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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the objection to the drawings should be withdrawn since the example coil shown in FIG. 2 and the description of the multiple coil embodiments in paragraphs [0029] and [0040] discloses the teachings of claim 4 is not necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 4 of the applicant’s invention discloses a third coil comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns, wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns; a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace; and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b. None of these features are clearly shown in the drawings submitted by the applicant. As previously mentioned in the previous office action, the drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Accordingly, the objection will remain in the office action.
The applicant argues the prior art of Tonoyama does not read on the applicant claimed invention since Tonoyama does not disclose determining a position or size of the conductor patterns 18a and 18b based on ratios (generic or specific) of the widths and heights of the trace. Therefore, Tonoyama does not disclose the conductor patterns 18a and 18b are positioned or sized according to a ratio of the width of the trace and a distance between the turns; wherein "the first coil and the second coil
are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns." Similarly, claim 5 recites, in relevant part: "the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns."
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses structural limitations wherein a first coil (18a) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 2); and a second coil (18b) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 2), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 4); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0027-0033). Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7) clearly discloses structural features in which, a can represents the width of the first trace and b can represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns that meets the claimed criteria of the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b. The applicant is claiming a structural claim; there is no structural difference in the prior art of Tonoyama et al that does not allow for the prior art to read on the applicant claimed structural invention. The ratio for a/b does not even require any number value to be met in claim 1 and 5. It just simply states a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. Tonoyama et al clearly discloses a width of the first trace and a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns which meets the structural limitations of the applicant invention. By Tonoyama et al having the same structural features of the applicant claimed invention, allows the prior art the capability wherein the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized by the ratio a/b. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
The applicant argues the prior art of Mi does not read on the applicant claimed invention since Mi discloses different coil parameters, such as an inner diameter (d), an outer diameter (D), a wire width (W), and a wire interval (S) (e.g., space between turns). Mi does not explain exactly how to choose these parameters to prevent high resistance, make manufacturing easier, reduce parasitic capacitance, or increase inductive connection. Additionally, Mi does not disclose the coils are positioned or a sized based on ratios (generic or specific) of these parameters. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regards to claims 1 and 5, MI et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0039) discloses structural limitations wherein a first coil (20) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figures 1/7); and a second coil (10) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figures 1/7), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see para 0028-0029); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figures 4a); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038-0039)
Mi et al. (figure 1-7) clearly discloses structural features in which, a can represents the width of the first trace and b can represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns that meets the claimed criteria of the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b. The applicant is claiming a structural claim; there is no structural difference in the prior art of Mi et al that does not allow for the prior art to read on the applicant claimed structural invention. The ratio for a/b does not even require any number value to be met in claim 1 and 5. It just simply states a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. Mi et al clearly discloses a width of the first trace and a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns which meets the structural limitations of the applicant invention. By Mi et al having the same structural features of the applicant claimed invention, allows the prior art the capability wherein the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized by the ratio a/b. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
The applicant also argues since Mi et al. first coil and the second coil have different numbers of turns, the two coils do not overlap each other. Accordingly, the first coil and the second coil must include different wire intervals (S). Therefore, Mi does not disclose the distance between turns of the first coil is the same as the distance between turns of the second coil thereby not having a teaching, "a distance between the turns of
the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns." Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
Mi et al. (figure 1-7) clearly discloses a teaching wherein a first plurality of turns and a second plurality of turns wherein a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns. Even though Mi et al. top layer has more turns than the bottom layer; Mi et al. (figures 1 and 4a-4c) discloses at least two of the top turns and two of the bottom turns have equal distances between the turns which meets the limitations structural requirements of claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
The applicant argues the prior art of Suzuki discloses does not read on the applicant claimed invention since Suzuki discloses does not disclose determining a position or size of the conductor patterns based on ratios (generic or specific) of the widths and heights of the trace. Therefore, Suzuki does not disclose the conductor patterns positioned or sized according to a ratio of the width of the trace and a distance between the turns; wherein "the first coil and the second coil
are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns." Similarly, claim 5 recites, in relevant part: "the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns."
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) discloses a first coil (13) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 4); and a second coil (14) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figures 4); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0024-0050). Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) clearly discloses structural features in which, a can represents the width of the first trace and b can represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns that meets the claimed criteria of the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b. The applicant is claiming a structural claim; there is no structural difference in the prior art of Suzuki et al that does not allow for the prior art to read on the applicant claimed structural invention. The ratio for a/b does not even require any number value to be met in claim 1 and 5. It just simply states a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. Suzuki et al clearly discloses a width of the first trace and a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns which meets the structural limitations of the applicant invention. By Suzuki et al having the same structural features of the applicant claimed invention, allows the prior art the capability wherein the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized by the ratio a/b. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
The applicant argues the prior art of Karino et al. does not read on the applicant claimed invention since Karino et al. does not disclose determining a position or size of the conductor patterns based on ratios (generic or specific) of the widths and heights of the trace. Therefore, Karino et al. does not disclose the conductor patterns positioned or sized according to a ratio of the width of the trace and a distance between the turns; wherein "the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns." Similarly, claim 5 recites, in relevant part: "the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns."
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In regards to claims 1 and 5, Karino et al. (figures 8a-8b and para 0038-0111) discloses a first coil (30a) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 8b); and a second coil (32a) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 8b); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 8b); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0109-0112)
Karino et al. (figures 8a-8b and para 0038-0111) clearly discloses structural features in which, a can represents the width of the first trace and b can represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns that meets the claimed criteria of the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b. The applicant is claiming a structural claim; there is no structural difference in the prior art of Suzuki et al that does not allow for the prior art to read on the applicant claimed structural invention. The ratio for a/b does not even require any number value to be met in claim 1 and 5. It just simply states a represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. Karino et al clearly discloses a width of the first trace and a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns which meets the structural limitations of the applicant invention. By Karino et al having the same structural features of the applicant claimed invention, allows the prior art the capability wherein the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized by the ratio a/b. Accordingly, the rejection will remain in the office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the a third coil comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns, wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns; a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace; and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
1. Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tonoyama et al. (US 2013/0249664).
Regarding claim 1, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses a first coil (18a) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 2); and a second coil (18b) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 2), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 4); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0027-0033)
Regarding claim 5, Tonoyama et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0060) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (18a/18b); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 2); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 2), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (see para 0027-0033)
2. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by MI et al. (US 2009/0085707).
Regarding claim 1, MI et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0039) discloses a first coil (20) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figures 1/7); and a second coil (10) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figures 1/7), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see para 0028-0029); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figures 4a); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038-0039)
Regarding claim 2, MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of a/b to equal 1.3)
Regarding claim 3, MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of 1.12*b)
Regarding claim 5, MI et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0039) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (20/10); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figures1/7); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figures 1/7), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4a); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (see para 0038-0039)
Regarding claim 6, MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a value of a/b is equal to 1.3.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of a/b to equal 1.3)
Regarding claim 7, MI et al. (para 0038-0039) discloses wherein a distance between the first coil and the second coil is determined according to: 1.12×b in which b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0038/0039 disclosing value/number ranges of a and b which meets the criteria of 1.12*b)
3. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 20180286568).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) discloses a first coil (13) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 4); and a second coil (14) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figures 4); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0024-0050)
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki (figure 1-8d and para 0024-0072) discloses a third coil (15) comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns (see figure 4); a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace (see figure 4); and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b. .(see para 0024-0050)
Regarding claim 5, MI et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0039) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (13/14); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 4); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 4), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 4); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (see para 0024-0050)
4. Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Karino et al. (US 2017/0125154).
Regarding claim 1, Karino et al. (figures 8a-8b and para 0038-0111) discloses a first coil (30a) comprising a first trace that forms a first plurality of turns (see figure 8b); and a second coil (32a) comprising a second trace that forms a second plurality of turns (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 8b ); a width of the first trace is equal to a width of the second trace (see figure 8b); and the first coil and the second coil are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, represents the width of the first trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns.(see para 0109-0112)
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki (figure 8b) discloses a third coil (34a) comprising a third trace that forms a third plurality of turns (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between the turns of the third plurality of turns is equal to the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns (see figure 8b); a width of the third trace is equal to a width of the first trace (see figure 8b); and the third coil and the second coil are also physically positioned or sized according to a/b. .(see para 0109-0112)
Regarding claim 5, MI et al. (figure 1-7 and para 0028-0039) discloses a coil comprising: a trace (30a/32a); a first layer comprising a first plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 8b); and a second layer comprising a second plurality of turns formed by the trace (see figure 8b), wherein: a distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns is equal to a distance between the turns of the second plurality of turns (see figure 8b); and the first layer and the second layer are physically positioned or sized according to: a/b in which, a represents a width of the trace and b represents the distance between the turns of the first plurality of turns. (see para 0109-0112)
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 RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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 at 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 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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837