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, Species II, FIGs. 1C and 3, and claims 8-15 and 17 in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-7, 16 and 18-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/29/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 “the lead structure width is greater than a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings” as recited in claim 8 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-15 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the originally filed specification does not clearly explain “the lead structure width is greater than a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings” as claimed. Specifically, the originally filed specification does not have detailed description of what is defined or considered as “a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings.”
Claims 9-15 and 17 are rejected as being dependent on claim 8.
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 8-15 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 8, it’s not clear what’s intended by “the lead structure width is greater than a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings” as recited. Specifically, since the “a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings” is not clearly described, defined or explained, it’s not clear if the “a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings” is the cross-sectional area of the wire 108a (annotated FIG. 1C) or the cross-sectional area (area inside the circular helix windings 108 in yz plane, annotated FIG. 1C). As seen in FIG. 1C, the width 122 of the lead structure 104 is larger than the cross-sectional area of the wire 108a, but the width 122 of the lead structure 104 is NOT larger than the cross-sectional area inside the circular helix windings 108 in yz plane. Accordingly, for examination purpose, the limitation in question is interpreted as the width 122 is larger than the cross-sectional area of wire 108a.
Claims 9-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as being directly or indirectly dependent from claim 8 and therefore inheriting the indefiniteness thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 8, 9, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusada (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2020/0234860 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Kusada teaches a circuit 1 (FIG. 4) comprising:
a substrate 5 supporting the circuit, wherein a substrate surface (upper surface) of the substrate defines a plane (a plane parallel to the upper surface) extending through the substrate;
a terminal 51;
a lead structure 3 of an electrically conductive material, having a lead structure width 3a (annotated FIG. 4), coupled to the terminal; and
a coil 2, of the electrically conductive material, having first and second coil ends 22 and a number of windings 21 of the electrically conductive material extending between the first and second coil ends, the first coil end at a surface of the lead structure, wherein the lead structure width is greater than a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings (paras. [0047]-[0048] and [0053]). The distance of the annotated dotted arrow is longer than the solid arrow. Accordingly, Kusada meets the width limitations as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Kusada teaches the circuit of claim 8, wherein the lead structure has first portion 31 extending parallel to the plane and a second portion 32 bent at an angle away from the plane (paras. [0057] and [0058]).
With respect to claim 12, Kusada teaches the circuit of claim 8, wherein the lead structure is a first lead structure, the terminal is a first terminal, the lead structure width is a first lead structure width, and the circuit further comprises:
a second lead structure (the other lead structure 3) at the second coil end, wherein the second lead structure has a second lead structure width greater than the largest cross sectional dimension of the windings; and
a second terminal (the other terminal 51) spaced apart from the first terminal, wherein the second lead structure is coupled to the second terminal (paras. [0047]-[0048] and [0053]).
With respect to claim 14, Kusada teaches the circuit of claim 12, wherein the first lead structure has a first bend at a first angle relative to the plane and the second lead structure has a second bend at a second angle relative to the plane (paras. [0047]-[0048] and [0053]). The claim does not require the first angle and the second angle to be different.
With respect to claim 17, Kusada teaches the circuit of claim 8, wherein the coil has a longitudinal axis that is oriented at a respective angle relative to the plane ranging from parallel to orthogonal to the plane (paras. [0047]-[0048] and [0053]).
Claims 8, 12, 14 and 17 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2005/0174208 A1, hereinafter “Sato).
With respect to claim 8, Sato teaches a circuit (FIG. 1A)comprising:
a substrate (not expressly shown) supporting the circuit, wherein a substrate surface (a surface of the substrate) of the substrate defines a plane extending through the substrate;
a terminal 12 and or 12a;
a lead structure 7 of an electrically conductive material, having a lead structure width (width of lead structure), coupled to the terminal; and
a coil 1, of the electrically conductive material, having first and second coil ends (front and back ends) and a number of windings (turns) of the electrically conductive material extending between the first and second coil ends, the first coil end at a surface of the lead structure, wherein the lead structure width is greater than a largest cross sectional dimension of the windings (paras. [0087] and [0088]).
PNG
media_image3.png
338
357
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, Sato teaches the circuit of claim 8, wherein the lead structure is a first lead structure, the terminal is a first terminal, the lead structure width is a first lead structure width, and the circuit further comprises:
a second lead structure (the other lead structure 7) at the second coil end, wherein the second lead structure has a second lead structure width greater than the largest cross sectional dimension of the windings; and
a second terminal (the other terminal 12 and or 12a) spaced apart from the first terminal, wherein the second lead structure is coupled to the second terminal (paras. [0087] and [0088]).
With respect to claim 14, Sato teaches the circuit of claim 12, wherein the first lead structure has a first bend at a first angle relative to the plane and the second lead structure has a second bend at a second angle relative to the plane (paras. [0087] and [0088]). The claim does not require the first angle and the second angle to be different.
With respect to claim 17, Sato teaches the circuit of claim 8, wherein the coil has a longitudinal axis that is oriented at a respective angle relative to the plane ranging from parallel to orthogonal to the plane (paras. [0087] and [0088]).
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, 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Okano et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2021/0020352 A1, hereinafter “Okano”).
With respect to claim 9, Sato teaches the circuit of claim 8. Sato does not expressly teach the lead structure has first portion extending parallel to the plane and a second portion bent at an angle away from the plane.
Okano teaches a circuit (FIG. 2B), wherein the lead structure 126A or 126B has first portion 127A or 127B extending parallel to the plane (mounting plane) and a second portion bent (vertical bent portion) at an angle away from the plane (para. [0095]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second portions of the lead structure as taught by Okano to the circuit of Sato to mount the coil on the substrate at a desired height to meet design requirements.
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusada and or Sato, as applied to claims 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Tsuji et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2025/0072012 A1, hereinafter “Tsuji”).
With respect to claim 10, Kusada and or Sato teaches the circuit of claim 8, wherein the substrate is a leadframe, and wherein the terminal includes a leadframe terminal of the leadframe.
Tsuji teaches a circuit 10 (FIG. 3), wherein the substrate 80 or 90 is a leadframe, and wherein the terminal SD and or 81 or 91 includes a leadframe terminal of the leadframe (paras. [0061], [0062], [0065] and [0070]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the leadframe as taught by Tsuji to the circuit of Kusada and or Sato to improve mechanical stability of the components and or to improve heat dissipation.
With respect to claim 11, Kusada and or Sato in view of Tsuji teaches the circuit of claim 10, further comprising:
a die 50 or 60 mounted on the leadframe, and the terminal includes a die terminal (Tsuji, para. [0057]).
With respect to claim 13, Kusada and or Sato teaches the circuit of claim 12. Kusada and or Sato does not expressly teach the first terminal and the second terminal are spaced different distances from the plane.
Tsuji teaches a circuit 10 (FIG. 3), wherein the first terminal SD and the second terminal 66 are spaced different distances from the plane (plane of substrate 80 or 90) (paras. [0070] and [0071]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the different distances as taught by Tsuji to the circuit of Kusada and or Sato to provide the required circuit components arrangement to meet design requirements.
With respect to claim 15, Kusada and or Sato teaches the circuit of claim 12. Kusada and or Sato does not expressly teach the substrate is a leadframe, wherein the first terminal is a leadframe terminal of the leadframe, and wherein the first lead structure is coupled to the leadframe terminal, the circuit further comprising:
a die mounted on the leadframe, wherein the second terminal is a die terminal of the die, and the second lead structure is coupled to the die terminal.
Tsuji teaches a circuit 10 (FIG. 3), wherein the substrate 80 or 90 is a leadframe, wherein the first terminal SD is a leadframe terminal of the leadframe, and wherein the first lead structure WA or WB is coupled to the leadframe terminal, the circuit further comprising:
a die 50 or 60 mounted on the leadframe, wherein the second terminal 56 or 66 is a die terminal of the die, and the second lead structure (the other of structure WA or WB) is coupled to the die terminal (paras. [0070], [0074]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the terminals and die as taught by Tsuji to the circuit of Kusada and or Sato to provide the required electrical connection between different elements of the circuit to meet design requirements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights