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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are examined on merits herein.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 15: Claim 15 recites: “wire sections are respectively located at opposite sides of the magnetic core”. The recitation is not quite clear, since paragraph 0059, citing a similar limitation in paragraph 0059 of the published application US 2025/0113499 with respect to Figs. 18-21, makes it clear (based on the figures) that at opposite sides of the magnetic core, are only some of the wires (such as TR50 and TR40), while some other wires (such as TR50 and TR30) are disposed at a same side of the magnetic core (Annotated Fig. 19 is presented below for a better clarity).
Annotated Fig. 19
PNG
media_image1.png
386
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “wire sections at adjacent levels are respectively located at opposite sides of the magnetic score”.
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 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herbert et al. (WO 2008/118489).
. In re Claim 16, Herbert teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 18 and Annotated Fig. 18):
a substrate 1000 (paragraph 0032);
a first magnetic core 1065 (paragraph 0036) disposed on the substrate 1000;
a second magnetic core 1010 (paragraph 0032) disposed on the substrate 1000, wherein
a first gap region – as a plurality of regions with distance D1 (as in Annotated Fig. 18) - and a second gap region – as a plurality of regions with distance D2 (as in Annotated Fig. 18) - are defined between the first magnetic core 1065 and the second magnetic core 1010, and
Annotated Fig. 18
PNG
media_image2.png
216
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a spacing distance between the first magnetic core and the second magnetic core is greater in the first gap region (with D1) than in the second gap region (with D2); and
a conductor coil 1055 (paragraph 0034) disposed on the substrate 1000, and located in the first gap region – with distances D1.
In re Claim 17, Herbert teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 16, wherein (Fig. 18) the first magnetic core 1065 has a staggered surface facing the second magnetic core 1010 and the second magnetic core 1010 has a flat surface facing the first magnetic core 1065.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert in view of Motoshi et al (JP H08233865).
In re Claim 1, Hebert teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 18):
a substrate 1000 (paragraph 0032);
a magnetic core 1065 (paragraph 0036) disposed on the substrate 1000, formed by sub-layers of different materials stacked alternatively on one another (obviously, when made as a multi-layered magnetic core per paragraphs 0026, 0031); and
a conductor coil 1055 (paragraph 0034) disposed on the substrate 1000, wherein
the magnetic core 1065 partially extends to a bottom surface of the conductor coil.
Herbert does not teach that the magnetic core extends to a level between an upper surface of the conductor coil and a bottom surface of the conductor coil.
Motoshi teaches (Fig. 1, paragraph 0011) that a magnetic core 5 partially extends from an upper surface of a conductor coil 3 to a level between the upper surface of the conductor coil 3 to a bottom surface of the conductor coil.
Herbert and Motoshi teach analogous arts directed to a conductor coil disposed between two magnetic cores, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Herbert device in view of the Motoshi device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Motoshi created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective data of filing the application to modify the Herbert device by extending its magnetic core from the upper surface of the conductor coil only to a level between the upper surface and the bottom of the coil, when it is desirable to use the coil between two magnetic cores as a current sensor (per Motoshi), and the modification made allows to increase a current detecting efficiency (Motoshi, Abstract).
Annotated Modified Fig. 18
PNG
media_image3.png
243
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The modified, per Motoshi, Fig. 18 of Herbert is shown as Annotated Modified Fig. 18, where “shorted” portions of protrusions (per Motoshi) are shown with thick black lines, and a text “Protrusions bottom” refers to bottom of shorted extensions of the magnetic core protrusions:
In re Claim 2, Hebert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Herbert further teaches that (Figs. 18 and 14) the conductor coil 1055 is wounded on a plane parallel to the substrate – as being a planar spiral inductor (paragraph 0034; see Figs. 1 and 3-4).
In re Claim 3, Herbert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Herbert further teaches that (Fig. 18 and Annotated Modified Fig. 18) the conductor coil 1055 is wounded around the magnetic core 1065.
In re Claim 4, Hebert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Herbert further teaches that (Fig. 18) the magnetic core 1065 has a staggered surface facing the conductor coil 1055.
In re Claim 5, Hebert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Herbert/Motoshi further teaches (Annotated Modified Fig. 18) that
the magnetic core comprises a main portion – Main portion (in Annotated Fig. 18) overlapping the conductor coil 1055, and
a protrusion – Protrusion (in Annotated Fig. 18) protruded from the main portion to the level between the upper surface of the conductor coil and the bottom surface of the conductor coil (wherein the bottom of the conductor coil reaches layer 1030).
In re Claim 8, Herbert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Herbert further teaches that the sub-layers of different materials comprise sub-layers of insulating material, sub-layers of conductive material, sub-layers of magnetic material, or a combination thereof Herbert teaches a combination of sub-layers of magnetic materials and insulating materials (paragraph 0031).
In re Claim 9, Herbert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 8 as cited above, including magnetic core sublayers.
Herbert further teaches (paragraph 0031) such magnetic core materials as ferrites or ferromagnetic Ni and Co.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to create the sub-layers of magnetic material from ferromagnetic material or sub-layers of ferrite material.
In re Claim 10, Herbert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above.
Herbert/Motoshi further teaches (Fig. 18 and Annotated Modified Fig. 18) that the magnetic core 1065 extends along a coil path corresponding to the conductor coil 1055.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert/Motoshi in view of Wang et al. (US 2004/0175926).
In re Claim 6, Herbert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 5 as cited above, including multiple sub-layers creating a magnetic core, but does not teach, at least explicitly, that a portion of the sub-layers of different materials constructs the protrusion such that each of the sub-layers of different materials constructing the protrusion has a U-shape cross section.
Wang teaches (Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 4) that an area having a protrusion (partially filled with layer 70) incorporating sub-layers 62 and 64 is created such that each of the sublayers of different materials constructure the protrusion has a U-shape cross section.
Annotated Fig. 4
PNG
media_image4.png
127
430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Herbert/Motoshi and Wang teach analogous arts directed to semiconductor devices elements of which comprise a stack of sub-layers, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Herbert/Motoshi device in view of the Wang teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Wang created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Herbert/Motoshi device by disposing sub-layers of the magnetic core such that each of them would have a U-shape in the protrusion (per Wang), in order to enable creation of multiple sublayers of the magnetic core in the protrusion.
In re Claim 7, Herbert/Motoshi teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above, including sub-layers of different materials creating the magnetic core.
Herbert/Motoshi does not teach, at least, explicitly, that the sub-layers of different materials extend to a same level at an upper surface of the magnetic core.
Wang teaches (Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 4) that sub-layers 62, 64, 70 of different materials are created such that they extend to a same level of an upper surface of element 62/64/70.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Herbert/Motoshi device by creating the magnetic core sub-layers such that they extend to a same level of the upper surface of the magnetic core (per Wang), in order to enable the magnetic core created as a laminate of sub-layers of different materials.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert in view of Wang.
In re Claim 11, Herbert teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 18):
a substrate 1000 (paragraph 0032);
a dielectric layer 1035, 1710, and air above and between 1065 (paragraphs 0034, 0037) disposed on the substrate 1000, wherein a trench – for 1065 - is formed in the dielectric layer;
a magnetic core 1065 (paragraph 0036) formed by sub-layers of different materials (paragraph 0026) stacked alternatively on one another (obviously, as appropriate for a multi-layer structure of the magnetic core) in the trench, wherein
a conductor coil 1055 (paragraph 0034) disposed on the substrate 1000, and wounded around the trench (as shown).
Herbert does not teach, at least, explicitly, that each of the sub-layers has a U-shape cross section in the trench.
Wang teaches (Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 4) that sub-layers 62 and 64 in a trench incorporating layers 62, 64, 70 are created such that each of the sublayers has a U-shape cross section in the trench.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective data of filing the application to modify the Herbert semiconductor device by disposing each of the sublayers in a trench intended for the magnetic core such that each sub-layer has a U-shape cross section (per Wang) in the trench, in order to enable creating the magnetic core comprising a stack of sub-layers.
In re Claim 12, Herbert/Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 11 as cited above, wherein the sublayers of different materials are disposed per Wang.
Herbert/Wang further teaches (Wang, Annotated Fig. 4) that sub-layers 62, 64 of different materials extend to a same level of an upper surface of a dielectric layer 34, 36 (paragraphs 0023, 0026).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify (or to understand that in) the Herbert/Wang semiconductor device of Claim 11 sub-layer of different material are created to extend to a same level of an upper surface of the dielectric layer, in order to enable the multilayer structure of the magnetic core.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert/Wang in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0109185).
In re Claim 13, Herbert/Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 11 as cited above.
Herbert further teaches (Fig. 18) that the conductor coil 1055 comprises wire sections (that have dielectric 1710 on their sides and tops) and conductor vias (which have barrier 1045, paragraph 0034, on their sides and bottom – number 1045 is shown in Fig. 16), the wire sections are parallel to each other.
Herbert/Wang does not teach a conductor coil has wire sections alternatively located at different levels, wherein the conductor vias connects between the wire sections – he teaches a planar conductive coil.
Lee teaches (Fig. 1, paragraph 0013) a conductor coil 168 that has wire sections 132 and 162 located at different levels, wherein conductive vias 152 connects between the wire sections 132 and 162. Although Lee teaches only two wire sections, wherein a recitation of “alternatively” means that there are more than two, there are multiple prior arts teaching inductor wires disposed on more than two levels (see for example, Tsai et al, US 2018/0308615), and more than two wire sections connected by vias can be created based on Fig. 1 of Lee. In addition, in accordance with MPEP Part 2100 VI REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS: B. Duplication of Parts: in accordance with In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960): “Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
Herbert/Wang and Lee teach analogous arts directed inductors comprised conductive coils and magnetic cores, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Herbert/Wang device in view of the Lee device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Lee created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Herbert/Wang device of Claim 11 by substituting its planar conductive coil with the Lee’ type of coil comprised alternating wire sections disposed at different sections with vias connecting adjacent wire sections, when such type of the conductive coil is preferred for the manufacturer: See MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2143 on a Conclusion of Obviousness: KSR Rational (B): Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results.
In re Claim 14, Hebert/Wang/Lee teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 13 as cited above, wherein, as Herbert shows (Fig. 18), the dielectric layer – e.g., layer 1710 - covers the conductor coil.
Lee also teaches (Fig. 1) one of the wire sections – for example, 132 - of the conductor coil – is covered with a dielectric layer 130 (when formed from materials of paragraphs 0013, 0031, 0037).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to cover one of the wire sections of the Herbert/Wang Lee device of Claim 13 with the dielectric layer.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert in view of Wang.
In re Claim 18, Herbert teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 16 as cited above.
Herbert further teaches that a magnetic core is formed by sub- layers of different materials (paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to create them by stacked the sub-layers alternatively on one another.
Herbert does not teach that the sub-layers of different materials extend to a same level at an upper surface of the first magnetic core.
Wang teaches (Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 4) that sub-layer of different materials 62 and 64 extend to a same level at an upper surface of element 62/64/70 in which they are disposed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing the application to create sub-layers of the first magnetic core (per Wang) such that they extend to a same upper level at an upper surface of the first magnetic core, in order to enable creation of the sub-layers of the first magnetic core.
In re Claim 19, Herbert teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 16 as cited above, including the second magnetic core.
Herbert further teaches that a magnetic core is formed by sub-layers of different materials (paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to stack these sub-layers alternatively on one another.
Hebert does not teach that the sub-layers of different materials extend to a same level at an upper surface of the second magnetic core.
Wang teaches (Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 4) that sub-layer of different materials 62 and 64 extend to a same level at an upper surface of element 62/64/68 in which they are disposed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing the application to create sub-layers of the second magnetic core (per Wang) such that they extend to a same upper level at an upper surface of the second magnetic core, in order to enable creation of the sub-layers of the second magnetic core.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herbert in view of Motoshi.
In re Claim 20, Herbert teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 16 as cited above.
Herbert further teaches (Fig. 18) that the first magnetic core 1065 comprises a main portion overlapping the conductor coil 1055 and protrusions protruded from the main portion to a bottom level of the conductive coil 1055.
Herbert does not teach that the protrusion are protruded to a level between an upper surface of the conductor coil and a bottom surface of the conductor coil.
Herbert does not teach that the magnetic core extends to a level between an upper surface of the conductor coil and a bottom surface of the conductor coil.
Motoshi teaches (Fig. 1, paragraph 0011) that a magnetic core 5 partially extends from an upper surface of a conductor coil 3 to a level between the upper surface of the conductor coil 3 to a bottom surface of the conductor coil.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Herbert device by extending protrusions of its magnetic core from the upper surface of the conductor coil only to a level between the upper surface and the bottom of the coil (as is shown in Annotated Modified Fig. 18), when it is desirable to use the coil between two magnetic cores as a current sensor (per Motoshi), and where the modification made allows to increase a current detecting efficiency (Motoshi, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15, as interpreted, has an allowable subject matter in its limitation: “adjacent wire sections are respectively located at opposite sides of the magnetic score”.
Reason for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious the above-cited limitation, in combination with limitations of Claims 11 and 13, on which Claim 15 depends.
The prior arts of record are the prior arts cited by the current Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 12/10/25