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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Feldtkeller fails to teach or suggest a substrate over element 51. Instead, Feldtkeller states that the windings are all inside of element 51. Feldtkeller states "The second windings 20_1, 20_2 are dielectrically isolated from the primary winding 10 and from one another by a dielectric layer 51." (Feldtkeller at paragraph 0020). Further, Figure la of Feldtkeller clearly shows that all of the windings are within element 51. Thus, Feldtkeller fails to reasonably teach or suggest the recited "a second substrate over the dielectric layer; and a second conductive winding over the second substrate." The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first three lines of claim 17 discloses a first conductive winding in a dielectric layer, a second substrate over the dielectric layer and a second conductive winding over the second substrate. Feldtkeller (figures 1a-2 and para 0019-0042) clearly discloses these claimed limitations. Para 0023 of Feldtkeller discloses metalization levels that are layers within an isolation or dielectric layer. As clearly seen in figure 1a of Feldtkeller by the dashed lines, the windings are stacked on one another in different levels/layers inside the isolation/dielectric layer. Since the windings are not on the same level/layer and are above one another. One of ordinary skill in the art can broadly reasonably interpret that the windings are stacked on one another in different levels/layers. The dielectric layer that’s between the first and second conductive windings (20-1/20-2) can be broadly reasonably as a substate. The claim does not disclose the material make-up of the substrate. The claim only just suggests that a second substate is over the dielectric layer. A dielectric layer can be broadly reasonably interpreted as a substrate. A substrate is simply a substrate is the base layer of something, or a layer that's underneath another layer. It can also be a surface on which an organism grows or is attached. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/substrate. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
445
913
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
1 Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldtkeller (US 20080290976) in view of Kawashita et al. (US 20080101097)
Regarding claim 17, Feldtkeller (figures 1a-2 and para 0019-0042) discloses a first conductive winding (20-1) in a dielectric layer (51) (see para 0020); a second substrate over the dielectric layer (see figure 1a); and a second conductive winding over the second substrate (20-2), wherein a first portion of the second conductive winding is permanently electrically connected to the first conductive winding (see para disclosing wherein the windings are in a series connection).
Feldtkeller does not expressly discloses wherein a second portion of the second conductive winding is selectively electrically connected to the first conductive winding.
Kawashita et al. (figure 8 and para 0078-0084) discloses a teaching wherein a second portion of the second conductive winding is selectively electrically connected to the first conductive winding. (see the switches Q3/Q4 selectively electrically connected a second portion N3 to N6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants invention to design wherein a second portion of the second conductive winding is selectively electrically connected to the first conductive winding as taught by Kawashita et al. to the inductive device of Feldtkeller so as the allow the inductive device the capability to prevent abrupt current drops, protect components, and filter out high-frequency noise.
Regarding claim 19, Feldtkeller (figures 1e/1f and para 0034-0035) discloses further comprising an inter-level via (31_1), wherein the ILV is configured to permanently electrically connect the first conductive winding to the second conductive winding.
Regarding claim 20, Feldtkeller (figure 1a) discloses a second dielectric layer (51) over the second substrate, wherein the second conductive winding is in the second dielectric layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 1-16 are allowed.
2. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship, a switch in the second substrate; an inter-level via (ILV) in the second substrate; and a second conductive winding over the second substrate, wherein the second conductive winding comprises a conductive line around a central opening, the switch is electrically connected to the second conductive winding on a first side of the opening, and the ILV is electrically connected to the second conductive winding on a second side of the opening opposite the first side as claimed in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the interconnection and interrelationship, a plurality of switches in the second substrate; an inter-level via (ILV) in the second substrate; and a second conductive winding over the second substrate, wherein the ILV electrically connects a first portion of the second conductive winding to the first conductive winding, and each of the plurality of switches selectively connects a second portion of the second conductive winding to the first conductive winding as claimed in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 9.
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitation, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitation.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are allowed because each claim is directly or indirectly dependent of independent claims 1 or 9.
Claims 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -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, Shawki 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights