DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg.7-8 of Remarks, filed 05/15/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 20, 22, and 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pg. 9-10, with respect to claims 1, 6, and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues, on page 10 paragraph 1 of Remarks, that “There is no disclosure of Aoki of multiple, separate coil portions whose distances between the coil portions and the surfaces are adjusted in response to other coil portions and their configurations and that such distances may be the same or different.”. However, the rejection of the claim relies on the combination of Yoon and Aoki. As noted in the non-final rejection regarding claim 1, Yoon discloses first to third coil portions (211,212, and 213) which are spaced apart from each other in as first direction (Length direction). The non-final rejection relies upon Aoki for teaching different or greater distances between different coils and adjacent surfaces in regards to claim 6 and 7. In response to applicant's argument on page 10 paragraph 2, that “One of ordinary skill in art would not have a motivation to apply Aoki's teachings on a single coil component to the structurally and functionally distinct multi-coil inductor array of Yoon”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pg. 10 paragraph 5, with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The applicant states that due to claim 8’s similar scope to claim 1, it is directed to patentable subject matter. This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pg. 10 paragraphs 4 and 6, with respect to claims 2-17 and 19-23 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant states that references “Sase, Yoshioka, Richiuso, Sim, and Lee fail to make up for the deficiencies of Yoon and Aoki”. The applicant does not clearly state the deficiencies for which the references do not address. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
For the reasons provided above, the applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and as such this action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, 15-20, and 22-23 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US PG Pub US-20190115135-A1) and in further view of Aoki et al. (US PG Pub 20210202159A1) hereinafter Yoon and Aoki, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Yoon teaches a coil component (200, Fig. 3-4), comprising:
a body (210) having first and second surfaces (first and second end surfaces) opposing
each other in a first direction (Length Direction);
first to third coil portions (211, 212, 213) spaced apart from each other in the first
direction (Length Direction) in the body; and
an external electrode (220) disposed on the body and connected to each of the first to
third coil portions,
and wherein a distance between the first (211) and second coil (212) portions (distance
D12) is greater than a distance between the second and third coil (213) portions (distance D23)
(Paragraph [0036]).
However, Yoon does not teach a coil with first to third coil portions having turns wound
in the same direction in the second embodiment (200). Yoon does teach a coil component (100,
first embodiment) with coil portions (11, 12, and 13) wound in the same direction (Paragraph
[0027]; Fig 1). Additionally, the second embodiment of Yoon does not teach a coil wherein a number of turns of a portion of the first coil portion disposed in a region between a winding center of the first coil portion and the first surface is greater than a number of turns of a portion of the third coil portion disposed between a winding center of the third coil portion and the second surface. The first embodiment teaches a coil (100) wherein a number of turns of a
portion of the first coil portion (11) disposed in a region between a winding center of the first
coil portion and the first surface is greater than a number of turns of a portion of the third coil
portion (13) disposed between a winding center of the third coil portion and the second surface
(Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component (second embodiment) of Yoon by having coil portions all wound in the same direction and have a greater number of turns in a region of the first coil portion and first surface compared to the third coil and second surface in order to create an additive magnetic flux effect.
Yoon does noes not expressly teach wherein a distance between the first coil portion and the first surface and a distance between the third coil portion and the second surface are adjusted relative to each other to be the same or different. Aoki teaches wherein a distance (D1) between the first coil portion and the first surface and a distance (D2) between the third coil portion and the second surface are adjusted relative to each other to be the same or different (Paragraph [0040]; Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon with the teachings of Aoki by increasing the coils distance from an end surface in order to limit electromagnetic interference and reduce coupling with nearby components.
Regarding Claim 6, Yoon teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4). However, Yoon does not disclose a coil component wherein the distance between the first coil portion and the first surface is different from the distance between the third coil portion and the second surface. Aoki discloses an inductor component (25), wherein a distance between the first coil portion and the first surface (D1) is different from a distance between the third coil portion and the second surface (D2) (Paragraph [0040]; Fig. 2; Aoki).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon by increasing the coils distance from an end surface in order to limit electromagnetic interference and reduce coupling with nearby components.
Regarding Claim 7, Yoon teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4). However, Yoon does not disclose a coil component wherein a distance between the first coil portion and the first surface is greater than a distance between the third coil portion and the second surface. Aoki discloses an inductor component (25), wherein a distance between the first coil portion and the first surface (D1) is greater than a distance between the third coil portion and the second surface (D2) (Paragraph [0040]; Fig. 2; Aoki).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon with the teachings of Aoki by increasing the coils distance from an end surface in order to limit electromagnetic interference and reduce coupling with nearby components.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4), wherein the body further includes a third surface (first side surface) and a fourth surface (second side surface) connecting the first surface (first end surface) to the second surface (second end surface) and opposing each other in a second direction (Width or Y-direction), and wherein both ends of the first to third coil portions (211, 212, 213) extend to the third surface and the fourth surface, respectively (Paragraph [0028]; Fig. 3; Yoon).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 10 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the external electrode include: first and second external electrodes (221 and 222, respectively) connected to the both ends of the first coil portion, respectively, third and fourth external electrodes (223 and 224, respectively) connected to the both ends of the second coil portion, respectively, and fifth and sixth (225 and 226, respectively) external electrodes connected to the both ends of the third coil portion, respectively, and wherein a distance (D12) between the first external electrode and the third external electrode is greater than a distance (D23) between the third external electrode and the fifth external electrode on the third surface of the body (Paragraph [0036-0037], Yoon discloses that the distance between the first and second coil portions is greater than the distance between second and third coil portions and that the opposing ends of the first to third coils are connected to their respective external electrodes as described previously. The external electrodes would thus follow the distances of the respective coil components to which they are connected).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein a number of turns of the third coil portion is the same as a number of turns of the second coil portion (Paragraph [0025-0030]; Yoon).
Regarding Claim 16, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 3 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the cross- sectional area of the second core is the same as the cross- sectional area of the third core (Paragraph [0025-0030]; Yoon).
Regarding Claim 17, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 4 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the length of the entirety of the turn of the second coil portion is the same as the length of the entirety of the turn of the third coil portion (Paragraph [0025-0030]; Yoon).
Regarding Claim 18, Yoon teaches a coil component (200; Fig. 3-4), comprising:
a body (210) having first and second surfaces (first and second end surfaces) in a first
direction (Length Direction);
at least three coil portions (11, 12, 13) spaced apart from each other in the first direction
in the body and having turns wound in the same direction with respect to a core, respectively;
and external electrodes (221-226) disposed on the body and connected to both ends of the
at least three coil portions (Fig. 3), respectively,
wherein a distance (D12) between the first outermost coil portion (211) and an adjacent
coil portion (212) is greater than a distance (D23) between other adjacent coil portions among
the other coil portions (Paragraph [0036]).
However, the second embodiment of Yoon does not teach a coil wherein among the at
least three coil portions, the coil portion nearest to the first surface is defined as a first outermost
coil portion, and the coil portion nearest to the second surface is defined as a second outermost
coil portion, a number of turns of the first outermost coil portion in a region adjacent to the first
surface is greater than a number of turns of the second outermost coil portion in a region adjacent
to the second surface.
Yoon does teach a coil (100, first embodiment, Fig 2) wherein, among the at least three
coil portions (11, 12, 13), the coil portion nearest to the first surface is defined as a first
outermost coil portion (11), and the coil portion nearest to the second surface is defined as a
second outermost coil portion (12), a number of turns of the first outermost coil portion (11) in a
region adjacent to the first surface is greater than a number of turns of the second outermost coil
portion (12) in a region adjacent to the second surface (Paragraph [0036]).
Additionally, Yoon does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between the first outermost coil portion and the first surface and a distance between the second outermost coil portion and the second surface are adjusted relative to each other to be the same or different. Aoki teaches wherein a distance (D1) between the outermost first coil portion and the first surface and a distance (D2) between the second outermost coil portion and the second surface are adjusted relative to each other to be the same or different (Paragraph [0040]; Fig. 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon with the teachings of Aoki by increasing the coils distance from an end surface in order to limit electromagnetic interference and reduce coupling with nearby components.
Regarding Claim 19, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 18 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the core includes a first core disposed in a winding center region of the first outermost coil portion (Figure 3), and wherein a cross-sectional area of the first core is greater than a cross-sectional area of a core disposed in a winding center region of each of the other coil portions (Figure 3, Paragraph [0036]; Yoon).
Regarding Claim 20, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 19 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the core disposed in a winding center region of each of the other coil portions has substantially the same cross-sectional area (Figure 3, Paragraph [0036]; Yoon).
Regarding Claim 22, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 21 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the entirety of the turn of each of the other coil portions other than the first outermost coil portion has substantially the same length (Paragraph [0027]; Yoon).
Regarding Claim 23, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 18 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the distance between the first outermost coil portion and the first surface is substantially the same as the distance between the second outermost coil portion and the second surface (Paragraph [0025-0027]; Yoon).
10. Claims 2-3 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Aoki and in further view of Sase et al. (PG Pub JPH08264320A), hereinafter Sase.
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4), further comprising first to third cores (not numbered) disposed in winding center regions of the first to third coil portions (11, 12, 13), respectively. However, the Yoon does not disclose first to third cores “wherein a cross-sectional area of the first core is different from a cross-sectional area of each of the second and third cores”. Sase teaches an inductor array comprising first through fourth coils (21, 22, 23, 24) each with a core (5), wherein a cross-sectional area of the first core is different from a cross-sectional area of the second and third cores (Paragraph [0005, 0011]; Fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the teachings of Sase by modifying the cross-sectional area of the first core to be different than the second core in order to modify levels of inductance in different applications.
Regarding Claim 3, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4), further comprising first to third cores (not numbered) disposed in winding center regions of the first to third coil portions (11, 12, 13), respectively. However, the Yoon does not disclose first to third cores “wherein a cross-sectional area of the first core is greater than a cross-sectional area of each of the second and third cores”. Sase teaches an inductor array comprising first through fourth coils (21, 22, 23, 24) each with a core (5), wherein a cross-sectional area of the first core is greater than a cross-sectional area of each of the second and third cores (Paragraph [0005, 0011]; Fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the teachings of Sase by modifying the cross-sectional area of the first core to be larger in order to increase inductance.
11. Claims 4-5 and 21 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Aoki, and in further view of Yoshioka et al (US PG Pub 20220037078A1), hereinafter Yoshioka.
Regarding Claim 4, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4). However, Yoon does not disclose coil portions wherein a length of an entirety of the turn of the first coil portion is different from a length of an entirety of the turn of each of the second and third coil portions. Yoshioka teaches an inductor component (10), wherein a length of an entirety of the turn of the first coil portion (432) is different from a length of an entirety of the turn of each of the second coil portion (431) (Paragraph [0137-0138]; Fig. 2-3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the teachings of Yoshioka by modifying the length of the first coil portion in order to increase spacing and allow for better airflow to mitigate overheating.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 4 (200, Fig. 3-4), However, Yoon does not disclose coil portions wherein a length of an entirety of the turn of the first coil portion is longer than a length of an entirety of the turn of each of the second and third coil portions. Yoshioka teaches an inductor component (10) wherein a length of an entirety of the turn of the first coil portion (432) is longer than a length of an entirety of the turn of each of the second coil portion (431) (Paragraph [0137-0138]; Fig. 2-3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the teachings of Yoshioka by increasing the length of the first coil portion in order to increase spacing and allow for better airflow to mitigate overheating.
Regarding Claim 21, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 18 (200; Fig. 3-4), but does not disclose an embodiment wherein a length of an entirety of the turn of the first outermost coil portion is longer than a length of an entirety of the turn of each of the other coil portions other than the first outermost coil portion. Yoshioka teaches an inductor component wherein a length of an entirety of the turn of the first outermost coil portion (432) is longer than a length of an entirety of the turn of each of the other coil portions (431) other than the first outermost coil portion (Paragraph [0137-0138]; Fig. 2-3).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the teachings of Yoshioka by modifying the length of the first coil portion in order to reduce eddy currents.
13. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Aoki and in further view of Richiuso et al. (US PG Pub 20060038635A1), hereinafter Richiuso.
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4), but does not teach a coil wherein negative coupling occurs in a region in which the first and second coil portions are adjacent to each other. Richiuso teaches an inductor coil component (first embodiment) wherein negative coupling occurs in a region in which the first and second coil portions (410, 412) are adjacent to each other (Paragraph [0032-0033]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki by changing the connection polarity to achieve negative coupling in order to reduce current ripple.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200, Fig. 3-4), but does not teach a coil wherein negative coupling occurs in a region in which the second and third coil portions are adjacent to each other. Richiuso teaches an inductor coil component (first embodiment), wherein negative coupling occurs in a region in which second and third coil (414, 416) portions are adjacent to each other (Paragraph [0032-0033]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki by changing the connection polarity to achieve negative coupling in order to reduce current ripple.
14. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Aoki and in further view of Sim et al (US PG Pub 20170310294A1), hereinafter Sim.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 10 (200; Fig. 3-4), but does not explicitly disclose a substrate (though a substrate can be seen below in modified Fig. 3). Sim teaches a coil component including coil portions disposed on a substrate (102).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the substrate of Sim in order to provide additional support to the coil structure.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 12 (200; Fig. 3-4), wherein the first to third coil portions include coil patterns disposed on both surfaces of the substrate respectively, and lead-out portions extending from external ends of the coil patterns to the third and fourth surfaces of the body and in contact with the external electrode. However, Yoon does not teach a coil component including vias penetrating through the substrate and connecting internal ends of the coil patterns on the both surfaces of the substrate. Sim teaches coil portions including vias (not numbered) penetrating through the substrate (102) and connecting internal ends of the coil patterns on the both surfaces of the substrate (Paragraph [0058-0063]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the vias of Sim, in order to reduce parasitic resistance and inductance as well as improve high-frequency performance by providing low-impedance paths to ground.
15. Claim 14 is rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Aoki and in further view of Lee et al (US PG Pub 20160086722A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoon in view of Aoki teaches the coil component of claim 1 (200; Fig. 3-4), including first to third coil portions (11, 12, 13). However, Yoon does not disclose three coil portions which include a wound metal wire coated with a coating layer. Lee discloses coil portions (121) which include a wound metal wire coated with a coating layer (Paragraph [0033-0035]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil component of Yoon in view of Aoki with the teachings of Lee by using coil portions made of wire with a coating in order to provide a coil with additional insulation and prevent short circuits.
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 AISLIN WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-0552. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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 S 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.
/AISLIN M WEST/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights