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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/31/2026 under 37 CFR 1.131 has been considered but is ineffective to overcome the cited references below.
Applicant argues that prior art Hu et al. do not disclose that the spacings 351/353 do not form or define a cavity surrounding the magnetic core and the cavity is defined by the magnetic core in a heated state.
The examiner would like to note that the spacings 351/353 do define a cavity surrounding the magnetic core 314 and also spacings 351/353 are defined by the magnetic core in Fig. 3C as shown below.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the highlighted portion of the amended limitation “wherein the cavity is defined by the magnetic core in a heated state” is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963).
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18477755 filed on 09/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-11, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US 2023/0005652).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hou et al. teach an integrated circuit (IC) package with magnetic core, the IC package comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3C, elements 113, 121, 206, paragraph 0016-0019);
a magnetic core (Fig. 3C, element 314, paragraph 0024) disposed on the substrate,
wherein the magnetic core includes a soft magnetic material (paragraph 0029);
a plurality of conductive traces (Fig. 3C, paragraph 0027 discloses conductive traces),
forming first and second coils (Fig. 3C, elements 111 & 112, paragraph 0016), configured about the magnetic core;
wherein the first and second coils and magnetic core are configured as a transformer (Fig. 3C, element 302, paragraph 0022); and
a package bodying including an encapsulant material (although not explicitly labeled in Fig. 3C, Fig. 2, element 104, paragraph 0019 discloses mold compound with the motivation to provide environmental protection) configured to encapsulate the magnetic core,
wherein the encapsulant material is configured to provide a cavity (Fig. 3C, spacing 351, 353, paragraph 0029) elements surrounding the magnetic core,
wherein the cavity is defined by the magnetic core in a heated state (Fig. 3C, additionally the term “heated state” is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 2, Hou et al. teach wherein the cavity is configured to provide a space (Fig. 3C) between an interior surface of the cavity and an exterior surface of the magnetic core.
Regarding claim 3, Hou et al. teach wherein the space comprises a gap (Fig. 3C) between the interior surface of the cavity and the exterior surface of the magnetic core.
Regarding claim 4, Hou et al. teach wherein the gap is between about 10 nm to about 100 microns (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 5, Hou et al. teach further comprising at least one semiconductor die (Fig. 7, element 731, paragraph 0051) disposed on the substrate.
Regarding claim 6, Hou et al. teach wherein the at least one semiconductor die comprises an integrated circuit (IC) (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Hou et al. teach wherein the IC comprises a gate driver (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 8, Hou et al. teach wherein a portion of the encapsulant material is delaminated from the magnetic core (Delamination would occur due to the process involved. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) MPEP §2113).
Regarding claim 9, Hou et al. teach wherein the at least one semiconductor die comprises first and second semiconductor die (Fig. 7, elements 731 & 732, paragraph 0050-0051), and wherein the first and second coils each (Fig. 7, elements 711 & 712, paragraph 0050-0051) includes a plurality of windings connected to the first and second semiconductor die, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Hou et al. teach wherein the substrate comprises a lead frame (Fig. 3C, element 121, paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 11, Hou et al. teach wherein the substrate comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (Fig. 3C, element 206, paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 15, Hou et al. teach wherein the first coil comprises a plurality of first coils (Figs. 1A & 3C).
Regarding claim 16, Hou et al. teach wherein the second coil comprises a plurality of second coils (Figs. 1A & 3C).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou et al. (US 2023/0005652) in view of Mazed (US 2025/0094380).
Regarding claim 12, Hou et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Hou et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of glass thin layers.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select glass thin layers for a substrate as disclosed by Mazed in paragraph 0472, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, Hou et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Hou et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of ceramic layers.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select ceramic layers for a substrate as disclosed by Mazed in paragraph 0703, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14, Hou et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Hou et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein the substrate comprises alumina.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select alumina for a substrate as disclosed by Mazed in paragraph 0698, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
