DETAILED ACTION
Office action sent 4/21/2026 withdrawn and new rejection recited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 8, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20, 22, 25, 27-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne et al. (US 11,201,619) (“Rinne”) in view of Thompson et al. (US 2021/0376822) (“Thompson”).
With regard to claim 1, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses a leadframe (“lead frame”, col. 8 ll. 64) -based voltage-isolated integrated circuit (IC) package 30 comprising: a leadframe substrate 44 having opposed first (top of 44) and second (bottom of 44) sides, wherein the leadframe substrate 44 includes first and second leadframes that are galvanically separate; a magnetic core 34 disposed on the first side (top of 44) of the leadframe substrate 44, wherein the magnetic core 34 comprises a soft ferromagnetic material 34; first 32 and second 36 integrated circuit (IC) die disposed on the second side (bottom of 44) of the leadframe substrate 44, wherein the first 32 and second 36 IC die are connected to the first and second leadframes 44, respectively; a body 42 including molding material encapsulating the first 32 and second 36 IC die; first and second coils (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 22) configured about the magnetic core 34 and connected to the first and second leadframes 44, respectively, wherein the first and second coils (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 22) and magnetic core 34 are configured as a transformer (“transformer 34 “, col. 9 ll. 55).
Rinne does not disclose a wall configured to surround the magnetic core; and a cover attached to the wall, wherein the cover is integral with the wall.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses a wall (“side walls suitably extend to and cover the sidewalls of the substrate”, par [0073]) configured to surround the magnetic core 16; and a cover (“cap may comprise a top planar surface”, par [0073]) attached to the wall (“side walls extending down”, par [0073]), wherein the cover (“cap”, par [0073]) is integral (“the cap may comprise a top planar surface with side walls extending downwards”, par [0073]) with the wall (“side wall”, par [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 2, Rinne discloses not disclose that the wall is integral with the body and provides an enclosure volume within the body, and wherein the magnetic core is disposed in the enclosure volume.
However, fig. 1-2 of Thompson discloses that the wall (“side walls suitably extend to and cover the sidewalls of the substrate”, par [0073]) is integral with the body (“side walls suitably extend to and cover the sidewalls of the substrate”, par [0073]) and provides an enclosure volume 10 within the body (“side walls”, par [0073]), and wherein the magnetic core 16 is disposed in the enclosure volume 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 3, Rinne does not disclose an encapsulant disposed in the enclosure volume for protection of the magnetic core.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses an encapsulant (“encapsulating material in the cavity moulding”, par [0039]) disposed in the enclosure volume 10 for protection of the magnetic core 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 4, Rinne does not disclose that the encapsulant comprises silicone.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses that the encapsulant (“second insulating material”, par [0067]) comprises silicone (“silicone”, par [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 8, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses the first (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 31) and/or second coil comprises uninsulated wire (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 31).
With regard to claim 11, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses that the first and second coils (“primary and secondary windings”, abstract) are configured as primary and secondary coils (“primary and secondary windings”, abstract) in a step-up transformer (“transformer”, abstract) configuration.
With regard to claim 12, Rinne does not discloses that the magnetic core comprise ferrite.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses that the magnetic core 16 comprise ferrite (“magnetic core such as ferrite is used”, par [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the magnetic core of Rinne with ferrite as taught in Thompson in order to transfer control signals and power across the galvanic barrier. See par [0013] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 15, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses leadframe substrate 44 comprises a molded 42 leadframe substrate 44.
With regard to claim 16, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses a method of making a leadframe (“lead frame”, col. 8 ll. 64) -based voltage-isolated integrated circuit (IC) package 30 the method comprising: providing a leadframe substrate 44 having opposed first (top of 44) and second (bottom of 44) sides, wherein the leadframe substrate 44 includes first and second leadframes that are galvanically separate; a magnetic core 34 disposed on the first side (top of 44) of the leadframe substrate 44, wherein the magnetic core 34 comprises a soft ferromagnetic material 34; first 32 and second 36 integrated circuit (IC) die disposed on the second side (bottom of 44) of the leadframe substrate 44, wherein the first 32 and second 36 IC die are connected to the first and second leadframes 44, respectively; providing a body 42 including molding material encapsulating the first 32 and second 36 IC die; providing first and second coils (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 22) configured about the magnetic core 34 and connected to the first and second leadframes 44, respectively, wherein the first and second coils (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 22) and magnetic core 34 are configured as a transformer (“transformer 34 “, col. 9 ll. 55).
Rinne does not disclose a wall configured to surround the magnetic core, wherein providing the wall comprises affixing a cover to the body, wherein the wall is integral with the cover.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses a wall (“side walls suitably extend to and cover the sidewalls of the substrate”, par [0073]) configured to surround the magnetic core 16, wherein providing the wall (“side walls extending down”, par [0073]) comprises affixing a cover (“cap”, par [0073]) to the body, wherein the wall (“side wall”, par [0073]) is integral (“the cap may comprise a top planar surface with side walls extending downwards”, par [0073]) with the cover (“cap”, par [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 17, Rinne does not disclose providing the wall comprises forming the wall as part of the body.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson disclose providing the wall (“side walls suitably extend to and cover the sidewalls of the substrate”, par [0073]) comprises forming the wall as part of the body (“side walls”, par [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 19, Rinne does not disclose that the wall provides an enclosure volume for the magnetic core, and further comprising providing an encapsulant disposed in the enclosure volume for encapsulating the magnetic core.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses that the wall (“wall”, par [0057]) provides an enclosure volume 10 for the magnetic core 16, and further comprising providing an encapsulant (“encapsulating material in the cavity moulding”, par [0039]) disposed in the enclosure volume 10 for encapsulating the magnetic core 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 20, Rinne does not disclose that the encapsulant comprises silicone.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses that the encapsulant (“second insulating material”, par [0067]) comprises silicone (“silicone”, par [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the transformer of Rinne with the sidewall as taught in Thompson in order protect the transformer from the environment. See par [0055] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 22, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses the first (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 31) and/or second coil comprises uninsulated wire (“winding”, col. 11 ll. 31).
With regard to claim 25, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses that the first and second coils (“primary and secondary windings”, abstract) are configured as primary and secondary coils (“primary and secondary windings”, abstract) in a step-up transformer (“transformer”, abstract) configuration.
With regard to claim 27, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses providing the first 32 and second IC die 36 comprises connecting the first 32 and second IC die 36 to the first and second leadframes 44, respectively, using flip chip attachments 46.
With regard to claim 28, Rinne does not discloses that the magnetic core comprise ferrite.
However, fig. 3 of Thompson discloses that the magnetic core 16 comprise ferrite (“magnetic core such as ferrite is used”, par [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the magnetic core of Rinne with ferrite as taught in Thompson in order to transfer control signals and power across the galvanic barrier. See par [0013] of Thompson.
With regard to claim 31, fig. 5 of Rinne discloses leadframe substrate 44 comprises a molded 42 leadframe substrate 44.
Claims 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne et al. (US 11,201,619) (“Rinne”), Thompson et al. (US 2021/0376822) (“Thompson”), and Iverson et al. (US 2005/0017054) (“Iverson”).
With regard to claim 7, Rinne and Thompson does not disclose that the first and/or second coil comprises insulated wire.
However, Iverson discloses that the first (“coil of insulated wire”, par [0005]) and/or second coil comprises insulated wire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the windings of Rinne with the insulated wire as taught in Iverson in order to electrically isolate the coil from the transformer load. See par [0005] of Iverson.
With regard to claim 21, Rinne and Thompson does not disclose that the first and/or second coil comprises insulated wire.
However, Iverson discloses that the first (“coil of insulated wire”, par [0005]) and/or second coil comprises insulated wire.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the windings of Rinne with the insulated wire as taught in Iverson in order to electrically isolate the coil from the transformer load. See par [0005] of Iverson.
Claims 9-10 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne et al. (US 11,201,619) (“Rinne”), Thompson et al. (US 2021/0376822) (“Thompson”), and Crocker (US 8,665,048).
With regard to claim 9, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose the first and/or second coil comprises insulated ribbon cables.
However, fig. 3 of Crocker discloses a coil 30 comprises insulated (“electric insulator”, col. 4 ll. 13-14) ribbon cables (“conductor ribbon 30”, col. 4 ll. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the windings of Rinne with the ribbon as taught in Crocker in order to mitigate the skin effect. By using a ribbon of a thickness of the same order as the skin depth, the current density remains high throughout the ribbon. 2) The packing density of a ribbon winding of this type is superior to that of a smaller, round conductor. 3) There is no additional volumetric inefficiency from using bunches of conductors. See col. 4 ll. 37-43 of Crocker.
With regard to claim 10, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose that the first and/or second coil comprises flexible ribbon cables.
However, fig. 3 of Crocker discloses a coil 30 comprises flexible (“ribbon is wound”, col. 4 ll. 10) ribbon cables (“conductor ribbon 30”, col. 4 ll. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the windings of Rinne with the ribbon as taught in Crocker in order to mitigate the skin effect. By using a ribbon of a thickness of the same order as the skin depth, the current density remains high throughout the ribbon. 2) The packing density of a ribbon winding of this type is superior to that of a smaller, round conductor. 3) There is no additional volumetric inefficiency from using bunches of conductors. See col. 4 ll. 37-43 of Crocker.
With regard to claim 23, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose the first and/or second coil comprises insulated ribbon cables.
However, fig. 3 of Crocker discloses a coil 30 comprises insulated (“electric insulator”, col. 4 ll. 13-14) ribbon cables (“conductor ribbon 30”, col. 4 ll. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the windings of Rinne with the ribbon as taught in Crocker in order to mitigate the skin effect. By using a ribbon of a thickness of the same order as the skin depth, the current density remains high throughout the ribbon. 2) The packing density of a ribbon winding of this type is superior to that of a smaller, round conductor. 3) There is no additional volumetric inefficiency from using bunches of conductors. See col. 4 ll. 37-43 of Crocker.
With regard to claim 24, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose that the first and/or second coil comprises flexible ribbon cables.
However, fig. 3 of Crocker discloses a coil 30 comprises flexible (“ribbon is wound”, col. 4 ll. 10) ribbon cables (“conductor ribbon 30”, col. 4 ll. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the windings of Rinne with the ribbon as taught in Crocker in order to mitigate the skin effect. By using a ribbon of a thickness of the same order as the skin depth, the current density remains high throughout the ribbon. 2) The packing density of a ribbon winding of this type is superior to that of a smaller, round conductor. 3) There is no additional volumetric inefficiency from using bunches of conductors. See col. 4 ll. 37-43 of Crocker.
Claims 13-14 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne et al. (US 11,201,619) (“Rinne”), Thompson et al. (US 2021/0376822) (“Thompson”), and Doljack et al. (US 2015/0285841) (“Doljack”).
With regard to claim 13, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose magnetic core comprises a nickel alloy.
However, Doljack discloses magnetic core 320 comprises a nickel alloy (“magnetic core element 320 may be fabricated from nickel-iron alloys “, par [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the magnetic core of Rinne with the nickel-iron alloy as taught in Doljack in order to provide a suitable magnetic material. See par [0079] of Doljack.
With regard to claim 14, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose magnetic core comprises iron particles.
However, Doljack discloses magnetic core 320 comprises iron particles (“magnetic core element 320 may be fabricated from nickel-iron alloys “, par [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the magnetic core of Rinne with the nickel-iron alloy as taught in Doljack in order to provide a suitable magnetic material. See par [0079] of Doljack.
With regard to claim 29, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose magnetic core comprises a nickel alloy.
However, Doljack discloses magnetic core 320 comprises a nickel alloy (“magnetic core element 320 may be fabricated from nickel-iron alloys “, par [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the magnetic core of Rinne with the nickel-iron alloy as taught in Doljack in order to provide a suitable magnetic material. See par [0079] of Doljack.
With regard to claim 30, Rinne and Thompson do not disclose magnetic core comprises iron particles.
However, Doljack discloses magnetic core 320 comprises iron particles (“magnetic core element 320 may be fabricated from nickel-iron alloys “, par [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the magnetic core of Rinne with the nickel-iron alloy as taught in Doljack in order to provide a suitable magnetic material. See par [0079] of Doljack.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinne et al. (US 11,201,619) (“Rinne”), Thompson et al. (US 2021/0376822) (“Thompson”), and Khanolkar (US 2020/0211939).
With regard to claim 26, fig. 5 of Rinne disclose providing the first 32 and second IC die 36 comprises connecting the first 32 and second IC die 36 to the first and second leadframes, respectively, with wire bonds.
However, Khanolkar discloses connecting the first 102 and second 106 IC die to the first 126 and second 137 leadframes, respectively, with wire bonds 115.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the integrated circuits to the conductive tracks of Rinne using bond wires as taught in Khanolkar in order to provide interconnection of the semiconductor dies to the conductive leads. See par [0025] of Khanolkar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN T LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-6009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-7:30pm.
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, Yara J Green can be reached at 571 270-3035. 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.
/BENJAMIN TZU-HUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights