the recess being open at the top surface of the molding material 30/31 to form an integrated inductor, as shown in Fig. 2C of Kroener. The method of Kroener further comprises forming an insulation layer 32, as shown in Fig. 2D, forming vias 43 and trace portions 51/52, as shown in Fig. 2F. Since Jou et al. do not disclose how the magnetic material 202 is recessed with respect to the top surface of the molding material 302, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Kroener into the known method of Jou et al. to recess the magnetic material 202 with respect to a top surface of the molding material 302 to define a recess in the magnetic material 202, the recess being open at the top surface of the molding material 302, since the methods of Jou et al. and Kroener yield structurally equivalent inductors..
With respect to claim 17., in the method of Jou et al., the die 904 is disposed between the trace portions and the vias.
With respect to claim 22, in the method of Jou et al. in view of Kroener, only side surfaces of the magnetic material 41 are surrounded by the molding material 30/31, as shown in Fig. 2C of Kroener.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jou et al., US 2014/0111273, in view of Kroener, US 8,072,042, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Liao US PG Pub. 2014/0347025, of record.
Jou et al. and Kroener are applied as above. With respect to claim 12, although Jou et al. discloses a magnetic material 202, Jou et al. do not specifically disclose the magnetic material comprises at least one material selected form the group consisting of CuFe2O4, BiFe5O12, NiFe alloy, and CoTaZr alloy. Liao discloses a magnetic material of an inductor can be selected from the group consisting of CuFe2O4, BiFe5O12, NiFe alloy, and CoTaZr alloy (paragraph [0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic material disclosed by Liao in the known method of Jou et al., since these materials are commonly used in the fabrication of inductors.
With respect to claim 13, although Jou et al. discloses a magnetic material 202, Jou et al. do not specifically disclose the magnetic material comprises in atomic percentage about 40% Ni, about 40% Zn, and about 20% CuFe2O4. Liao discloses the magnetic material of an inductor can comprise in atomic percentage about 40% Ni, about 40% Zn, and about 20% CuFe2O4., see paragraph [0045].. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic material disclosed by Liao in the known method of Jou et al., since these magnetic materials are commonly used in the fabrication of inductors.
With respect to claim 14, although Jou et al. discloses a magnetic material 202, Jou et al. do not specifically disclose the magnetic material comprises in atomic percentage about 80% Y and about 20% BiFe5O12. Liao discloses the magnetic material comprises in atomic percentage about 80% Y and about 20% BiFe5O12, see paragraph [0045].. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic material disclosed by Liao in the known method of Jou et al., since these magnetic materials are commonly used in the fabrication of inductors.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jou et al., US 2014/0111273, in view of Kroener, US 8,072,042, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view Gardner, US 2001/0030591, of record.
Jou et al. and Kroener are applied as above. With respect to claim 15, although Jou et al. discloses a magnetic material 202, Jou et al. do not specifically disclose the magnetic material comprises an alloy in atomic percentage of about 91.5% Co, about 4.5% Ta, and about 4% Zr. Gardner discloses an inductor with a magnetic core comprising 91.5 atomic percent cobalt (Co), approximately 4 atomic percent zirconium (Zr), and approximately 4.5 atomic percent tantalum (Ta). This CoZrTa alloy can operate in the gigaHertz range and can withstand temperatures up to approximately 450oC without crystallizing or significantly changing its relevant properties, see paragraph [0034]. In light of the teaching of Gardner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic material disclosed by Gardner in the known method of Jou et al., since this CoZrTa alloy can operate in the gigaHertz range and can withstand temperatures up to approximately 450oC without crystallizing or significantly changing its relevant properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 19, and 20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the references of record teach or suggest a method comprising the steps of forming a molding material around vias; planarizing the molding material;
forming a magnetic material within/in the molding material; and forming trace portions covering a top surface of the molding material, as required in independent claims 1 and 19.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Neither Jou et al. (US 2014/0111273) nor Chen (US 2016/0233292) disclose a method further comprising: forming the vias in a sacrificial layer disposed on a first electrically insulating layer, the vias being electrically connected to the trace portions; removing the sacrificial layer and forming a second electrically insulating layer on the first electrically insulating layer; and placing the die above the second electrically insulating layer, wherein the sacrificial layer comprises photoresist.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-15, 17, and 22 been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection.
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 MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights