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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. [US20170243689] in view of Singh et al. [US20130067713].
Regarding claims 1-2, Yoon et al. discloses a coil assembly [100] comprising a coil [41, 42] comprising a multilayer film which is extended between a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end of the multilayer film [para 16, abstract], which are opposite to each other, and which is wound to form a plurality of loops which are substantially concentric [fig. 1] wherein an end surface of the multilayer film exposes the metal layer and the exposed metal layer at the end surface is electrically connected to a conductive terminal [81]. Yoon et al. discloses everything claimed except the multilayer film cut edges which are extended between the first longitudinal end and the second longitudinal end and are opposite to each other and are substantially parallel to each other including a metal layer and a magnetic layer disposed on the metal layer, and arranged substantially perpendicular to the cut edges; wherein, at one or more of the first longitudinal end and the second longitudinal end of the multilayer film. Singh et al. discloses a conductor used in a coil comprising a multilayer film [101] a first conductive layer [401] having a rectangular cross-section with an outer metallic layer and an outer conductive layer made of metal corresponding to the metal layer, an insulating material [430] made of a ferrite material arranged between the first conductive layer [410] and the second conductive layer [para 0133, 0136, 0139] extending between the first and second longitudinal ends and a second longitudinal end of the multilayer film and are opposite each other wound to form a plurality of loops wherein the multilayer film comprises cut edges which are extended between the first longitudinal end and the second longitudinal end of the multilayer end and are substantially parallel to each other and a magnetic layer disposed on the metal layer [para 0133, 0136, 0139]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the coil design of Singh et al. for the coil of Yoon et al. for the purpose of enhancing efficiency of the coil structure.
Regarding claim 3, Singh et al. further discloses that connection of the metal layer of the coil structure can be electrically connected to the conductive terminal through a welding portion provided in one or more of the metal layer and the conductive terminal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the connection design of Singh et al. for the design of Yoon et al., as modified, to provide a secure connection between the terminal and coil, see Singh et al. para 140.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. in view of Singh et al. as applied to claim1-3 above, and further in view of An et al. [WO0201314653].
Regarding claims 4-5, Yoon et al. discloses everything claimed except the use of a via to connect the metal layer to the electrode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a conductive filled via could have been used for the connection between the metal portion and terminal could have been used as suggested by An et al., para 56.
Regarding claims 7-8, Yoon et al. teaches everything claimed except the metal layer being connected to a terminal mounted on an insulative member of a flexible printed circuit board. An et al. further teaches an oil being connected to a terminal on a insulative surface of a flexible printed circuit board [figure 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the coil structure of Yoon et al., as modified, on a flexible circuit board in order to facilitate connection.
Claim(s) 6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon
et al., as modified, as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Fleming et al. [US7710232].
Regarding claims 6 and 9-10, Yoon et al., as modified, discloses everything claimed except the multilayer film further comprising an alternating insulative layers disposed between the magnetic layer and the metal layer and the magnetic layer being disposed on the adhesive layers. Fleming et al. discloses a silicon nitride insulative layer [36] disposed between the layers of a winding [12, figure 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further add the alternating insulative portions between the windings, in order to reduce stress on the winding structure and provide adhesive bonding [para 24].
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al., as modified, as applied to claims 6 and 9-10 above, and further in view of An et al.
Regarding claims 11 and 14-16, Yoon et al., as modified, discloses everything claimed except for the end face being electrically and physically, connected to a conductive terminal of a flexible circuit board. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount the coil structure of Yoon et al., as modified, on a flexible circuit board in order to facilitate connection.
Regarding claims 12-13, Yoon et al., as modified, discloses everything claimed except for the specific orientation of the coil relative to the printed circuit board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the wire either vertically or horizontally depending on the desired foot print, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
14. (Currently Amended) A coil assembly comprising a coil comprising a plurality of coil turns, wherein each of the coil turns comprises cut edges of the coil which are extended between a first end of the coil and a second end of the coil, and which are opposite to each other and are substantially parallel to each other, and a plurality of metal layers and a plurality of adhesive layers which are arranged substantially perpendicular to the cut edges and stacked along a surface direction of the coil and are alternated, the coil turns being substantially extended between a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end of the coil which are opposite to each other, wherein, at one or more of the first longitudinal end and the second longitudinal end of the coil, the metal layers of the plurality of metal layers and the plurality of adhesive layers which are alternated an end surface of the coil exposes the plurality of metal layers, and the exposed metal layers are electrically connected to a conductive terminal of a flexible circuit board.
Regarding claims 15-16, Yoon et al., as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for the specific interconnection of the metal layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the interconnection of the metal layers in order to provide various inductances of the coil structure, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LINCOLN D DONOVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1988. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-6:30.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4883. 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.
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842