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 species 2 (figures 10-15, claims 1-5 and 7-29) in the reply filed on 07/29/26 is acknowledged.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first winding wounds around the second magnetic core part more than one turns; and the second winding wounds around the first magnetic core part more than one turns must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
1 Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Narayanan et al. (US 20180068778).
Regarding claim 23, Narayanan et al. (figures 1-3 and para 0029-0046) discloses a first winding (16); a second winding (18); a first magnetic core part (12), having a first portion disposed on a first horizontal level (see drawing below), a second portion disposed on a second horizontal level (see drawing below), and a connecting portion connecting the first portion and the second portion of the first magnetic core part (see drawing below); and a second magnetic core part (14), having a first portion disposed on the second horizontal level (see drawing below), a second portion disposed on the first horizontal level (see drawing below), and a connecting portion connecting the first portion and the second portion of the second magnetic core part(see drawing below) wherein the first magnetic core part and the second magnetic core part are assembled to accommodate the first winding between the first portion of the first magnetic core part and the first portion of the second magnetic core part (see figures 1-2), and to accommodate the second winding between the second portion of the first magnetic core part and the second portion of the second magnetic core part (see figures 1-2)
PNG
media_image1.png
428
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: the inductor assembly provides a self-inductance of at least 60nH for currents between 1A and 60A, and provides a negative mutual- inductance which has an absolute value of at least 30nH for currents between 1A and 60A would be an inherent characteristic of Narayanan et al. since it has the similar structural features of the applicant claimed invention.
Please note that the claims are directed to apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather function [MPEP 2144]. Hence, the functional limitations “inductor assembly provides a self-inductance of at least 60nH for currents between 1A and 60A, and provides a negative mutual- inductance which has an absolute value of at least 30nH for currents between 1A and 60A “ which are narrative in form have been given little patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Regarding claim 24, Narayanan et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein: the first winding has a first end and a second end connected out of the second surface of the inductor assembly; and the second winding has a first end and a second end connected out of the second surface of the inductor assembly.
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.
2. Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan et al. (US 20180068778) in view of Bhagavat et al. (US 20200312766).
Regarding claim 1, Narayanan et al. (figures 1-3 and para 0029-0046) discloses a first winding (16); a second winding (18); a first magnetic core part (12), having a first portion disposed on a first horizontal level (see drawing below), a second portion disposed on a second horizontal level (see drawing below), and a connecting portion connecting the first portion and the second portion of the first magnetic core part (see drawing below); and a second magnetic core part (14), having a first portion disposed on the second horizontal level (see drawing below), a second portion disposed on the first horizontal level (see drawing below), and a connecting portion connecting the first portion and the second portion of the second magnetic core part(see drawing below) wherein the first magnetic core part and the second magnetic core part are assembled to accommodate the first winding between the first portion of the first magnetic core part and the first portion of the second magnetic core part (see figures 1-2), and to accommodate the second winding between the second portion of the first magnetic core part and the second portion of the second magnetic core part (see figures 1-2)
PNG
media_image1.png
428
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narayanan et al. does not expressly discloses an inductor assembly, arranged on the device substrate, a bottom substrate, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface; a device substrate, arranged on the bottom substrate, wherein the device substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the device substrate, and wherein the second surface of the device substrate faces the first surface of the bottom substrate.
Bhagavat et al. (figure 2 and para 0050-0060) discloses an inductor assembly (155), arranged on the device substrate (115), a bottom substrate (125), having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface; a device substrate, arranged on the bottom substrate, wherein the device substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the device substrate, and wherein the second surface of the device substrate faces the first surface of the bottom substrate.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein an inductor assembly is arranged on the device substrate, a bottom substrate, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface; a device substrate, arranged on the bottom substrate, wherein the device substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface of the device substrate, and wherein the second surface of the device substrate faces the first surface of the bottom substrate as taught by Y Bhagavat et al. to the inductive device of Narayanan et al. so as to to allow for shorter electrical interconnects thereby dramatically reducing parasitic inductance and capacitance, leading to faster switching frequencies, cleaner signal integrity, and lower ripple voltages.
Regarding claim 13, Narayanan et al. (para 0029) discloses wherein the first magnetic core part and the second magnetic core part are made of ferrite.
3. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan et al. (US 20180068778) in view of Yan et al. (US 20100013587).
Regarding claim 25, Narayanan et al. (figures 1-3) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein each one of the first winding and the second winding has an upside-down "U" shape.
Yan et al. (figure 23 and para 0079) discloses a teaching wherein each one of the first winding and the second winding has an upside-down "U" shape.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein each one of the first winding and the second winding has an upside-down "U" shape as taught by Yan et al to the inductive device of Narayanan et al. so as to increases the effective cross-sectional area of the conductor, resulting in higher current handling capabilities and lower direct current resistance.
4. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan et al. (US 20180068778).
Regarding claim 26, design wherein the first winding wounds around the second magnetic core part more than one turns; and the second winding wounds around the first magnetic core part more than one turns would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use. Such as allow for a higher inductance to be obtained while also increases inductive reactance, which helps alternating current circuits block or filter out high frequencies more efficiently.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 and 27-29 are 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.
1. Claims 14-22 are allowed.
2. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship, wherein the connecting portion of the first magnetic core part and the connecting portion of the second magnetic core part are located at a central axis of the inductor assembly, and the first winding and the second winding are located on the opposite sides of the central axis of the inductor assembly in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 14.
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Claims 15-22 are allowed because each claim is directly or indirectly dependent of independent claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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 at 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
