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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 2/10/2026.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 9-15 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “the first transmitter coil comprises a stack of at least two spiral windings formed on top of each other, one spiral in each layer of said first subset of metal layers, wherein adjacent spirals are interconnected by means of a plurality of vias which are spaced apart by less than 100 micron” as is currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
No prior art is being applied to Claims 16-20 because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “at least one metal shield in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack, said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias, said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil” as is currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, III, and VII in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 14, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-13,15, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claims 2-5, 7, 10-13,15, 17, and 18
These claims stand objected to because each claim introduces the claim using “A” instead of “The,” making it unclear whether this claim is intended to be an independent claim or dependent claim. It is suggested to use “The” for these claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, and 20 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.
As to Claims 2, 10, and 17,
The phrase “the first subset” on lines 9, 12, and 14 is indefinite. More than one first subset was previously recited, one for the interconnection stack (recited a second time on line 1 of the last paragraph) and one for the metal layers of Claim 1. It is therefore unclear what first subset applicant is referencing with this phrase.
As to Claims 3, 11, and 20,
The phrases “a transmitter circuit comprised in said active surface” on line 2 of Claims 3 and 11 and line 6 of Claim 20, and “a receiver circuit comprised in said active surface” on line 4 of Claims 3 and 11 and line 8 of Claim 20 are indefinite. It is unclear what applicant means by reciting that these circuits are “comprised in said active surface,” in that it is unclear if applicant is claiming that the circuits are positioned in the active surface, or include a portion of the active surface but are not necessarily located in the active surface. Meaning, the circuits can be on the active surface and thus comprise a portion of it as they take up space on the active surface. This phrase is therefore indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the circuits can be located on the surface and thus comprise a portion of the surface.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As to Claims 2, 10, and 17,
The phrase “the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer being the same metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer different from the metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed” on lines 2-7 fails to include all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 9.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 expressly recite “the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers” (emphasis added) on lines 1-2 of the second to last paragraph of Claims 1 and 16 or lines 1-3 of the second to last paragraph in Claim 9. This paragraph expressly includes the claim scope that the first receiver coil can be formed in more than on metal layer, as the claim expressly recites that the coil is formed in a second subset of “at least one metal layer” selected from the plurality of metal layers. The above claim phrase from Claims 2, 10, and 17 removes this claim scope as it no longer permits the first receiver coil to be formed in more than one metal layer. While such a phrase may further limit the claim, it also removes claim scope that was expressly included in Claims 1, 9, and 16. Adding new claim features or further limiting claim features is permitted (and required in dependent claims), but dependent claims cannot remove claim features that were included in a parent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluge et al. (Kluge) (WO 2019/141854).
As to Claim 1,
Kluge discloses A proximity sensor device, comprising: a single semiconductor die (chip 100) comprising a semiconductor substrate having an active surface (top surface of bottom layer), and an interconnection stack on top of the active surface (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and each have connections such as 121,131 along with the connections 141 for the transmitter coil 140 in Figure 1, which collectively form an interconnection stack); the single semiconductor die comprising at least one component selected from the group consisting of: an active component, a passive component (one of the contacts 105), and a bond pad (Figure 1), (Page 21, Lines 32-33); the interconnection stack comprising a plurality of at least two metal layers separated by isolation layers (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and the receiver coils must be separated from each other by insulating material or else they would short each other, as such, the layered metal for each coil is interpreted as a metal layer, and the insulation that must exist between the metal layers are the insulation layers); the interconnection stack comprising at least a first transmitter coil (140) and a first receiver coil (120a) (Figures 2d,2f); the first transmitter coil having a first spiral course with at least three turns formed in a first subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figure 2d / note the layers are stacked), and wherein an orthogonal projection of the first spiral course on the active surface has a first inner periphery and a first outer periphery (Figure 2d); the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figures 2d,2f), and wherein an orthogonal projection of the second spiral course on the active surface has a second inner periphery and a second outer periphery (Figure 2f); the second outer periphery being situated inside the first inner periphery (Figures 2d,2f), (Page 27, Lines 6-9 / note the receiver coils of Figure 2d can alternatively have the non-circular shape such as the spiral hexagon shape of Figure 2f), (Page 27, Lines 11-31).
As to Claim 2,
Kluge discloses the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer being the same metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in only one metal layer, and the first receiver coil is formed in only one metal layer different from the metal layer in which the transmitter coil is formed; or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in a first subset of the interconnection stack, the first subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first subset and the second subset have at least one metal layer in common (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the subsets can be defined such that one transmitter coil layer or one coil layer is common to both subsets); or wherein the first transmitter coil is formed in a first subset of the interconnection stack, the first subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first receiver coil is formed in a second subset of the interconnection stack, the second subset containing at least two metal layers; and wherein the first subset and the second subset have at least one or at least two metal layers in common.
As to Claim 3,
Kluge discloses a transmitter circuit (wires connecting to transmitter coil) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first transmitter coil (Figure 1), and configured for transmitting an alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit an alternative signal); a receiver circuit (wires connecting to receiver coils) comprised in said active surface (Figure 1), and connected to the first receiver coil (Figure 1), and configured for receiving said alternating signal (Figure 1 / note the wires can transmit/receive an alternating signal); an evaluation circuit (110) comprised in or connected to the receiver circuit (Figure 1), and configured for determining whether the target is in a first predefined position or a second predefined position, and for outputting a corresponding signal or value, or for opening or closing an internal switch between two terminals of the proximity sensor device (Figure 1), (Page 21, Last two lines), (Page 22, Lines 1-3 / note the determination unit (110) is reasonable the device performing position determination, and thus determining the position of the object being detected, and can reasonably output any determination via contacts 105).
As to Claim 5,
Kluge discloses the substrate further comprises a second receiver coil (another of the receiver coils in the layers) electrically insulated from the first transmitter coil (Page 22, Lines 22-23), (Figures 1, 2d, 2f / note the receiver coils are in their own respective layer, and each must be insulated from the transmitter coil); the second receiver coil having a third spiral course with at least three turns formed in a third subset of at least one or at least two metal layers selected from said plurality of metal layers (Figures 2d,2f), (Page 27, Lines 6-9 / note the receiver coils of Figure 2d can alternatively have the non-circular shape such as the spiral hexagon shape of Figure 2f), (Page 27, Lines 11-31); wherein the first subset and the third subset share at least one metal layer (the subsets can be defined to include a shared layer); and wherein an orthogonal projection of the third spiral course on the active surface is situated completely within the inner periphery of the first transmitter coil (Figures 2d,2f).
As to Claim 8,
Kluge discloses A proximity sensor system comprising: a proximity sensor device according to claim 1 (see the above rejection of Claim 1); and an electrically conductive target or a magnetic target movable along a predefined trajectory relative to the proximity sensor device between a first position and a second position (Page 18, Lines 24-31 / note the target must move between two positions as it is moving).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,018,963 (‘963). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
As to Claim 1,
‘963 discloses A proximity sensor device, comprising: a single semiconductor die comprising a semiconductor substrate having an active surface, and an interconnection stack on top of the active surface; the single semiconductor die comprising at least one component selected from the group consisting of: an active component, a passive component, and a bond pad; the interconnection stack comprising a plurality of at least two metal layers separated by isolation layers; the interconnection stack comprising at least a first transmitter coil and a first receiver coil; the first transmitter coil having a first spiral course with at least three turns formed in a first subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers, and wherein an orthogonal projection of the first spiral course on the active surface has a first inner periphery and a first outer periphery; the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers, and wherein an orthogonal projection of the second spiral course on the active surface has a second inner periphery and a second outer periphery; the second outer periphery being situated inside the first inner periphery (Claims 1 and 5).
(Note: ‘963 uses the almost identical claim language as is found in the above claim, and thus clearly discloses the claim features).
As to Claim 9,
‘963 discloses An integrated proximity sensor device, comprising: a single semiconductor die comprising a semiconductor substrate having an active surface, and an interconnection stack on top of the active surface; the single semiconductor die comprising at least one component selected from the group consisting of: an active component, a passive component, and a bond pad; the interconnection stack comprising a plurality of at least two metal layers separated by isolation layers; the interconnection stack comprising at least a first transmitter coil and a first receiver coil; the first transmitter coil having a first spiral course with at least three turns formed in a first subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers, and wherein an orthogonal projection of the first spiral course on the active surface has a first inner periphery and a first outer periphery; the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers, and wherein an orthogonal projection of the second spiral course on the active surface has a second inner periphery and a second outer periphery; wherein the first transmitter coil comprises a stack of at least two spiral windings formed on top of each other, one spiral in each layer of said first subset of metal layers, wherein adjacent spirals are interconnected by means of a plurality of vias which are spaced apart by less than 100 micron (Claims 1 and 13).
(Note: ‘963 uses the almost identical claim language as is found in the above claim, and thus clearly discloses the claim features).
As to Claim 16,
‘963 discloses An integrated proximity sensor device, comprising: a single semiconductor die comprising a semiconductor substrate having an active surface, and an interconnection stack on top of the active surface; the single semiconductor die comprising at least one component selected from the group consisting of: an active component, a passive component, and a bond pad; the interconnection stack comprising a plurality of at least two metal layers separated by isolation layers; the interconnection stack comprising at least a first transmitter coil and a first receiver coil; the first transmitter coil having a first spiral course with at least three turns formed in a first subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers, and wherein an orthogonal projection of the first spiral course on the active surface has a first inner periphery and a first outer periphery; the first receiver coil having a second spiral course with at least three turns formed in a second subset of at least one metal layer selected from said plurality of metal layers, and wherein an orthogonal projection of the second spiral course on the active surface has a second inner periphery and a second outer periphery; the interconnection stack further comprising at least one metal shield in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack, said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias, said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil (Claims 1 and 6).
(Note: ‘963 uses the almost identical claim language as is found in the above claim, and thus clearly discloses the claim features. Also note that the shield is disclosed to be between an inner periphery of the transmitter coil and outer periphery of the receiver coil, and is therefore claimed to be between portions of the transmitter and receiver coils. Such claim scope reasonably includes being between the transmitter and receiver coils.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 18 are 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.
Claims 10, 11, 17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
As to Claim 4,
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 4 is the inclusion of “at least one metal shield in the form of a plurality of at least two tracks located on top of each other in at least two layers of the interconnection stack, said tracks being interconnected by a plurality of vias, said metal shield being located between the spiral windings of the transmitter coil and the spiral windings of the receiver coil.” It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
As to Claim 7,
The primary reason for the allowance of claim 7 is the inclusion of “the first transmitter coil comprises a stack of at least two spiral windings formed on top of each other, one spiral in each layer of said first subset of metal layers, wherein adjacent spirals are interconnected by means of a plurality of vias which are spaced apart by less than 100 micron.” It is these features found in the claim, as they are claimed in the combination that has not been found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record, which makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
As to Claims 10-13, 15, 17, 18, 20,
These claims depend from claims that only contain a double patenting rejection (or stand rejected for a 112 issue), and would otherwise be allowable for the same reasons as respective claims 7 and 10 as noted above. However, they stand objected to due, or would otherwise be allowable upon overcoming the double patenting rejections and 112 rejections, to the double patenting rejection but otherwise contain allowable subject matter (the same subject matter form their respective independent claims) because they incorporate that claim language.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 8,710,827 to Zhitomirsky which discloses two transmitter coils on opposite sides of a receiver coil, 2) US 2015/0292910 to Sasaki which discloses coils in layers for an induction encoder, and 3) US 8,723,510 to Nakamura which discloses a resolver with layered coils.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858