DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
It is noted that:
Claims 15-17 are new.
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, both ends of the coil in the first direction extend outside a range occupied by the external electrode in the first direction, as claimed in claim 16 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
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 8-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (US 20190333689 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Park teaches a multilayer coil component comprising:
an element body (100, Fig. 1) including a main surface configuring a
mounting surface (not labeled; i.e. bottom surface of element 100 in Fig. 1), and a pair of end surfaces (i.e. left/right surface of element 100 in Fig. 1) opposing each other in a second direction (i.e. length direction in Fig. 1);
a coil (120, Fig. 1; para 0026-0034) disposed in the element body such that a coil axis direction is along the first direction;
an external electrode (181-182) electrically connected to the coil and disposed in the element body,
wherein a length (not labeled; i.e. length of 181 or 182 in vertical direction in Fig. 3) of the external electrode in the first direction is smaller (construed from Fig. 1 and Fig. 3) than a length (not labeled; i.e. length of 121a-121f in width direction in Fig. 1) of the coil in the first direction.
Regarding Claim 9:
As applied to claim 8, Park teaches that the external electrode is exposed only on the corresponding end surface of the pair of end surfaces and the main surface (construed from Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10:
As applied to claim 8, Park teaches that the external electrode is exposed only on the main surface.
Regarding Claim 11:
Park teaches a multilayer coil component comprising:
an element body (100, Fig. 1) including a main surface configuring a
mounting surface (not labeled; i.e. bottom surface of element 100 in Fig. 1), a pair of side surfaces (front/back surface of element 100) opposing each other in a first
direction, and a pair of end surfaces (i.e. left/right surface of element 100 in Fig. 1) opposing each other in a second direction (i.e. length direction in Fig. 1);
a coil (120, Fig. 1; para 0026-0034) disposed in the element body such that a coil axis direction is along the first direction; and
an external electrode (181-182) electrically connected to the coil and disposed in the element body,
wherein both ends of the coil in the first direction are exposed from the external electrode in the first direction when the external electrode and the coil are viewed from a direction orthogonal to the first direction (construed from Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12:
As applied to claim 11, Park teaches that the external electrode is exposed only on the corresponding end surface of the pair of end surfaces and the main surface (construed from Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13:
As applied to claim 11, Park teaches that the external electrode is exposed only on the main surface.
Regarding Claim 14:
Park teaches a multilayer coil component comprising:
an element body (100, Fig. 1);
a coil (120, Fig. 1; para 0026-0034) disposed in the element body; and
an external electrode (181 or 182) electrically connected to the coil and
disposed in the element body, wherein
the coil includes a plurality of coil conductors (121a-121f, Fig. 3) disposed in a coil axis direction of the coil and interconnected,
the plurality of coil conductors include a pair of outermost coil conductors (121a, 121f) positioned outermost in the coil axis direction,
the external electrode includes a plurality of electrode conductors (181-182) disposed in the coil axis direction and interconnected,
the plurality of electrode conductors include a pair of outermost electrode conductors (131, 140) positioned outermost in the coil axis direction, and
each of the pair of outermost electrode conductors is not positioned in the same layer as the pair of outermost coil conductors and is electrically connected to the coil (construed from Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16:
As applied to claim 11, Park teaches that both ends of the coil in the first direction extend outside a range occupied by the external electrode in the first direction (construed from Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17:
As applied to claim 11, Park teaches that wherein the coil conductors are disposed in different layers (see Fig. 1 or 3) that are (i) parallel to each other and (ii) arranged one after another along the coil axis direction (construed from Fig. 3), and the electrode conductors (not labeled, i.e. left/right rectangular element in Fig. 3) are disposed in different layers that are (a) parallel to the layers in which the coil conductors are disposed and (b) arranged one after another along the coil axis direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant's argument (A-1) filed on 01/21/2026 have been fully considered. The Applicants’ arguments regarding independent claim 1, at least in part, that “The Office Action asserts that Park discloses the above recited features, referring to Park at Fig. 4. In particular, the Office Action asserts that the second coil conductor (121a) and the third coil conductor (121f) are "not positioned in the same layer as any of the plurality of electrode conductors" (construed from Fig. 4). But such Office Action assertions are not supported. Fig. 4 of Park is reproduced below with highlights:” – are found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 has withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 15 are allowable.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 15 recites, the coil conductors are disposed in different layers that are (i) parallel to the main surface and (ii) arranged one after another along the first direction,
the electrode conductors are disposed in different layers that are (a) parallel to the main surface and (b) arranged one after another along the first direction,
each of the plurality of first coil conductors is positioned in the same layer as a corresponding one of the plurality of electrode conductors,
the second coil conductor is not positioned in the same layer as the first outermost electrode conductor, and
the third coil conductor is not positioned in the same layer as the second outermost electrode conductor.
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (A-2 to A-4) filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue “When rejecting claim 8, the Office Action asserts that, in Figs. 1 and 3 of Park, the length of 181 or 182 is smaller than the length of 121a-121f. But this Office Action is not supported.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees as shown in Drawing: 2, below, Where it clearly shows that length (i.e. L1) of 181/182 is smaller than a length (i.e. L2) of the coil 120 in first direction (i.e. L1<L2). It is noted that Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). However, the picture must show all the claimed structural features and how they are put together. Jockmus v. Leviton, 28 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1928). The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). See MPEP § 2125.I for more information on prior art drawings as “enabled disclosures” Furthermore, electrode and coil’s length or width and such equations (i.e. L1>L2 or L1<L2) are very common in electronic industry. It is noted that in the instant application, para [0015-0018] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing:2, an annotated version of Fig. 1
Applicants argue, “The Office Action asserts that Park discloses that "both ends of the coil in the first direction are exposed from the external electrode in the first direction" (construed from Fig. 1). But this Office Action is not supported.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation does not require that both ends of the coil in the first direction are directly exposed from the external electrode in the first direction. The Figure 1 shows that element 131 and 142 are exposed through element 181 and 182, respectively. Based on the above analysis, given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim interpretation, the Examiner believes that Park reads on the claim 11 limitation. Similarly, it is noted that in the instant application, para [0018-0022] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Applicant argue, “The Office Action asserts that, in Fig. 1 of Park, the external electrode (181 or 182) is disposed in the element body (100, Fig. 1). However, as shown in Fig. 1 of Park reproduced above, the external electrodes (181 and 182) are disposed on the exterior of the element body (100). Thus, contrary to the Office Action assertions, Park does not disclose the "in the element body" feature in the above-quoted recitation of claim 14. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation does not require that external electrode is fully disposed in the element body or inside the element body. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim interpretation, the Examiner believes that Park reads on the claim 14 limitation. moreover, the electrode elements 131 and 140 inside the body are integral parts of external electrode 181 and 182, respectively. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an external electrode electrically connected to the coil and disposed in the element body , since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993). See: MPEP 2144.04 (V-B). Similarly, it is noted that in the instant application, para [0017, 0023] applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
,
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kazi Hossain whose telephone number is 571-272-8182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (EST).
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 https:/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 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.
/KAZI HOSSAIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837