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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/31/2023 has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species III: Fig. 3, claims 1-14, without traverse in a response on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged. Further, Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. In this Office Action, claims 13 and 15-20 are withdrawn, and claims 1-12 and 14 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0043316.
Regarding Claim 1, Yang teaches, an interleaved coupled inductors transformer (305, Fig. 3) comprising:
a first terminal (301) comprising:
a first port (310, 311);
a first branch (301a, 301b) of the first terminal; and
a second branch (301c) of the first terminal approximately parallel to and concentric with the first branch of the first terminal (id.); and
a second terminal (302) spatially separate from the first terminal, the second terminal comprising:
a second port (320, 321);
a first branch (302a, 302b) of the second terminal;
a second branch (302c) of the second terminal approximately parallel to and concentric with the first branch of the second terminal (id.), wherein the first and second branches of the first terminal do not overlap with the first and second branches of the second terminal (id.). (Yang: Figs. 1-3, 8, para. [0036], [0038], [0039], [0040]).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang teaches, an interleaved coupled inductors transformer (305, Fig. 3) comprising:
a first terminal (301) comprising:
a first port (310, 311);
a first branch (301a, 301b) of the first terminal; and
a second branch (301c) of the first terminal; and
a second terminal (302) spatially separate from the first terminal, the second terminal comprising:
a second port (320, 321);
a first branch (302a, 302b) of the second terminal;
a second branch (302c) of the second terminal, wherein the first and second branches of the first terminal do not overlap with the first and second branches of the second terminal (id.), and wherein the first and second branches of the first terminal are concentric with the first and second branches of the second terminal (id.). (Yang: Figs. 1-3, 8, para. [0036], [0038], [0039], [0040]).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, as applied to claim 1, in view of Dasgupta et al., (hereinafter Dasgupta), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0038069.
Regarding Claim 2 and similarly claims 3 and 4, Yang teaches (Fig. 8), “layouts for the transformers may also be implemented utilizing a stacked structure” [0048]. (Yang: Figs. 1-3, 8, para. [0048]).
Yang does not explicitly teach, wherein the first and second branches of the first terminal are in a same first plane and the first and second branches of the second terminal are in a same second plane.
However, Dasgupta (Fig. 2) teaches, wherein the first and second branches of the first terminal (202) are in a same first plane and the first and second branches of the second terminal (204) are in a same second plane. (Dasgupta: Figs. 1-4, para. [0036], [0039], [0040], [0044], [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the transformer of Yang to include the first and second branches of the first terminal in a first plane and the first and second branches of the second terminal in a second plane of Dasgupta, the motivation being to overcome that “the coplanar interleaved transformer has low quality (0) and low coupling coefficient (k)” [0032]. (Dasgupta: Figs. 1-4, para. [0032]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 2 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9 and similarly claims 10-11, the combination of Yang in view of Dasgupta further teaches, wherein a length (Yang: Fig. 3) of the first and second branches (id.) of the first terminal is approximately equal to a length of the first and second branches of the second terminal (id.) or an impedance of the first terminal is approximately the same as an impedance of the second terminal (id.). (Yang: Figs. 1-3, 8, para. [0036], [0038], [0039], [0040]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yang in view of Dasgupta further teaches, wherein: the first terminal comprising at least a third branch (Yang: “2 or more turns” [0036]) of the first terminal approximately parallel to and concentric with the first branch of the first terminal and with the second branch of the first terminal (id.); and the second terminal comprising at least a third branch (Yang: “2 or more turns” [0036]) of the second terminal approximately parallel to and concentric with the first branch of the second terminal and with the second branch of the second terminal (id.), wherein the first, second, and the at least third branches of the first terminal do not overlap with the first, second, and the at least third branches of the second terminal (id.). (Yang: Figs. 1-3, 8, para. [0036], [0038], [0039], [0040]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yen et al. (US 20210074803), Lim et al. (US 20080284553) Chan (US 20110051308) and Huang et al. (US 20080272875).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claim 5 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 recites, inter alia, “…wherein the first branch of the first terminal is made using a first conductive layer of a three-dimensional integrated circuit and the second branch of the first terminal is made using a second conductive layer of the three- dimensional integrated circuit, or wherein the first branch of the second terminal is made using a 18 third conductive layer of the three-dimensional integrated circuit and the second branch of the second terminal is made using a fourth conductive layer of the three-dimensional integrated circuit”. (Emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM BARNES whose telephone number is (408)918-7512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (PST).
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 on 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.
/MALCOLM BARNES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
8/15/2026
Prosecution Insights