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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 5/14/26 is acknowledged. Thus, Claim 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/26.
An OA on the merits of claims 1-14 as follows:
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Method” (claim 1, line 1) should be updated to: --" A method” --, as so to reflect independent claim formats.
“Method” (claims 2-14, about line 1) should be changed to: -- “The method” --, to reflect dependent claim formats.
“, “(claim 1, at the end of each line 4, 5, 6 and 10) should be updated to: --“;” --.
“structuring” (claim 1, line 6) should be more specific, the use of: --“forming” -- is suggested.
The terms or phrases: “wherein generating the back-bias magnet is carried out temporally after” (claim 1, line 11) should be more specific such as: --” wherein the generating the back-bias magnet is carried out temporally after the” --, for clarity of the method claim formats.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
“the method comprising” (claim 1, line 2) should be updated to: --“the method comprising steps of:” --, to reflect method claim formats.
The phrase: ““generating the integrated back-bias magnet within the first cavity by introducing loose powder comprising magnetic material into the first cavity and agglomerating the powder to a mechanically firm magnetic body structure by means of atomic layer deposition,”(claim 1, lines 7-10 ) is awkwardly worded should be rewritten into method limitation such as: -- introducing loose powder of magnetic material into the first cavity and agglomerating the powder to a mechanically firm magnetic body structure by atomic layer deposition (ALD) process to form the integrated back-bias magnet within the first cavity;”—
“wherein generating the back-bias magnet is carried out temporally after arranging the magnetic field sensor” (claim 1, lines 11-12) should be updated to: --" wherein introducing loose powder of magnetic material into the first cavity occurrence after the arranging at least one of the magnetic field sensor on the first substrate surface” --, as so to reflect changes as suggested above in line 7-10 of claim 1.
“is generated” (claim 2, line 2); “is structured” (claim 3, line 2); “is generated” (claim 4, line 2) is/are not positively method limitations, the use of active format (e.g., generating; structuring/forming) is/are suggested for clarity of the method claim formats.
“wherein, in a top view of one of the two substrate surfaces, this trench structure extends around an active sensor region of the magnetic field sensor so that the back-bias magnetic generated in the first cavity ultimately also extends around the active sensor region.” (claim 3, lines 4-7) is awkwardly worded and should be updated to: --" wherein the first surface includes the trench structure which extends around an active sensor region of the magnetic field sensor so that the back-bias magnetic generated in the first cavity also extends around the active sensor region.” --, for clarity of the method claim formats.
“structuring” (claim 5, line 2) should be: --“forming “--, to reflect changes as suggested in claim 1, line 6 (see under claim objection to above).
“in a top view of one of the two substrate surfaces,” (claim 5, line 4) should be changed to: --” the first surface” --, for clarity of the claim.
“wherein filing the additional cavity with the magnetic material involves that the magnetic material is filled into the additional cavity in the form of a loose powder,” (claim 6, lines 2-4) should be updated to: --" wherein the magnetic material is filled into the additional cavity is in the form of a loose powder;” --.
“by means of atomic layer deposition.” (claim 6, line 5) should be changed to”—" by ALD process.”—to reflect one in the base claim 1
“to be filled” (claim 7, line 2) not a positively method limitation. The use of: -- “wherein in the filling of the additionally cavity the magnetic material includes . . . “--, this method formats Is/are suggested.
“wherein the loose powder to be filled into the additional cavity comprises mostly, i.e. to more than 50%, of a soft-magnetic material” (claim 7, line 2-3) is vague and indefinite. It is not known as to what the “comprises mostly, i.e. to more than 50%, of a soft-magnetic material” is meant. Please clarify.
Similar to claim 7 occurrence in claims 8-9 (see above).
Claim 10 does not further limit the method as claimed since no method limitation cited thereto.
It is unclear as to what exactly being referring to as” it” (claim 11, line 2) please be more specific.
“is generated” (claim 11, line 2) similar to this occurrence in claim 12, line 4 “e.g., are generated”; “is assigned” (claim 13, lines 5); “is carried out” (claim 14, line 2); “is inquired” (claim 14, line 3), these are not positive active method limitations.
“the wafer level” (claim 14, line 2) lacks proper antecedent basis.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koseki et al (JP2009264866A) in view of Lisec et al (US 20210082611).
Koseki et al discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a magnetic field sensor chip with an integrated back-bias magnet, the method comprising:
providing a substrate 13 with a first substrate surface and an opposite second substrate surface,
arranging at least one magnetic field sensor 11 on the first substrate surface (top surface of 13) (see Fig. 1 below),
structuring at least one first cavity 14 into the second substrate surface (bottom surface of 13, see Fig. 1 as noted below),
PNG
media_image1.png
265
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“generating the integrated back-bias magnet within the first cavity by introducing loose powder comprising magnetic material 15 into the first cavity and agglomerating the powder to a mechanically firm magnetic body structure by means of atomic layer deposition (see Fig. 1 and discussion in the abstract provided).
If argues that the Koseki et al does not teach limitation, regarding to “the powder to a mechanically firm magnetic body structure by means of atomic layer deposition, and wherein generating the back-bias magnet is carried out temporally after arranging the magnetic field sensor”. The Lisec et al teaches such process as noted above (see ¶¶ [0062-0063] and claim 5, respectively). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Lisec’s teaching as noted above in order to facilitate the fabrication process by utilizing the known and available ALD process.
Limitation of claims 2-3 are also satisfied by the Koseki et al (see Fig. 4 depicts that the recess 14 is in trench formation).
As applied to claims 4-5, noting that the Lisec et al as shown in Figs. 1A-E which depicts the process of generated trench or cavities 120 within substrate 110 (see also abstract, lines 1-10).
As applied to claims 6-7, refer to Lisec et al discussion in ¶¶ [0062-0063] and/or claim 5 for the filling material and the ALD process associated thereto. The motivation for the combination can be found in either reference since they are directed to a same endeavor field invention.
Claims 8-9 directed to material structure entity and the ratio size different would be matter of design choice, since, no inventive method feature existed in these claims. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the material as claimed above, since materials are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and dielectric properties.
Limitation of claim 10 is also satisfied by the combination teaching of Koseki et al/Lisec above because no method inventive feature found in above claim. Note that “configured as“ is not method inventive step and hall sensor and/or magneto resistive sensor is/are directed to different type of sensors and the instant application directed to only magnetic field chip sensor integrated back bias magnet.
As applied to claim 14, as best understood refer to Figs. 2A-C of the Koseki et al which depicts the substrate in form of a wafer.
PNG
media_image2.png
88
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Potential Allowable claims
Claims 12-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
7/1/26
Prosecution Insights