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
In view of the response to restriction dated 1/29/2026, the Restriction Requirement mailed on 12/4/2025, is hereby withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190164681 A1 (Kidwell) in view of US 20180374803 A1 (Aoki).
Regarding claim 1, Kidwell shows (Fig. 4) a device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
364
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a die substrate (para 24);
a plurality of interconnects (402,406, para 46) located over the die substrate, wherein the plurality of interconnects comprise:
a first plurality of interconnects (402a, 402b, 402c para 46) comprising a first plurality of via interconnects, wherein the first plurality of interconnects are configured as a first inductor (450, para 46); and
a second plurality of interconnects (404a, 404b, 404c, para 47) comprising a second plurality of via interconnects, wherein the second plurality of interconnects are configured as a second inductor (455, para 47), wherein the first inductor and the second inductor are intertwined, at least one magnetic layer (420-424, para 49) that surrounds at least part of the first plurality of via interconnects and at least part of the second plurality of via interconnects; and
Kidwell does not show at least one dielectric layer located over the die substrate.
PNG
media_image2.png
266
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Aoki shows (Fig. 1A) at least one dielectric layer (12, para 39) located over the die substrate (mount board on which a die is placed, para 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Aoki, with dielectric layer, to the invention of Kidwell.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of isolating and shielding the die substrate from the magnetic layer (13).
Regarding claim 2, Kidwell shows (Fig. 4) wherein the first inductor (450, para 46) and the second inductor (455, para 47) are configured as a transformer or inductively coupled inductors (para 46-47).
Regarding claim 3, Kidwell in view of Aoki shows the first inductor and second inductor.
Kidwell in view of Aoki does not show wherein the first inductor includes a first solenoid inductor, and wherein the second inductor includes a second solenoid inductor that is intertwined with the first solenoid inductor.
Kidwell (Fig. 3 embodiment) shows the inductor (301) form a solenoid (para 41).
Kidwell (Embodiment Fig. 3) along with Kidwell (Fig. 4 embodiment) in view of Aoki teaches wherein the first inductor includes a first solenoid inductor, and wherein the second inductor includes a second solenoid inductor that is intertwined with the first solenoid inductor.
When the device recited in the Kidwell (Embodiment Fig. 3) reference is substantially identical to that of the Kidwell (Embodiment Fig. 4), claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4, Kidwell in view of Aoki shows die substrate.
Kidwell in view of Aoki does not show a plurality of transistors located in the die substrate.
Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment) shows a plurality of transistors located in the die substrate (500) [para 52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment), with transistors in die substrate, to the invention of Kidwell (Fig. 4 embodiment) in view of Aoki.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of having a fully functional circuit added to the inductors.
Regarding claim 5, Kidwell (Fig. 4) shows the plurality of interconnects.
Kidwell in view of Aoki does not show wherein the plurality of interconnects include a plurality of redistribution interconnects.
Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment) shows wherein the plurality of interconnects (sixth and seventh interconnects) include a plurality of redistribution interconnects (RDL, para 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment), with redistribution interconnects in die substrate, to the invention of Kidwell (Fig. 4 embodiment) in view of Aoki.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of having connectivity between the active devices and the inductors.
Regarding claim 6, Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment) shows wherein the plurality of redistribution interconnects includes one or more redistribution metal layers (sixth and seventh interconnects, para 53).
Regarding claim 7, Kidwell in view of Aoki shows wherein the at least one magnetic layer includes a dielectric layer (Aoki, 12, para 39).
Regarding claim 8, Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment) shows wherein the at least one magnetic layer (420-424, para 49) includes a non-electrical conducting material (same material NiFe as stated in Fig. 3 embodiment as stated in para 49, para 38).
Regarding claim 9, Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment) shows wherein the at least one magnetic layer has a relative permeability value that is greater than 1 (NiFe permeability).
Regarding claim 10, Kidwell (Fig. 5 embodiment) shows wherein the device is selected from a group consisting of a music player, a video player, an entertainment unit, a navigation device, a communications device, a mobile device, a mobile phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a fixed location terminal, a tablet computer, a computer, a wearable device, a laptop computer, a server, an internet of things (IoT) device, and a device in an automotive vehicle (para 83).
Regarding claims 11 to 20, the prior art as noted in the above rejection of claims 1 to 10 respectively, discloses the entire claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812