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 § 102
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daisuke et al. [JP201901279A].
Regarding claim 1, Daisuke et al. disclose a coil component [figure 10] comprising: a coil part having a structure in which a plurality of conductor layers [221, 222] each having a coil pattern are stacked in a coil axis direction through a plurality of interlayer insulating films [21]; a first magnetic layer [core piece 14] covering the coil part in the coil axis direction; and a second magnetic layer positioned in an inner diameter area of the coil part [figure 10], wherein the plurality of interlayer insulating films include a first interlayer insulating film positioned closest to the first magnetic layer, wherein the first and second magnetic layers contact each other through an opening formed in the first interlayer insulating film, and wherein the opening has a shape whose diameter increases as a distance from an interface between the first and second magnetic layers increases [figure 10].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke et al. [figure 10] in view of Yoshita et al. [US20050195062].
Regarding claim 2, Daisuke et al., figure 10, discloses everything claimed except a difference in the thickness of the insulating layers. Yoshita et al. discloses the use of varying the thickness of the insulating layers [figure 1, para 9]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to vary the thickness of the layers in Daisuke et al., as suggested by Yoshita et al., in order to control the resistance of the coil structure.
Regarding claim 9, Daisuke et al. teaches everything claimed except the explicit showing of the first magnetic parts being formed of the same material. Such specific parameters will not support the patentability of the subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the parameters are critical. Absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between the compositions and the criticality of the claimed amounts, the determination of the optimum or workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP $2144.05 [R-2](II)(A) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). It is noted that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the instant parameters or any unexpected results arising thereof. Since applicant has not established the criticality of the specific parameters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to use these values to provide uniformity in the magnetic parts.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke et al., as modified, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jung et al. [US2022122760A1].
Regarding claim 3, Daisuke et al, as modified, discloses everything claimed except the coil component including first and second terminal electrodes wherein the plurality of conductor layers include a first conductor layer positioned closest to the first magnetic layer, and wherein the first conductor layer includes a first conductor pattern connected to the first terminal electrode and a second conductor pattern connected to the second terminal electrode. Jung et al. discloses a coil structure with layered windings [figure 1] including first and second terminals [31, 32] connected to the wiring patterns of the coil structure [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 include external terminals, as shown by Jung et al., in the coil structure of Daisuke et al., for the purpose of connecting the coil structure.
Regarding claim 4, Daisuke et al., as modified, discloses everything claimed except the coil component as having a mean particle diameter of fillers contained in the first interlayer insulating film is smaller than that of fillers contained in the second interlayer insulating films. Jung et al. teaches the that particles of varying sizes can be dispersed in the insulating resin [para 56-60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order provide rigidity and achieve the desired magnetic properties.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke et al. [figure 10] in view of [figure 11]. Daisuke et al. figure 10 discloses everything claimed except for the parts of the magnetic layer being formed as a single piece. Figure 11 teaches the first and second parts being integrated as a single piece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to modify the first and second pieces of Daisuke et al., figure 10, with the integrated design of figure 11 in order to simplify manufacture and assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01-20-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues that the cited reference Daisuke et al. fails to teach the convex portion 12 and/or 13 is formed of a non-magnetic insulating resin material. The examiner respectfully disagrees, with further review of Daisuke, it seems that the convex portions 12 and 13 are formed of magnetic material. See extraction from the translation below:
“The 1st convex part 12 and the 2nd convex part 13 are comprised by magnetic body materials, such as nickel, manganese zinc, a ferrite type, for example. The 1st convex part 12 and the 2nd convex part 13 are formed by baking after forming into a film by wet film forming methods, such as screen printing. The tapered shape of the first and second convex portions 12 and 13 is formed by adjusting the viscosity of the magnetic paste during screen printing by, for example, adjusting the amount of solvent.”
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 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 571-272-8843. 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