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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/2/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11-12, 14-15 and 17 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 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 20160086720 A1) 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 an upper surface (i.e. upper surface of 20 in Drawing: 1) 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) having a lower surface (i.e. lower surface of 61d in Drawing: 1) being in contact with one surface of the support substrate, and a second conductive layer (62d, Drawing: 1; ) disposed on an upper surface (i.e. upper surface of 61d in Drawing: 1) of the first conductive layer to be spaced apart from the upper 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 upper 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: 2) of the first conductive layer is substantially the same (construed from Drawing: 2) as a vertical size (h1, Drawing: 2) 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_image1.png
473
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing: 1, an annotated version of Fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
286
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Drawing: 2, 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).
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 recites, A coil component comprising:
a support substrate;
a coil portion including a first conductive layer having a lower surface in contact
with an upper one-surface of the support substrate, and a second conductive layer disposed on an upper surface of the first conductive layer to be spaced apart from the upper surface of the support substrate; and
a body including the support substrate and the coil portion embedded in the body,
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 of the second conductive layer, and
a thickness of the first conductive layer is substantially the same as a vertical size of a first space defined between a lower surface of the second conductive layer and the upper surface of the support substrate.
Claim 2 recites, A coil component comprising:
a support substrate; and
a coil portion including a coil pattern having a plurality of turns on an upper surface of the support substrate,
wherein each of the plurality of turns of the coil pattern includes a first conductive layer having a lower surface in contact with the upper surface of the support substrate, and a second conductive layer disposed on an upper surface of the first conductive layer to be spaced apart from the upper surface of the support substrate,
one side of the first conductive layer is closer to a center of the second conductive layer in a width direction of the coil pattern than one side of the second conductive layer,
a width of an upper surface of the second conductive layer is greater than a width of the upper surface of the first conductive layer,
a thickness of the first conductive layer is substantially the same as a vertical size of a first space defined between a lower surface of the second conductive layer and the upper surface of the support substrate, and
based on a cross section perpendicular to the upper 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.
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments 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
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
Prosecution Insights