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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/09/2022 and 12/05/2025 have been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I, claims 1-14, 18-22 and 25-30, without travers in the Applicant’s response on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 15-17, 23 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Further, claims 7-10, 29 and 30 are withdrawn since they appear to be part of the unelected Species III of Fig. 7.
In this Office Action, claims 7-10, 15-17, 23, 24, 29 and 30 are withdrawn and claims 1-6, 11-14, 18-22 and 25-28 are examined.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14, 18-22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al., (hereinafter Yoon), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0148561, in view of Masuda, Japanese Patent JPH08250333A.
Regarding Claim 1, Yoon teaches (except where italicized), a coil component (Fig. 2) comprising:
a body (3) including a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) disposed to oppose each other in a first direction (T direction);
a first coil unit (11) disposed in the body, and including a support member (11c) and a coil pattern (11a) disposed on at least one surface of the support member;
a second coil unit (12) disposed in the body, and including a wire-wound type coil (12a, 12b, “a winding type coil” [0034]); and
a plurality of external electrodes (41-44) connected to the first and second coil units,
wherein a core axis of the first coil unit is not parallel to a core axis of the second coil unit. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Yoon does not explicitly teach, wherein a core axis of the first coil unit is not parallel to a core axis of the second coil unit.
However, Masuda teaches (Fig. 1), wherein a core axis of the first coil unit (11) is not parallel to a core axis of the second coil unit (12). (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0010], [0012]).
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 axis of the coil units of Yoon to include the coil units having axes orthogonal to each other of Masuda, the motivation being that “crosstalk [is] less likely to occur, and also makes it possible to arrange each inductor 11, 12, and 13 in close proximity, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the inductor array 10” [0018]. (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0018]). Therefore, the limitation of Claim 1 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2 and similarly claims 3-5, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the core axis of the first coil unit (Masuda: 11) is substantially perpendicular to the core axis of the second coil unit (Masuda: 12), the motivation being that “crosstalk [is] less likely to occur, and also makes it possible to arrange each inductor 11, 12, and 13 in close proximity, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the inductor array 10” [0018]. (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0012], [0018]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the plurality of external electrodes include:
a plurality of first external electrodes (41, 42) disposed on a third surface and a fourth surface of the body, respectively, and connected to the coil pattern of the first coil unit (11), the third surface and the fourth surface of the body opposing each other in a third direction (W direction) that is perpendicular to both the first and second directions; and
a plurality of second external electrodes (43, 44) disposed on the third surface and the fourth surface of the body, respectively, and connected to the wire-wound type coil (12), the motivation being that the choices of thin-film type and wire-wound disclosed are in the group of finite choices, and could be produced with simple experimentation. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 11 and similarly claim 12, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the second coil unit (12) includes an insulating portion (12c) contacting a lead-out portion of the wire-wound type coil. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the coil pattern of the first coil unit is a plating pattern (“a thin film type coil formed by performing electroplating on an insulating substrate” [0034]). (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 18, Yoon teaches (except where italicized), a coil component (Fig. 2) comprising:
a body (3);
a thin-film type inductor (11, “a thin film type coil formed by performing electroplating on an insulating substrate” [0034])) disposed in the body;
a wire-wound type coil (12, “a winding type coil” [0034]) disposed in the body; and
a plurality of external electrodes (41-44) connected to the thin-film type inductor and the wire-wound type coil,
wherein a core axis of the thin-film type inductor is substantially perpendicular to a core axis of the wire-wound type coil. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Yoon does not explicitly teach, wherein a core axis of the thin-film type inductor is substantially perpendicular to a core axis of the wire-wound type coil.
However, Masuda teaches (Fig. 1), wherein a core axis of the first inductor (11) is substantially perpendicular to a core axis of the second inductor (12). (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0010], [0012]).
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 axes of the coil units of Yoon to include the coil units having axes orthogonal to each other of Masuda, the motivation being that “crosstalk [is] less likely to occur, and also makes it possible to arrange each inductor 11, 12, and 13 in close proximity, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the inductor array 10” [0018]. (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0018]).
Further, it would have been obvious, to modify the first and second coil (11, 12) of Yoon to include the first coil as thin film type inductor and the second coil as a wire-wound type of inductor since the choices of thin-film type and wire-wound disclosed are in the group of finite choices, and could be produced with simple experimentation.
Therefore, the limitation of Claim 18 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the thin-film type inductor includes a support member (11c) and a coil pattern (11a) disposed on at least one surface of the support member. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0056]).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the body includes a first surface and a second surface disposed to oppose each other in a first direction (T direction), and
the thin-film type inductor and the wire-wound type coil are disposed side by side while being spaced apart from each other in a second direction (L direction) perpendicular to the first direction. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0056]).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the core axis of the thin-film type inductor is substantially parallel to the first direction (Masuda: T direction), and the core axis of the wire-wound type coil is substantially parallel to the second direction (Masuda: L direction), the motivation being that “crosstalk [is] less likely to occur, and also makes it possible to arrange each inductor 11, 12, and 13 in close proximity, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the inductor array 10” [0018]. (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0010], [0012], [0018]).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the plurality of external electrodes include:
a plurality of first external electrodes (41, 42) disposed on a third surface and a fourth surface of the body, respectively, and connected to a coil pattern of the thin-film type inductor (11), the third surface and the fourth surface of the body opposing each other in a third direction (W direction) that is perpendicular to both the first and second directions; and
a plurality of second external electrodes (43, 44) disposed on the third surface and the fourth surface of the body, respectively, and connected to the wire-wound type coil. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 25, Yoon teaches (except where italicized), a coil component (Fig. 2) comprising:
a body (3) including a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) disposed to oppose each other in a first direction (T direction);
a first coil unit (11) disposed in the body;
a second coil unit (12), which is a different type from the first coil unit, disposed in the body and spaced apart from the first coil unit in a second direction (L direction) perpendicular to the first direction; and
a plurality of external electrodes (41-44) connected to the first and second coil units,
wherein a core axis of one of the first and second coil units (11, 12) is substantially parallel to the first direction, and
a core axis of a remaining one of the first and second coil units is substantially parallel to the second direction. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Yoon does not explicitly teach, a second coil unit which is a different type from the first coil unit, and
a core axis of a remaining one of the first and second coil units is substantially parallel to the second direction.
However, Masuda teaches (Fig. 1), a core axis of a remaining one of the first and second coil units (11a, 12a) is substantially parallel to the second direction. (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0010], [0012]).
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 axes of the coil units of Yoon to include the coil units having axes orthogonal to each other of Masuda, the motivation being that “crosstalk [is] less likely to occur, and also makes it possible to arrange each inductor 11, 12, and 13 in close proximity, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the inductor array 10” [0018]. (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0018]).
Further, it would have been obvious, to modify the first and second coil (11, 12) of Yoon to include a second coil unit which is a different type from the first coil unit since the choices of thin-film type and wire-wound disclosed are in the group of finite choices, and could be produced with simple experimentation.
Therefore, the limitation of Claim 25 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the first coil unit (11) includes a thin-film type inductor (11) comprising a support member (11c) and a coil pattern (11a) disposed on at least one surface of the support member, and the second coil unit includes a wire-wound type coil (12), the motivation being since the choices of thin-film type and wire-wound disclosed are in the group of finite choices, and could be produced with simple experimentation. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein a core axis of the first coil unit (11a) is substantially parallel to the first direction, and a core axis of the second coil unit (12a) is substantially parallel to the second direction, the motivation being that “crosstalk [is] less likely to occur, and also makes it possible to arrange each inductor 11, 12, and 13 in close proximity, thereby making it possible to reduce the size of the inductor array 10” [0018]. (Masuda: Figs. 1-4, machine translation, para. [0010], [0012], [0018]).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Yoon in view of Masuda further teaches, wherein the plurality of external electrodes include:
a plurality of first external electrodes (41, 42) disposed on a third surface and a fourth surface of the body, respectively, and connected to a coil pattern of the first coil unit (11), the third surface and the fourth surface of the body opposing each other in a third direction (W direction) that is perpendicular to both the first and second directions; and
a plurality of second external electrodes (43, 44) disposed on the third surface and the fourth surface of the body, respectively, and connected to the second coil unit. (Yoon: Figs. 2-4, para. [0034], [0035], [0056]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iwase et al. (JP 2008021878 A), Sagawa et al. (WO 03100853 A1) and Yoon et al. (US 20190115135)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claim 13 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Claim 13 recites, inter alia, “…wherein the insulating portion is thinner than the support member r”. (Emphasis added).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM BARNES whose telephone number is (408)918-7512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (PST).
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 on 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 http s://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.
/MALCOLM BARNES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
1/14/2026