DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/9/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the objection to the specification set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 3/11/2026 (“FAOM”), which is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of the Remarks filed 6/9/2026 (“Remarks”), with respect to the drawings objections have been considered and found partially persuasive. The objections to Figures 4 and 5 are withdrawn.
Regarding Fig. 2, the Applicant argues that “Applicant’s specification does not describe any of the drawings as prior art” (Remarks at 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification describes Fig. 2 as “port notations for a typical, stand-along directional coupler” (¶23)(emphasis added). This typical stand-along directional coupler of Fig. 2 is then contrasted with the claimed invention (Specification at ¶26). Thus, Fig. 2 shows a prior art device and must be labeled accordingly. The drawings objection to Fig. 2 is maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 13-19 and 21, the Applicant argues (Remarks at 9-11):
The wire loop 408 described by Kase is not configured to magnetically couple to the wire loop 407, as required by claim 13. Kase's wire loops 407 and 408 are electrically connected by the unlabeled via, and Kase describes that “[t]he wire loops 407 and 408 form an inductor ... designed to resonate with other passive components.” [Kase, ¶34]. Thus, the wire loop 408 described by Kase cannot magnetically couple to the wire loop 407 because the two wire loops 407 and 408 are directly electrically connected to each other.
As a result, Kase fails to disclose or suggest a device comprising ''a primary coil; [and] a secondary coil implemented in the first metal layer and configured to magnetically couple to the primary coil," as recited in independent claim 13.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the FAOM at 3-4 and below, Kase discloses a primary coil (Fig. 4, wire loop 407 in/on dielectric layer 403) and a secondary coil (wire loop 408 in/on dielectric layer 404). Even assuming the Applicant is correct that the via identified by the Applicant in Fig. 4 (Remarks at 10) does, in fact, electrically connects the wire loop 407 to the wire loop 408, it does not mean that the two wire loops “cannot magnetically couple,” as the Applicant argues.
Because the two wire loops are stacked over each other and separated by a dielectric layer, magnetic flux in wire loop 407 will entangle magnetic flux in wire loop 408 causing the two wires to be magnetically coupled and creating additional mutual inductance between the wire loops. Similar to an autotransformer, in which both parts of the winding are shared between the primary and secondary and power is transferred both magnetically and electrically, wire loops 407 and 408 are electromagnetically coupled to each other and therefore are “configured to magnetically couple,” as required by the claim. For the foregoing reasons, the rejections of claims 13-19 and 21 are maintained, as set forth below.
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 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0359216 A1, published Dec. 8, 2016 (“Kase”).
Kase discloses in Figs. 2-4 and the corresponding description:
PNG
media_image1.png
733
1295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13
A device (Fig. 2, combined matching network and coupler 202; Fig. 4, integrated coupler, ¶¶32-35) comprising:
a first metal layer (Fig. 4, annotated, metal trace 408);
a second metal layer (metal trace 409) different from the first metal layer;
a primary coil (wire loop 407);
a secondary coil (wire loop 408) implemented in the first metal layer (metal trace 408) and configured to magnetically couple to the primary coil; and
a tertiary coil (wire loop 409) implemented in the second metal layer (metal trace 409) and coupled to the secondary coil,
wherein an area of the secondary coil implemented in the first metal layer (404) at least partially overlaps with an area of the tertiary coil (409) implemented in the second metal layer (Fig. 4, annotated as an “area of overlap”).
Claim 14
wherein the first metal layer and the second metal layer are adjacent metal layers (Fig. 4, metal traces 408 and 409 are adjacent).
Claim 15
wherein the second metal layer is a top metal layer (Fig. 4, metal trace 409 is a top metal layer from a top-down perspective of the device).
Claim 16
wherein the tertiary coil (409) is on top of the secondary coil (408) (Fig. 4).
Claim 17
further comprising a third metal layer (metal trace 407) different from the first metal layer and the second metal layer,
wherein the primary coil (wire loop 407) is implemented in the third metal layer, and
wherein the area of the tertiary coil at least partially overlaps an area of the primary coil (Fig. 4).
Claim 18
wherein the first metal layer (metal trace 408) is adjacent to the second metal layer (metal trace 409), and
wherein the first metal layer (metal trace 408) is adjacent to the third metal layer (metal trace 407) (Fig. 4).
Claim 19
wherein the tertiary coil (409) is coupled to the secondary coil (408) based on at least one of (i) an inherent capacitance between the tertiary coil and the secondary coil (Fig. 4, ¶¶32-35), or (ii) a capacitor that couples the tertiary coil with the secondary coil.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kase in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0407210 A1, published Dec. 22, 2012 (“Dinc”).
As set forth above, Kase discloses all the limitations of claim 21, except wherein the tertiary coil is structured to have an anti-turn to define an anti-turn area of the tertiary coil.
However, Dinc, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a directional coupler 300 including a tertiary coil 304 structured to have an anti-turn in the conductive loop 305 defining an anti-turn area of the tertiary coil (Fig. 3, ¶23 “conductive loop 305 reverses the direction of current flow”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tertiary coil of Kase to have an anti-turn for the benefit of controlling magnetic coupling, as taught by Dinc (¶23). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to carry out this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because both Kase and Dinc disclose structurally similar directional couplers made of similar materials, operating in similar manner and used in similar applications.
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 VICTOR COLE, telephone number (571) 272-4686. The examiner can be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM ET.
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 www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL, can be reached at (571) 272-5918. 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and 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.
/VICTOR COLE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights