DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-4, 12-13 and 15 are amended
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 of this title, 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
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 20160086720 A1) in view of Park (US 20200335254 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Jeong teaches that a coil component comprising:
a support substrate (20, Fig. 1; para 0025-0064);
a coil portion (41-42) including a first conductive layer (61d, Drawing: 1;
para 0042-0043) being in contact with one surface of the support substrate, and a second conductive layer (62d, Drawing: 1) disposed on the first conductive layer to be spaced apart from the one surface of the support substrate (construed from Fig. 3); and
a body (50, Fig. 1) including the support substrate and the coil portion
embedded in the body,
PNG
media_image1.png
473
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing: 1, an annotated version of Fig. 3
Jeong does not explicitly teach that wherein one side of the first conductive layer is closer to a center of the second conductive layer in a width direction of a coil pattern of the coil portion than any point on a side surface.
However, Park teaches that that wherein one side of the first conductive layer (200a, Fig. 7; para 0049) is closer to a center (C, Drawing: 2) of the second conductive layer in a width direction (i.e. horizontal direction in Drawing: 2) of a coil pattern of the coil portion than any point (construed from Drawing: 2) on a side surface (d2<d1, in Drawing: 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have one side of the first conductive layer is closer to a center of the second conductive layer in a width direction of a coil pattern of the coil portion than any point on a side surface to provide a coil pattern capable of increasing the ratio of the width of an upper surface to the width of a lower surface (see para 0007).
PNG
media_image2.png
320
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Drawing: 2, an annotated version of Fig. 7
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jeong teaches that wherein a ratio (d2/d1; Drawing: 1) of a distance from the one side of the second conductive layer to the one side of the first conductive layer except a ratio of a distance from the one side of the second conductive layer to the one side of the first conductive layer with respect to a width of the second conductive layer, is greater than 0.1 and less than 0.45.
As of limitation " a ratio of a distance from the one side of the second conductive layer to the one side of the first conductive layer with respect to a width of the second conductive layer, is greater than 0.1 and less than 0.45", is anticipated by Jeong. While Jeong does not disclose specific ratio of a distance from the one side of the second conductive layer to the one side of the first conductive layer with respect to a width of the second conductive layer, is greater than 0.1 and less than 0.45, it would appear that given a d2 value of the distance, it would appear that the corresponding d1 value would fall in the claimed range such that 0.1<(d2/d1)<0.45 would be met as the d1 value encompasses a relative large range.
Regarding Claim 3:
As applied to claim 1, Jeong teaches that wherein the one side of the first conductive layer is closer (construed from Drawing: 1; i.e. d2<d1) to the center of the second conductive layer in the width direction, on an upper surface of the first conductive layer contacting a lower most portion the second conductive layer than on one surface of the first conductive layer contacting the support substrate (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 1, Jeong teaches that the first conductive layer and second conductive layer except a ratio of a width of the first conductive layer to a width of the second conductive layer is greater than 0.1 and less than 1,
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio of a width of the first conductive layer to a width of the second conductive layer is greater than 0.1 and less than 1 to meet design requirements for certain applications, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a ratio of a width of the first conductive layer to a width of the second conductive layer is greater than 0.1 and less than 1 as claimed to meet design requirements for certain application for successful device operation.
Regarding Claim 6:
As applied to claim 1, Jeong teaches that the coil portion has a planar spiral shape having a plurality of turns, wherein an aspect ratio (A/R) of the plurality of turns is 6 or more as explained in claim 5 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claim 7:
As applied to claim 6, Jeong teaches that a distance between adjacent turns among the plurality of turns is 8 µm or more and 15 µm or less as explained in claim 5 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claim 8:
As applied to claim 6, Jeong teaches that the plurality of turns have a width of 25 µm or more and a thickness of 200 µm or more as explained in claim 5 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claim 11:
As applied to claim 1, Jeong teaches that a portion of the one surface of the support substrate, on which two adjacent turns of coil patterns of the coil portion and a portion between the two adjacent turns are disposed, is flat (construed from Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12:
Jeong teaches that A coil component comprising:
a support substrate (20, Fig. 1; para 0025-0064); and
a coil portion (41-42) including a coil pattern having a plurality of turns on one surface of the support substrate (see Fig. 2),
wherein each of the plurality of turns of the coil pattern including a first conductive layer (61d, Drawing: 1; para 0042-0043) being in contact with one surface of the support substrate, and a second conductive layer (62d, Drawing: 1; ) disposed on the first conductive layer to be spaced apart from the one surface of the support substrate (construed from Fig. 3);
one side of the first conductive layer is closer to a center (C, Drawing: 1) of the second conductive layer in a width direction (i.e. horizontal direction in Drawing: 1) of a coil pattern of the coil portion than one side of the second conductive layer (d2<d1, in Drawing: 1)
Jeong does not explicitly teach a width of the upper surface of the second conductive layer is greater than a width of the lower surface of the first conductive layer,
However, Park teaches that a width (W1, Drawing: 2) of the upper surface of the second conductive layer (200b) is greater than a width (W2, Drawing: 2) of the lower surface (200a) of the first conductive layer (i.e. W1>W2; construed from Drawing :1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a width of the upper surface of the second conductive layer is greater than a width of the lower surface of the first conductive layer to provide a coil pattern capable of increasing the ratio of the width of an upper surface to the width of a lower surface (see para 0007).
The modified Jeong teaches support substrate, the plurality of turns of the coil pattern except based on a cross section perpendicular to one surface of the support substrate, at least one of the plurality of turns of the coil pattern is configured in such a manner that a ratio of a thickness of the coil pattern to a width of the second conductive layer is 6 or more.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have based on a cross section perpendicular to one surface of the support substrate, at least one of the plurality of turns of the coil pattern is configured in such a manner that a ratio of a thickness of the coil pattern to a width of the second conductive layer is 6 or more to meet design requirements for certain applications, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have based on a cross section perpendicular to one surface of the support substrate, at least one of the plurality of turns of the coil pattern is configured in such a manner that a ratio of a thickness of the coil pattern to a width of the second conductive layer is 6 or more as claimed to meet design requirements for certain application for successful device operation.
Regarding Claim 14:
As applied to claim 14, Jeong teaches that a portion of the one surface of the support substrate, on which two adjacent turns of coil patterns of the coil portion and a portion between the two adjacent turns are disposed, is flat (construed from Fig. 3).
Claims 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Ilda (US 20190228900 A1).
Regarding Claim 15:
Jeong teaches that A coil component comprising:
a support substrate (20, Fig. 1; para 0025-0064);
a coil portion (41-42) including a coil pattern having a plurality of turns on one surface of the support substrate (see Fig. 2), each of the plurality of turns of the coil pattern including a first conductive layer (61d, Drawing: 1; para 0042-0043) being in contact with one surface of the support substrate, and a second conductive layer (62d, Drawing: 1; ) disposed on the first conductive layer to be spaced apart from the one surface of the support substrate (construed from Fig. 3); and
an insulating film (30, Fig. 2) disposed in a first space between a portion of the second conductive layer of one of the plurality of turns and the one surface of the support substrate (construed from Fig. 3).
Jeong does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the first conductive layer is substantially the same as a vertical size of the first space.
However, Ilda teaches that a thickness (t1, Drawing: 3) of the first conductive layer is substantially the same (construed from Drawing: 3) as a vertical size (h1, Drawing: 3) of the first space
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have a thickness of the first conductive layer is substantially the same as a vertical size of the first space to provide multilayer boards that each prevent short-circuiting between conductor patterns while increasing the density of the conductor patterns to prevent an increase in a size of an element (see para 0007).
PNG
media_image3.png
286
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Drawing: 3, an annotated version of Fig. 8B
Regarding Claim 17:
As applied to claim 15, Jeong teaches that a portion of the one surface of the support substrate, on which two adjacent turns of coil patterns of the coil portion and a portion between the two adjacent turns are disposed, is flat (construed from Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 18:
As applied to claim 15, Jeong teaches that a distance between adjacent turns among the plurality of turns is 8 µm or more and 15 µm or less as explained in claim 5 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claim 19:
As applied to claim 15, Jeong teaches that the coil portion has a planar spiral shape having a plurality of turns, wherein an aspect ratio (A/R) of the plurality of turns is 6 or more as explained in claim 5 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claim 20:
As applied to claim 15, Jeong teaches that the insulating film is in contact with a side surface of the first conductive layer (see Fig. 3).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Park and further in view of Kim (US 20180197672 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Jeong teaches that wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer except the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprise different metals.
However, Kim teaches the first coil layer contains at least one of titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo), and the second coil layer contains copper (Cu) (see claim 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprise different metals to provide an inductor in which alignment of coils having a high aspect ratio is improved (see para 0005).
Regarding Claim 10:
As applied to claim 1, Jeong teaches that the second conductive layer comprises copper (Cu) except the first conductive layer comprises molybdenum (Mo).
However, Kim teaches the first coil layer contains at least one of titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo)(see claim 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first conductive layer comprises molybdenum (Mo) to provide an inductor in which alignment of coils having a high aspect ratio is improved (see para 0005).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Ilda and further in view of Kim (US 20180197672 A1).
Regarding Claim 16:
As applied to claim 15, Jeong teaches that the second conductive layer comprises copper (Cu) except the first conductive layer comprises molybdenum (Mo).
However, Kim teaches the first coil layer contains at least one of titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo)(see claim 10).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the first conductive layer comprises molybdenum (Mo) to provide an inductor in which alignment of coils having a high aspect ratio is improved (see para 0005).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Park and further in view of Kajino (US 6600404 B1).
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 3, Jeong teaches that on the one surface of the first conductive layer, except the one side of the first conductive layer is disposed outside of the one side of the second conductive layer.
However, Kajino teaches that the one side of the first conductive layer (2, Fig. 1) is disposed outside (construed from Fig. 1); of the one side of the second conductive layer (3”, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the one side of the first conductive layer is disposed outside of the one side of the second conductive layer to provide a process of fabricating, with ease, a device comprising a plurality of fine yet thick conductive patterns.
Regarding Claim 13:
As applied to claim 3, Jeong teaches that first conductive layer contacting the support substrate and of the first conductive layer contacting the second conductive layer except wherein an area of one surface of the first conductive layer contacting the support substrate is larger than an area of the other surface of the first conductive layer contacting the second conductive layer
However, Kajino teaches an area (not labeled; i.e. area of lower surface 2 that is contacted with substrate 1 in Fig. 1) of one surface of the first conductive layer contacting the support substrate is larger than an area of the other surface (not labeled; i.e. area of upper surface 2 that is contacted with coil 3” in Fig. 1)of the first conductive layer contacting the second conductive layer (construed from Fig. 1)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have an area of one surface of the first conductive layer contacting the support substrate is larger than an area of the other surface of the first conductive layer contacting the second conductive layer to provide a process of fabricating, with ease, a device comprising a plurality of fine yet thick conductive patterns.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference, and/or newly found prior art reference(s).
,
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A list of pertinent prior art is attached in form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kazi Hossain whose telephone number is 571-272-8182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from Monday to Thursday 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Shawki Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAZI HOSSAIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/SHAWKI S ISMAIL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837