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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 13, 2025 has been entered.
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on November 13, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 15, and 22 are amended; claims 7-14, 17, 21, 23, 24, and 26-32 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-6, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 25, and 33 pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 10 of claim 15, the limitation reciting “a least one of the first coil portion and the second coil portion is bendless” appears to contain a typographical error that should instead read --at least one of the first coil portion and the second coil portion is bendless--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 15, 16, 18-20, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushima et al. (JP 2007-134568, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Matsushima et al. teaches a laminated coil component (10; device) comprising a spiral coil (12) formed within a ceramic sintered body unit (11) ([0024], Figs. 1-4). In the laminated coil component, the spiral coil conductor is formed between ceramic layers (15, 17) formed by laminating, pressing, and firing green ceramic sheets (21, 21’), each screen printed with an L-shaped coil conductor (13) using a conductive paste ([0016], [0024], [0027]). Matsushima et al. teaches that the ceramic green sheets are made of a magnetic ceramic material ([0002], [0041]), thus corresponding to the claimed first, second, and third magnetic layers as illustrated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsushima et al. further teaches that the coil (12) is constituted by coil conductors (13) which are sequentially electrically connected by first via hole conductors (22a), in which first via holes (22) are filled with conductive paste containing Ag as a main component ([0023], [0027]). Thus, the first via holes (22) filled with conductive Ag paste correspond to the claimed first and second vias filled with a printed metallic material in the first and second magnetic layers. As illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 above, the L-shaped coil conductors (13) printed on the first and second magnetic layers each include a short portion and a long portion, where each of the short and long portions are straight (i.e., bendless). Either of the short or long portions of the L-shaped coil conductor arranged over and contacting the first magnetic layer can be taken to correspond to the claimed first coil portion, while either of the short or long portions of the coil conductor arranged over and contacting the second magnetic layer can be taken to correspond to the claimed second coil portion.
Regarding claim 2, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the laminated coil component can be used as an electronic component such as a capacitor or an inductor [0002].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Matsushima et al. teaches that the spiral coil (12) is constituted by coil conductors (13) ([0024]), such that the first and second coil portions described above are part of the coil. Matsushima et al. further teaches that the first via hole conductors (22a), which are first via holes (22) filled with conductive paste, correspond to the ends of the coil which enable the coil to be electrically connected to external electrodes [0014]. Therefore, the first via hole conductor (22a; first via) is an end of the coil, thus corresponding to the claimed terminal. Matsushima et al. further teaches that the external electrode (18) may be made of Ag ([0032], [0034]), such that the terminal is coated with Ag by the external electrode.
Regarding claim 5, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the magnetic ceramic material that can be used as the material for the sintered body unit may be Ni-Zn-Cu ferrite or Ni-Zn ferrite powder ([0026], [0041], [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. As noted above, Matsushima et al. teaches that the coil (12) is formed by sequentially connecting coil conductors (13) by first via hole conductors (22a) ([0024]), and further illustrates the coil (12) as having a three-dimensional structure (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Matsushima et al. teaches a laminated coil component (10; device) comprising a spiral coil (12) formed within a ceramic sintered body unit (11; collection of magnetic ink residue) ([0024], Figs. 1-4). The laminated coil component is formed by firing a ceramic laminate (26) which comprises through-hole sheets (25) made of ceramic green sheets (21’) having a second through hole (24) formed therethrough, and further comprises coil conductor sheets (23) made of ceramic green sheets (21) each printed with an L-shaped coil conductor (13) ([0026]-[0028]).
Matsushima et al. teaches that the spiral coil (12) is formed of coil conductors (13) which are sequentially electrically connected by first via hole conductors (22a), and that the coil conductors are screen printed on the ceramic green sheets using a conductive paste containing Ag as a main component ([0024], [0027]). Thus, the spiral coil formed of conductive paste corresponds to the claimed coil comprising metallic ink residue. Matsushima et al. further teaches that the through-hole sheets (25) are stacked on upper and lower sides of the stacked coil conductor sheets (23) and are pressed together to form a ceramic laminate (26) ([0029], Figs. 1-3). Upon pressing the sheets, the second through holes (24) in the through hole sheets (25) are filled with conductive paste, thus forming second via hole conductors (24a; first and second terminals) for exposing the coil (12) to the outside on first and second surfaces of the coil component ([0030], Figs. 3-4).
Matsushima et al. further teaches that the sintered body unit comprises multiple ceramic layers (15, 17) which are formed of fired ceramic green sheets (21, 21’), where the ceramic green sheets are made of a magnetic ceramic material ([0002], [0016], [0026], [0041], Figs. 1-4). Thus, the ceramic sintered body unit (11) comprising ceramic layers (15, 17) formed of fired ceramic green sheets (21, 21’) corresponds to the claimed collection of magnetic ink residue which includes a first layer and a second layer.
With respect to the claimed first and second coil portions, Matsushima et al. teaches that the coil (12) is constituted by L-shaped coil conductors (13) printed on each of the ceramic green sheets (21) ([0027], Fig. 1). As illustrated in annotated Fig. 1 below, the L-shaped coil conductors (13) in the first and second layers each include a short portion and a long portion, where each of the short and long portions are straight (i.e., bendless). Either of the short or long portions of the L-shaped coil conductor in the first layer can be taken to correspond to the claimed first coil portion, while either of the short or long portions of the coil conductor in the second layer can be taken to correspond to the claimed second coil portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
449
735
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitations directed to the magnetic ink residue and metallic ink residue being “inkjet printed” are interpreted as method limitations which do not determine the patentability of the product, as the inkjet printing process does not produce a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a nonobvious difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Matsushima et al. teaches that the magnetic layers are formed of a ceramic slurry and the conductive layers are formed of a conductive paste, each of which is structurally identical to a corresponding magnetic or metallic inkjet printed ink residue when deposited and dried.
Regarding claim 16, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the coil (12) is electrically connected to external electrodes (18) made of Ag by the second via hole conductors (24a; first and second terminals) ([0032], [0034]). Therefore, the first and second terminals are coated with Ag by the external electrodes.
Regarding claim 18, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the laminated coil component can be used as an electronic component such as a capacitor or an inductor [0002].
Regarding claim 19, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As noted above, Matsushima et al. teaches that the coil (12) is formed by sequentially connecting coil conductors (13) by first via hole conductors (22a) ([0024]), and further illustrates the coil (12) as having a three-dimensional structure (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 20, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As illustrated in Figs. 1-4, Matsushima et al. teaches that at least some of the ceramic material of the ceramic green sheets (21, 21’) is positioned along an axis passing through a length of the coil (12).
Regarding claim 33, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the magnetic ceramic material that can be used as the material for the sintered body unit may be Ni-Zn-Cu ferrite or Ni-Zn ferrite powder (magnetic particles) ([0026], [0041], [0048]).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 15, 16, 18-20, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 2017/0330673, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sato et al. teaches a multilayer coil component (1; device) comprising an element body (2) and a coil (15) disposed in the element body ([0026], [0037], Figs. 1-3). The coil includes a plurality of coil conductors (16a-16f) which are formed on insulator layers (6) and include sintered bodies of a conductive paste including Ag as a conductive material ([0038], Fig. 3). The insulator layers are each formed of a sintered body of a green sheet including ferrite material (e.g., Ni-Cu-Zn-based ferrite, Ni-Cu-Zn-Mg-based ferrite, or Ni-Cu-based ferrite) ([0030]), thus corresponding to the claimed first, second, and third magnetic layers.
PNG
media_image3.png
629
852
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sato et al. further teaches that the coil conductors (16a-16f) are electrically connected to one another by through-hole conductors (19a-19e; vias), which are filled with conductive paste including Ag as a conductive material [0041]. Thus, the through-hole conductors (19d, 19e) filled with conductive Ag paste correspond to the claimed first and second vias filled with a metallic material in the first and second magnetic layers. As illustrated in annotated Fig. 3 above, the coil conductors (16e, 16f) each include portions which are straight (i.e., bendless), such that the straight sections of the coil conductors correspond to the claimed first and second coil portions which are positioned in the second and third magnetic layers and over and contacting the first and second magnetic layers, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the multilayer coil component (1; device) is applicable to a bead inductor or a power inductor ([0026], Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, Sato et al. teaches that the insulator layers (first, second, and third magnetic layers) are each formed of a sintered body of a green sheet including ferrite material (e.g., Ni-Cu-Zn-based ferrite, Ni-Cu-Zn-Mg-based ferrite, or Ni-Cu-based ferrite) [0030]. The ferrite green sheets are obtained by forming a ferrite slurry containing ferrite powder (magnetic particles), solvent, and binder into sheet shapes [0045].
Regarding claim 15, Sato et al. teaches a multilayer coil component (1; device) comprising an element body (2; collection of magnetic ink residue) and a coil (15) disposed in the element body ([0026], [0037], Figs. 1-3). The coil includes a plurality of coil conductors (16a-16f) which are formed on insulator layers (6) and include sintered bodies of a conductive paste (metallic ink residue) including Ag as a conductive material ([0038], Fig. 3). The insulator layers are each formed of a sintered body of a green sheet including ferrite material (e.g., Ni-Cu-Zn-based ferrite, Ni-Cu-Zn-Mg-based ferrite, or Ni-Cu-based ferrite) ([0030]), thus corresponding to the claimed first and second layers.
PNG
media_image4.png
663
856
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sato et al. teaches that the coil includes connection conductors (17, 18; first and second terminals) disposed on end surface sides (2a, 2b; first and second surfaces) of the element body ([0039], Figs. 2-3). As illustrated in annotated Fig. 3 above, the coil conductors (16e, 16f) each include sections which are straight (i.e., bendless), such that the straight sections of the coil conductors correspond to the claimed first and second coil portions which are positioned in the first and second layers.
Regarding claim 16, Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the connection conductors (17, 18; first and second terminals) are connected to external electrodes (4) ([0039], Figs. 1-2). The external electrodes include an underlying electrode layer (7) which comprises a conductive metal powder, such as Ag powder [0033]. As shown in Fig. 2, the connection conductors (17, 18) are coated with the silver electrode layer (7).
Regarding claim 18, Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above and further teaches that the multilayer coil component (1; device) is applicable to a bead inductor or a power inductor ([0026], Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 19 and 20, Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As noted above, Sato et al. teaches that the coil (15) is formed of a plurality of coil conductors (16a-16f) ([0037]), and further illustrates the coil (15) as having a three-dimensional structure with some of the ferrite material (magnetic ink residue) of the element body (2) being positioned along an axis passing through a length of the coil (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 33, Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. As noted above, Sato et al. teaches that the insulator layers (collection of magnetic ink residue) are each formed of a sintered body of a green sheet including ferrite material (e.g., Ni-Cu-Zn-based ferrite, Ni-Cu-Zn-Mg-based ferrite, or Ni-Cu-based ferrite) [0030]. The ferrite green sheets are obtained by forming a ferrite slurry containing ferrite powder (magnetic particles), solvent, and binder into sheet shapes [0045].
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima et al. (JP 2007-134568, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Tam et al. (“High-concentration copper nanoparticles synthesis process for screen-printing conductive paste on flexible substrate”, 10.1007/s11051-015-3277-x; Published November 30, 2015; previously cited).
Regarding claims 22 and 25, Matsushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above but differs from the claimed invention in that the references teaches the use of silver (Ag) as the printed metallic material and does not expressly teach that the metallic material includes one of copper (Cu) and palladium (Pd).
However, in the analogous art of printed electronics, Tam et al. teaches using copper nanoparticles to form a screen-printing conductive paste, where copper nanoparticles are used as a replacement for silver nanoparticles in some applications of printed electronics due to their much lower cost and high conductivity (p. 465).
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 coil component of Matsushima et al. by using copper particles as the metallic material instead of silver particles, as taught by Tam et al., given that both copper and silver particles are recognized as equivalent materials for use in conductive inks for printed electronics, while copper nanoparticle inks have the advantage of a much lower cost.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2017/0330673, previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2005/0176246, previously cited).
Regarding claims 22 and 25, Sato et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 15 above. Although Sato et al. teaches that the coil conductors (16a-16f) may include a conductive material with lower electric resistance than Pd, wherein Ag is listed as an exemplary material used to form the coil conductors ([0035], [0038]), the reference does not expressly teach that the printed metallic material includes one of copper and palladium.
However, in the analogous art of printed electronics, Yang teaches a method for manufacturing an electronic component, such as an inductor, comprising ink jet printing at least one patterned conductive layer of an ink jet printable composition on a substrate, wherein the substrate may be ceramic, and the patterned layer may be provided as patterned lines as well as via fills ([0048], [0052]-[0063]). Similar to Sato et al., Yang teaches that its conductive ink includes conductive functional materials such as gold, silver, copper, palladium, and others common in the art of conductor compositions [0023].
Given that silver and copper both have a lower electric resistance than palladium, 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 coil component of Sato et al. by substituting the silver conductive powder with copper powder, as suggested by Yang, based on the art-recognized equivalence of these materials for use in printed conductors.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of the remarks filed November 13, 2025 with respect to amended claims 1 and 15 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.
In light of the amendments to the claims removing the limitations directed to the particle size of the metallic particles, Lee et al. and Yang et al. are no longer relied upon as secondary references, and Matsushima et al. and Sato et al. are applied under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the office action above. The rejections based on Matsushima et al. and Sato et al. have also been modified to address the new limitations requiring that at least one of the first and second coil portions is bendless. The Applicant’s arguments will be addressed insofar as they apply to the current rejections presented above.
With respect to Matsushima et al., the Applicant argues on page 5 of the remarks that portions of element (13) in Matsushima are considered as the first coil portion and the second coil portion, but that all portions of element (13) are bended. The Applicant thus argues that neither of the alleged first or second coil portions is bendless.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, each of the L-shaped coil conductors (13) taught by Matsushima et al. includes a short portion and a long portion, where each of the short and long portions are straight (i.e., bendless). Either of the short or long portions of the L-shaped coil conductors can be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed first and second coil portions. It is noted that the current language of the claim does not set forth a specific structural relationship between the first and second coil portions, such that any segment (i.e., portion) of a coil conductor can be considered a “coil portion” as required by the claim.
With respect to Sato et al., the Applicant similarly argues on page 6 of the remarks that elements (16e, 16f) of Sato are considered as the first coil portion and the second coil portion, but that all elements (16) are bended. The Applicant thus argues that neither of the alleged first or second coil portions is bendless.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, each of the coil conductors (16e, 16f) taught by Sato et al. includes at least one portion which is straight (i.e., bendless), such that any of the straight sections of the coil conductors can be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed first and second coil portions. As noted above with respect to Matsushima et al., the current language of the claim does not specifically require that the shape of at least one of the coil conductors located in the magnetic layers is such that the coil conductor is entirely bendless, only that at least one of the first and second coil portions is bendless. The straight sections of the coil conductors in Sato et al. therefore satisfy this broad interpretation of the claim.
Nevertheless, it is noted that that the shape of each coil conductor provided on each magnetic layer appears to be an obvious matter of design choice, as evidenced by Yokoyama et al. and Suzuki et al., cited below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yokoyama et al. (US 2013/0200979) and Suzuki et al. (JP 2000-003813, machine translation via EPO provided) are cited as additional evidence that it is well-known that each coil conductor disposed on each magnetic layer can be formed in a variety of different shapes, including straight line segment coil portions in addition to C-shaped coil portions and L-shaped coil portions (see conductor pattern (B3) in Fig. 1 of Yokoyama and conductor patterns (36, 40, 16, 20) in Figs. 2 and 6 of Suzuki).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785