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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on 10/01/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/10/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because US20190096564A1 is missing. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). It is noted that the information disclosure statement filed 10/13/2025 includes US20190096564A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns” is indefinite and unclear. According to claim 1, the first and second via pads each include connection portions and wing portions. If the line width of each of the first and second via pads and the first and second coil patterns are all measured in the same direction then Fig. 4 does not show “each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns” and therefore is indefinite and unclear. Therefore, clarification is needed. As best understood, the examiner will interpret the connection portion of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns.
The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the other side" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites “each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns” is indefinite and unclear. According to claim 24, the first and second via pads each include connection portions and wing portions. If the line width of each of the first and second via pads and the first and second coil patterns are all measured in the same direction then Fig. 4 does not show “each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns” and therefore is indefinite and unclear. Therefore, clarification is needed. As best understood, the examiner will interpret the connection portion of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns.
The term “substantially” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0096564].
Regarding Claim 13, Park shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a body (1) including a magnetic material (Paragraph [0018]);
a substrate (3) disposed in the body (see Figs. 1-2);
a coil unit (120) including
first (121) and second (122) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 1-2),
first (top portion element 1212) and second (bottom portion element 1212) via pads connected to inner ends of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 1-2), and
a via (middle portion element 1212 or 1212c) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 1-2); and
first (22) and second (21) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 1-2), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 1-2),
wherein the first (top portion element 1212) and second (bottom portion element 1212) via pads include connection portions (top portion element 1212, bottom portion element 1212) extending from innermost ends of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 1-2), in a direction toward the center of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (see Figs. 1-2), and
each of the first (top portion element 1212) and second (bottom portion element 1212) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (Paragraph [0024]).
Claim(s) 24 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0358171].
Regarding Claim 24, Jung et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8-9 with general teachings from Figs. 1-2 and Drawing A below) comprising:
a body (410 or 1) including a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0021], [0047]);
a substrate (412 or 12) disposed in the body (see Figs. 8-9); and
a coil unit (13) including
first (131) and second (132) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Figs. 1-2),
first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads connected to inner ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), the first and second via pads include
connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing A below) extending from innermost ends (4131a) of the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below), and
wing portions (wing portions WP, see Drawing A below) protruding from both side surfaces of the connection portions (see Drawing A below), and
a via (V, see Fig. 3, for example) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 26, Jung et al. shows first (421 or 21) and second (422 or 22) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 8-9), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 27, Jung et al. shows each of the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 9 and Drawing A below, connection portion CP such as element 430 has substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 131, 132).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Muto [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0197963].
Regarding Claim 14, Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30.
Muto shows a device (Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) teaching and suggesting a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the L1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) to a diameter 2R (80 µm) of the via (see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 ((20/80) µm = 0.25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Park to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Moriyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284463].
Regarding Claim 14, Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30.
Moriyama et al. shows a device (Figs. 3B or 3D and Drawing 3 below) teaching and suggesting a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right according to Drawing 3 below, therefore the L1 is 15 µm, Paragraph [0086]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) to a diameter 2R ((18*2) µm, Paragraph [0086]) of the via (see Figs. 3B or 3D and Drawing 3 below) is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 ((15/(18*2)) µm = 0.416).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Park to achieve desirable operating characteristics such that short-circuit incidence rate is 0% (Table 1, Paragraph [0089]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Asakawa [U.S. Patent No. 7,327,207].
Regarding Claim 25, Jung et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the connection portion of the first via pad and the wing portion of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape.
Asakawa shows the connection portion (connection portion CP, see Drawing 4 below) of the first via pad and the wing portion (wing portions WP) of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape (see Figs. 3-4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the connection portion of the first via pad and the wing portion of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape as taught by Asakawa for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics such as variations in the inductance value of the coil are prevented and variations in electrical characteristics are minimized (Col. 2, Lines 35-42).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284463].
Regarding Claim 25, Jung et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the connection portion of the first via pad and the wing portion of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape.
Moriyama et al. shows the connection portion (connection portion CP) of the first via pad and the wing portion (wing portions WP) of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape (see Fig. 3D).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the connection portion of the first via pad and the wing portion of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Park to achieve desirable operating characteristics such that short-circuit incidence rate is 0% (Table 1, Paragraph [0089]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Park [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0096564].
Regarding Claim 27, Jung et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Park shows each of the first and second via pads (top and bottom elements 1212) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (Paragraph [0117]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns as taught by Park for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in order to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0117]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0197963].
Regarding Claim 28, Jung et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a length L1 of each of the connection portions is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm.
Muto shows a device (Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) teaching and suggesting a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the L1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm (20 µm, Paragraph [0117]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a length L1 of each of the connection portions is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a length L1 of each of the connection portions is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to have a compact design to achieve desirable inductance and operating characteristics as required by design requirements, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284463].
Regarding Claim 28, Jung et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a length L1 of each of the connection portions is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm.
Moriyama et al. shows a device (Figs. 3B or 3D and Drawing 3 below) teaching and suggesting a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right according to Drawing 3 below, therefore the L1 is 15 µm, Paragraph [0086]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing 3 below) is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm (15 µm, Paragraph [0086]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a length L1 of each of the connection portions is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics such that short-circuit incidence rate is 0% (Table 1, Paragraph [0089]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a length L1 of each of the connection portions is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to have a compact design to achieve desirable inductance and operating characteristics as required by design requirements, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0358171] in view of Muto [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0197963] and Park [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0096564] (for motivation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Jung et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8-9 with general teachings from Figs. 1-2 and Drawing A below) comprising:
a body (410 or 1) including a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0021], [0047]);
a substrate (412 or 12) disposed in the body (see Figs. 8-9);
a coil unit (13) including
first (131) and second (132) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Figs. 1-2),
first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads connected to inner ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), and
a via (V, see Fig. 3, for example) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3); and
first (421 or 21) and second (422 or 22) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 8-9), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 8-9),
wherein the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads include connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing A below) connected to the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), and wing portions (wing portions WP, see Drawing A below) protruding from both side surfaces (dashed lines, see Drawing A below) of the connection portions (see Drawing A below), and
each (see 112 rejections above) of the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 9 and Drawing A below, connection portion CP such as element 430 has substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 131, 132).
Although clearly shown, Jung et al. does not explicitly disclose in the specification each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns.
Muto shows a device (Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) teaching and suggesting the first and second via pads (connection portion CP and wing portions of Drawings 1-2) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Drawings 1-2, connection portions CP of elements 11a, 12a have substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 11a, 12a, Paragraph [0117]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Park to achieve desirable operating characteristics to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0024] of Park).
In addition, Park each of the first and second via pads (top and bottom elements 1212) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (Paragraph [0117]) in order to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0117]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jung et al. shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) extend from innermost ends (4131a) of the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below).
Muto shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) extend from innermost ends of the first (11a) and second (12a) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below).
Regarding Claim 3, Jung et al. shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) are connected perpendicularly to the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below).
Muto shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) are connected perpendicularly to the first (11a) and second (12a) coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Muto shows a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the L1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) to a diameter 2R (80 µm) of the via (see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 ((20/80) µm = 0.25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Muto shows a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the L1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm (20 µm, Paragraph [0117]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jung et al. shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawing A below).
Muto shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawings 1-2 below).
Regarding Claim 9, Jung et al. shows each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is connected perpendicularly to the wing portions (wing portions WP) on both side surfaces thereof (see Drawing A below).
Muto shows each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is connected perpendicularly to the wing portions (wing portions WP) on both side surfaces thereof (see Drawings 1-2 below).
Regarding Claim 10, Jung et al. shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawing A below).
Muto shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawings 1-2 below).
Regarding Claim 11, Muto shows a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw (wing portions WP are semi-circular so there is a maximum length = (80 µm – 20 µm)/2 = 30 µm, therefore Lw can be less than 30 µm for other portions of the semi-circular wing portions WP) of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the line width W1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the W1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is more than 0 and less than 1.5 (30 µm/20 µm = 1.5 is the maximum ratio, since wing portions WP are semi-circular there are other portions Lw that is less than 30 µm and therefore the ratio is less than 1.5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 of each of the connection portions is more than 0 and less than 1.5 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 11, in another interpretation, Muto shows a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw (wing portions WP are semi-circular so there is a maximum length = (80 µm – 20 µm)/2 = 30 µm, therefore Lw can be less than 30 µm for other portions of the semi-circular wing portions WP) of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the line width W1 is measured from top to bottom such as the y-direction, therefore the W1 is 0.5 mm + (80/2) µm = 540 µm, see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) of each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is more than 0 and less than 1.5 (30 µm/540 µm = 0.0556).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 of each of the connection portions is more than 0 and less than 1.5 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 12, Muto shows a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw (wing portions WP are semi-circular so there is a maximum length = (80 µm – 20 µm)/2 = 30 µm, therefore Lw can be less than 30 µm for other portions of the semi-circular wing portions WP) of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the line width W1 is measured from top to bottom such as the y-direction, therefore the W1 is 0.5 mm + (80/2) µm = 540 µm, see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) of each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is more than 0 and less than 1.5 (30 µm/540 µm = 0.0556).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 of each of the connection portions is more than 0 and less than 1.5 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 13, Jung et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8-9 with general teachings from Figs. 1-2 and Drawing A below) comprising:
a body (410 or 1) including a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0021], [0047]);
a substrate (412 or 12) disposed in the body (see Figs. 8-9);
a coil unit (13) including
first (131) and second (132) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Figs. 1-2),
first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads connected to inner ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), and
a via (V, see Fig. 3, for example) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3); and
first (421 or 21) and second (422 or 22) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 8-9), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 8-9),
wherein the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads include connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing A below) extending from innermost ends (4131a) of the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below), and
each (see 112 rejections above) of the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 9 and Drawing A below, connection portion CP such as element 430 has substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 131, 132).
Although clearly shown, Jung et al. does not explicitly disclose in the specification each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns.
Muto shows a device (Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) teaching and suggesting the first and second via pads (connection portion CP and wing portions of Drawings 1-2) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Drawings 1-2, connection portions CP of elements 11a, 12a have substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 11a, 12a, Paragraph [0117]).
Muto also shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) extend from innermost ends of the first (11a) and second (12a) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Park to achieve desirable operating characteristics to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0024] of Park).
In addition, Park each of the first and second via pads (top and bottom elements 1212) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (Paragraph [0117]) in order to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0117]).
Regarding Claim 14, Muto shows a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the L1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) to a diameter 2R (80 µm) of the via (see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 ((20/80) µm = 0.25).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jung et al. shows the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads and the via (V) are integrally formed (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3).
Muto shows the first (see Fig. 7A) and second (see Fig. 7B) via pads and the via (25, 25a) are integrally formed (see Figs. 4A, 7A-7B).
Park shows the first (top element 1212) and second (bottom element 1212) via pads and the via (middle element 1212 or 1212e) are integrally formed (see Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0358171] in view of Moriyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284463] and Park [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0096564] (for motivation purposes).
Regarding Claim 1, Jung et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8-9 with general teachings from Figs. 1-2 and Drawing A below) comprising:
a body (410 or 1) including a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0021], [0047]);
a substrate (412 or 12) disposed in the body (see Figs. 8-9);
a coil unit (13) including
first (131) and second (132) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Figs. 1-2),
first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads connected to inner ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), and
a via (V, see Fig. 3, for example) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3); and
first (421 or 21) and second (422 or 22) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 8-9), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 8-9),
wherein the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads include connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing A below) connected to the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), and wing portions (wing portions WP, see Drawing A below) protruding from both side surfaces (dashed lines, see Drawing A below) of the connection portions (see Drawing A below), and
each (see 112 rejections above) of the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 9 and Drawing A below, connection portion CP such as element 430 has substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 131, 132).
Although clearly shown, Jung et al. does not explicitly disclose in the specification each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns.
Moriyama et al. shows a device (Figs. 2 and 3B or 3D; and Drawing 3 below) teaching and suggesting the first and second via pads (connection portion CP and wing portions of Drawing 3) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Drawing 3, connection portions CP of elements 28 have substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 23 of elements 28, Paragraph [0086]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Park to achieve desirable operating characteristics to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0024] of Park).
In addition, Park each of the first and second via pads (top and bottom elements 1212) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (Paragraph [0117]) in order to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0117]).
Regarding Claim 2, Jung et al. shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) extend from innermost ends (4131a) of the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below).
Moriyama et al. shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) extend from innermost ends of the first (top element 23) and second (second top element 23) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 2 and Drawing 3 below).
Regarding Claim 3, Jung et al. shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) are connected perpendicularly to the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below).
Moriyama et al. shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) are connected perpendicularly to the first (top element 23) and second (second top element 23) coil patterns, respectively (see Fig. 2 and Drawing 3 below).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Moriyama et al. shows a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right according to Drawing 3 below, therefore the L1 is 15 µm, Paragraph [0086]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) to a diameter 2R ((18*2) µm, Paragraph [0086]) of the via (see Figs. 3B or 3D and Drawing 3 below) is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 ((15/(18*2)) µm = 0.416).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics such that short-circuit incidence rate is 0% (Table 1, Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claims 6-7, Moriyama et al. shows a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right according to Drawing 3 below, therefore the L1 is 15 µm, Paragraph [0086]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing 3 below) is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm (15 µm, Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jung et al. shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawing A below).
Moriyama et al. shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawing 3 below).
Regarding Claim 9, Jung et al. shows each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is connected perpendicularly to the wing portions (wing portions WP) on both side surfaces thereof (see Drawing A below).
Moriyama et al. shows each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is connected perpendicularly to the wing portions (wing portions WP) on both side surfaces thereof (see Drawing 3 below).
Regarding Claim 10, Jung et al. shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawing A below).
Moriyama et al. shows the wing portions (wing portions WP) protrude in opposite directions with respect to each of the connection portions (connection portions CP, see Drawing 3 below).
Regarding Claim 13, Jung et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8-9 with general teachings from Figs. 1-2 and Drawing A below) comprising:
a body (410 or 1) including a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0021], [0047]);
a substrate (412 or 12) disposed in the body (see Figs. 8-9);
a coil unit (13) including
first (131) and second (132) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Figs. 1-2),
first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads connected to inner ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), and
a via (V, see Fig. 3, for example) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3); and
first (421 or 21) and second (422 or 22) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 8-9), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 8-9),
wherein the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads include connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing A below) extending from innermost ends (4131a) of the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below), and
each (see 112 rejections above) of the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 9 and Drawing A below, connection portion CP such as element 430 has substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 131, 132).
Although clearly shown, Jung et al. does not explicitly disclose in the specification each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns.
Moriyama et al. shows a device (Figs. 2 and 3B or 3D; and Drawing 3 below) teaching and suggesting the first and second via pads (connection portion CP and wing portions of Drawing 3) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Drawing 3, connection portions CP of elements 28 have substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 23 of elements 28, Paragraph [0086]).
Moriyama et al. also shows the connection portions (connection portions CP) extend from innermost ends of the first (top element 23) and second (second top element 23) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 2 and Drawing 3 below).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Park to achieve desirable operating characteristics to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0024] of Park).
In addition, Park each of the first and second via pads (top and bottom elements 1212) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (Paragraph [0117]) in order to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0117]).
Regarding Claim 14, Moriyama et al. shows a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right according to Drawing 3 below, therefore the L1 is 15 µm, Paragraph [0086]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) to a diameter 2R ((18*2) µm, Paragraph [0086]) of the via (see Figs. 3B or 3D and Drawing 3 below) is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 ((15/(18*2)) µm = 0.416).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio L1/2R of a length L1 of each of the connection portions to a diameter 2R of the via is more than 0.02 and less than 1.30 as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics such that short-circuit incidence rate is 0% (Table 1, Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 15, Jung et al. shows the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads and the via (V) are integrally formed (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3).
Moriyama et al. shows the first (top element 25) and second (second top element 25) via pads and the via (24) are integrally formed (see Fig. 2).
Park shows the first (top element 1212) and second (bottom element 1212) via pads and the via (middle element 1212 or 1212e) are integrally formed (see Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park as applied to claims 1-2 and 4 above, and further in view of Muto [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0197963].
Regarding Claim 11, Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 of each of the connection portions is more than 0 and less than 1.5.
Muto shows a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw (wing portions WP are semi-circular so there is a maximum length = (80 µm – 20 µm)/2 = 30 µm, therefore Lw can be less than 30 µm for other portions of the semi-circular wing portions WP) of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the line width W1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the W1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is more than 0 and less than 1.5 (30 µm/20 µm = 1.5 is the maximum ratio, since wing portions WP are semi-circular there are other portions Lw that is less than 30 µm and therefore the ratio is less than 1.5).
Muto, in another interpretation, shows a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw (wing portions WP are semi-circular so there is a maximum length = (80 µm – 20 µm)/2 = 30 µm, therefore Lw can be less than 30 µm for other portions of the semi-circular wing portions WP) of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the line width W1 is measured from top to bottom such as the y-direction, therefore the W1 is 0.5 mm + (80/2) µm = 540 µm, see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) of each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is more than 0 and less than 1.5 (30 µm/540 µm = 0.0556).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 of each of the connection portions is more than 0 and less than 1.5 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 12, Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 of each of the connection portions is more than 0 and less than 1.5.
Muto shows a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw (wing portions WP are semi-circular so there is a maximum length = (80 µm – 20 µm)/2 = 30 µm, therefore Lw can be less than 30 µm for other portions of the semi-circular wing portions WP) of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the line width W1 is measured from top to bottom such as the y-direction, therefore the W1 is 0.5 mm + (80/2) µm = 540 µm, see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) of each of the connection portions (connection portions CP) is more than 0 and less than 1.5 (30 µm/540 µm = 0.0556).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio Lw/W1 of a length Lw of each of the wing portions to a line width W1 of each of the connection portions is more than 0 and less than 1.5 as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0286671].
Regarding Claim 16, Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the substrate has a concave portion disposed in a side surface of the substrate contacting the via.
Kim et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-6) teaching and suggesting the substrate (20) has a concave portion (see Figs. 1-6, semicircular shape) disposed in a side surface of the substrate contacting the via (35, see Figs. 1-6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the substrate has a concave portion disposed in a side surface of the substrate contacting the via as taught by Kim et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park to improve DC resistance characteristic and increasing an volume of a core portion (Paragraphs [0005], [0060]).
Regarding Claim 17, Jung et al. shows the substrate (12) has a through-hole (H) disposed in a central portion thereof (see Fig. 1), the through-hole being filled with the magnetic material (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0026]).
Kim et al. shows the substrate (20) has a through-hole (25) disposed in a central portion thereof (see Figs. 1-2), the through-hole being filled with the magnetic material (see Figs. 1-2, Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kim et al. shows the via (35) has one side surface contacting the concave portion (see Figs. 1-6) and the other side surface facing the through-hole (see Figs. 1-6), the other side surface of the via is adjacent to side surfaces of the first (top element 36) and second (bottom element 36) via pads (see Figs. 1-6).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0022041] (hereinafter as “Park ‘041”).
Regarding Claim 16, Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the substrate has a concave portion disposed in a side surface of the substrate contacting the via.
Park ‘041 shows a coil component (Fig. 6) teaching and suggesting the substrate (30) has a concave portion (64, see Fig. 6) disposed in a side surface of the substrate contacting the via (see Fig. 6).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the substrate has a concave portion disposed in a side surface of the substrate contacting the via as taught by Park ‘041 for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park to simplify design to reduce manufacture time while still achieving electrical connection between conductor patterns and magnetic characteristics for desirable inductance values.
Regarding Claim 17, Jung et al. shows the substrate (12) has a through-hole (H) disposed in a central portion thereof (see Fig. 1), the through-hole being filled with the magnetic material (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0026]).
Park ‘041 shows the substrate (30) has a through-hole (63) disposed in a central portion thereof (see Fig. 6), the through-hole being filled with the magnetic material (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Park ‘041 shows the via (see Fig. 6) has one side surface contacting the concave portion (see Fig. 6) and the other side surface facing the through-hole (see Fig. 6), the other side surface of the via is adjacent to side surfaces of the first (see Fig. 5) and second (see Fig. 5) via pads (see Figs. 5-6).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0143976] (hereinafter as “Park ‘041”).
Regarding Claim 19, Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an insulating film integrally covering the coil unit and the substrate.
Jeon et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-11) teaching and suggesting an insulating film (700) integrally covering the coil unit (311, 312) and the substrate (200, see Figs. 1-11, Paragraph [0070]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulating film integrally covering the coil unit and the substrate as taught by Jeon et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connections and short-circuit.
Regarding Claim 20, Jeon et al. shows the coil unit (311, 312) further includes first (312a) and second (311a) lead-out portions extending from surfaces of the body to be connected to the first (600) and second (500) external electrodes, respectively (see Figs. 1-11), and the insulating film (700) is filled between adjacent turns of each of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 1-11, Paragraph [0070]), between the first lead-out portion and the first coil pattern (see Figs. 1-11, Paragraph [0070]), and between the second lead-out portion and the second coil pattern (see Figs. 1-11, Paragraph [0070]).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Jeon et al. OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Jeon et al. as applied to claims 19-20 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0219645].
Regarding Claim 21, Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Jeon et al. OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Jeon et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer.
Jeong et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 4) teaching and suggesting the coil unit (311, 312) includes a seed layer (311a, 312a) contacting the substrate (200) and an electrolytic plating layer (311b, 312b) disposed on the seed layer (see Fig. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer as taught by Jeong et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Jeon et al. OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Jeon et al. to from coil patterns to achieve desirable operating characteristics for inductance values.
Regarding Claim 22, Jeong et al. shows a side surface of the seed layer (311a, 312a) is in contact with the insulating film (600, see Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Jeon et al. OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Jeon et al. as applied to claims 19-20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0286671].
Regarding Claim 21, Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Jeon et al. OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Jeon et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer.
Kim et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 3A-3B) teaching and suggesting the coil unit (31, 32) includes a seed layer (22) contacting the substrate (see Figs. 3A-3B) and an electrolytic plating layer (31, 32) disposed on the seed layer (see Figs. 3A-3B, Paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0043], [0057]-[0058]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer as taught by Kim et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Jeon et al. OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Jeon et al. to from coil patterns to achieve desirable operating characteristics for inductance values.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. layer, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. an electrolytic plating. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 23, Kim et al shows the via (35) includes the seed layer (22) disposed on a side surface of the substrate (20) and the electrolytic plating layer (element 35 at element 35h) disposed on the seed layer (see Figs. 3A-3B, Paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0043], [0057]-[0058]).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. layer, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. an electrolytic plating. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0047160] (hereinafter as “Kim ‘160”).
Regarding Claim 19, Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an insulating film integrally covering the coil unit and the substrate.
Kim ‘160 shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2 and 4) teaching and suggesting an insulating film (30) integrally covering the coil unit (40) and the substrate (20, see Figs. 1-2 and 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have an insulating film integrally covering the coil unit and the substrate as taught by Kim ‘160 for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto and Park OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. and Park to facilitate insulation to prevent coil pattern part from being exposed and preventing a leakage current and poor waveform (Paragraph [0061]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kim ‘160 shows the coil unit (40) further includes first (one end of element 40) and second (another end of element 40) lead-out portions extending from surfaces of the body to be connected to the first (one of element 80) and second (another one of element 80) external electrodes, respectively (see Figs. 1-2 and 4), and the insulating film (30) is filled between adjacent turns of each of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 1-2 and 4), between the first lead-out portion and the first coil pattern (see Figs. 1-2 and 4), and between the second lead-out portion and the second coil pattern (see Figs. 1-2 and 4).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Kim ‘160 OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Kim ‘160 as applied to claims 19-20 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0219645].
Regarding Claim 21, Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Kim ‘160 OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Kim ‘160 shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer.
Jeong et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 4) teaching and suggesting the coil unit (311, 312) includes a seed layer (311a, 312a) contacting the substrate (200) and an electrolytic plating layer (311b, 312b) disposed on the seed layer (see Fig. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer as taught by Jeong et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Kim ‘160 OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Kim ‘160 to from coil patterns to achieve desirable operating characteristics for inductance values.
Regarding Claim 22, Jeong et al. shows a side surface of the seed layer (311a, 312a) is in contact with the insulating film (600, see Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Kim ‘160 OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Kim ‘160 as applied to claims 19-20 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0286671].
Regarding Claim 21, Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Kim ‘160 OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Kim ‘160 shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer.
Kim et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 3A-3B) teaching and suggesting the coil unit (31, 32) includes a seed layer (22) contacting the substrate (see Figs. 3A-3B) and an electrolytic plating layer (31, 32) disposed on the seed layer (see Figs. 3A-3B, Paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0043], [0057]-[0058]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil unit includes a seed layer contacting the substrate and an electrolytic plating layer disposed on the seed layer as taught by Kim et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto, Park, and Kim ‘160 OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al., Park, and Kim ‘160 to from coil patterns to achieve desirable operating characteristics for inductance values.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. layer, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. an electrolytic plating. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 23, Kim et al shows the via (35) includes the seed layer (22) disposed on a side surface of the substrate (20) and the electrolytic plating layer (element 35 at element 35h) disposed on the seed layer (see Figs. 3A-3B, Paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0043], [0057]-[0058]).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. layer, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. an electrolytic plating. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claim(s) 24 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0358171] in view of Muto [U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0197963].
Regarding Claim 24, Jung et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8-9 with general teachings from Figs. 1-2 and Drawing A below) comprising:
a body (410 or 1) including a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0021], [0047]);
a substrate (412 or 12) disposed in the body (see Figs. 8-9); and
a coil unit (13) including
first (131) and second (132) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Figs. 1-2),
first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads connected to inner ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), the first and second via pads include
connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing A below) extending from innermost ends (4131a) of the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below), and
wing portions (wing portions WP, see Drawing A below) protruding from both side surfaces of the connection portions (see Drawing A below), and
a via (V, see Fig. 3, for example) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3).
In addition, Muto shows a device (Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below) teaching and suggesting connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) extending from innermost ends of the first (11a) and second (12a) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below), and wing portions (wing portions WP, see Drawings 1-2 below) protruding from both side surfaces of the connection portions (see Drawings 1-2 below), and a via (25, 25a) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (Figs. 4A-4B, 7A-7B and Drawings 1-2 below).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connection portions extending from innermost ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns, and wing portions protruding from both side surfaces of the connection portions, and a via connecting the first and second via pads to each other as taught by Muto for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to increase magnetic flux density, increase coupling coefficient, and reducing loss (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding Claim 26, Jung et al. shows first (421 or 21) and second (422 or 22) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 8-9), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 27, Jung et al. shows each of the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 9 and Drawing A below, connection portion CP such as element 430 has substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 131, 132).
Muto shows the first and second via pads (connection portion CP and wing portions of Drawings 1-2) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Drawings 1-2, connection portions CP of elements 11a, 12a have substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 11a, 12a, Paragraph [0117]).
Regarding Claim 28, Muto shows a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right such as the x-direction, therefore the L1 is 20 µm, Paragraph [0117]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawings 1-2 below) is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm (20 µm, Paragraph [0117]).
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0358171] in view of Moriyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284463].
Regarding Claim 24, Jung et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8-9 with general teachings from Figs. 1-2 and Drawing A below) comprising:
a body (410 or 1) including a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0021], [0047]);
a substrate (412 or 12) disposed in the body (see Figs. 8-9); and
a coil unit (13) including
first (131) and second (132) coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate, respectively (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Figs. 1-2),
first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads connected to inner ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively (see Figs. 8-9), the first and second via pads include
connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing A below) extending from innermost ends (4131a) of the first (131) and second (132) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Figs. 8-9 and Drawing A below), and
wing portions (wing portions WP, see Drawing A below) protruding from both side surfaces of the connection portions (see Drawing A below), and
a via (V, see Fig. 3, for example) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (see Figs. 8-9 with teachings from Fig. 3).
In addition, Moriyama et al. shows a device (see Fig. 2 and Drawing 3 below) teaching and suggesting connection portions (connection portion CP) extending from innermost ends of the first (top element 23) and second (second top element 23) coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 2 and Drawing 3 below), and wing portions (wing portions WP) protruding from both side surfaces of the connection portions (see Drawing 3 below), and a via (24) connecting the first and second via pads to each other (Fig. 2 and Drawing 3 below).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have connection portions extending from innermost ends of the first and second coil patterns, respectively, in a direction toward the center of the first and second coil patterns, and wing portions protruding from both side surfaces of the connection portions, and a via connecting the first and second via pads to each other as taught by Moriyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics such that short-circuit incidence rate is 0% (Table 1, Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 25, Moriyama et al. shows the connection portion (connection portion CP) of the first via pad and the wing portion (wing portions WP) of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape (see Fig. 3D).
Regarding Claim 26, Jung et al. shows first (421 or 21) and second (422 or 22) external electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other on the body (see Figs. 8-9), while respectively being connected to the coil unit (see Figs. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 27, Jung et al. shows each of the first (top element VC4 with top element 430) and second (bottom element VC4 with bottom element 430) via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Fig. 9 and Drawing A below, connection portion CP such as element 430 has substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 131, 132).
Moriyama et al. shows the first and second via pads (connection portion CP and wing portions of Drawing 3) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns (see Drawing 3, connection portions CP of elements 28 have substantially the same or smaller line width than elements 23 of elements 28, Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 28, Moriyama et al. shows a length L1 (based on broadest reasonable interpretation, the length L1 is measured from left to right according to Drawing 3 below, therefore the L1 is 15 µm, Paragraph [0086]) of each of the connection portions (connection portion CP, see Drawing 3 below) is more than 1 µm and less than 78 µm (15 µm, Paragraph [0086]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Asakawa [U.S. Patent No. 7,327,207].
Regarding Claim 25, Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Jung et al. in view of Muto shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the connection portion of the first via pad and the wing portion of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape.
Asakawa shows the connection portion (connection portion CP, see Drawing 4 below) of the first via pad and the wing portion (wing portions WP) of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape (see Figs. 3-4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the connection portion of the first via pad and the wing portion of the first via pad intersect each other in an inverted T-shape as taught by Asakawa for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics such as variations in the inductance value of the coil are prevented and variations in electrical characteristics are minimized (Col. 2, Lines 35-42).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Muto OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Park [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0096564].
Regarding Claim 27, Jung et al. in view of Muto OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Park shows each of the first and second via pads (top and bottom elements 1212) has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first (121) and second (122) coil patterns (Paragraph [0117]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have each of the first and second via pads has substantially the same or smaller line width than each of the first and second coil patterns as taught by Park for the coil component as disclosed by Jung et al. in view of Muto OR Jung et al. in view of Moriyama et al. in order to prevent deterioration of the characteristics of the coil electronic component (Paragraph [0117]).
PNG
media_image1.png
652
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing A
PNG
media_image2.png
717
814
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Drawing 1
PNG
media_image3.png
758
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Drawing 2
PNG
media_image4.png
512
751
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Drawing 3
PNG
media_image5.png
760
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Drawing 4
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/TSZFUNG J CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837