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 with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the examiner did not allege that Andoh teaches the limitations of the originally filed claim 7, which is now incorporated in claim 1, claim 7 was not rejected with Andoh because it was already rejected with Schiek. Andoh still teaches the limitations of the originally filed claim 7 as well as the limitations of the last paragraph in the amendment filed on 04/30/2026. Accordingly, Andoh still anticipates claim 1.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection made in the Office action mailed on 02/19/2026 is hereby withdrawn partly as a result of the amendment filed on 04/30/2026.
Some of the drawings objection made in the Office action dated 02/19/2026 is hereby withdrawn as a result of the amendment filed on 04/30/2026. However, some drawings objection are maintained as 37 CFR 1.83(a) requires the claimed invention must be shown in the drawings.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “helical coil wound with more than one turn” as recited in claim 1, “a plurality of electronic components mounted on the substrate” as claimed in claim 15 and “the outer terminal end of the first coil is connected to one end of an upper surface of the substrate on which the plurality of electronic components are mounted; the outer terminal end of the second coil is connected to another end of the upper surface of the substrate on which the plurality of electronic components are mounted” of claim 19 and similar limitation in claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andoh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,095,357).
With respect to claim 1, Andoh et al., hereinafter referred to as “Andoh,” teaches an inductor device (FIG. 16a) comprising:
a substrate 1 and 61 or (substrates 1 and 20-50 as shown in FIG. 3(c) PRIOR ART);
a first coil 2 and a second coil 62 in the substrate and connected in series;
a first terminal 7 connected to the first coil; and
a second terminal 71 connected to the second coil; wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil is a spiral coil or a helical coil wound with more than one turn;
at least a portion of the first coil overlaps at least a portion of the second coil when seen in a plan view from a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate;
a direction of a magnetic field generated by the first coil is opposite to a direction of a magnetic field generated by the second coil;
the first coil and the second coil have the same or substantially the same shape and the same or substantially the same dimensions and overlap when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate; and
the first coil and the second coil have the same or substantially the same outermost dimensions when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate. (col. 11, lines 49-65).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
507
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 4 and 18, Andoh teaches the inductor device according to claim 1 and the circuit module of claim 15, respectively, wherein the first coil and the second coil are wound in the same direction when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate (col. 11, line 67 to col. 12, line 1).
With respect to claim 6, Andoh teaches the inductor device according to claim 4, wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil includes an outer terminal end 3 and an inner terminal end 4;
the inner terminal end of the first coil is connected to the first terminal;
the inner terminal end of the second coil is connected to the second terminal; and
the outer terminal end of the first coil and the outer terminal end of the second coil are connected (col. 10, lines 48-53 and col. 11, lines 49-58).
With respect to claim 15, Andoh teaches a circuit module (col. 1, lines 6-10) comprising:
the inductor device according to claim 1; and
a plurality of electronic components (not expressly shown) mounted on the substrate;
wherein
the substrate includes a support substrate 1 and a wiring layer (layers 61 and 63) on the support substrate;
the wiring layer includes wiring (wiring of the first and second coils) to connect the plurality of electronic components to each other; and
the first coil and the second coil are provided in the wiring layer (col. 10, lines 48-56 and col. 11, lines 59-60).
With respect to claim 20, Andoh teaches the circuit module according to claim 18, wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil includes an outer terminal end 3 and an inner terminal end 4;
the inner terminal end of the first coil is connected to one end of an upper surface of the substrate on which the plurality of electronic components are mounted;
the inner terminal end of the second coil is connected to another end of the upper surface of the substrate on which the plurality of electronic components are mounted; and
the outer terminal end of the first coil and the outer terminal end of the second coil are connected (col. 10, lines 48-56 and col. 11, lines 59-60).
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, 4, 5, 8, 13-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiek et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2021/0203303 A1, hereinafter “Schiek”) in view of Berlin et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2009/0179726 A1, hereinafter “Berlin”).
With respect to claim 1, Schiek teaches an inductor device (FIGs 1 and 2A) comprising:
a substrate SU and BM;
a first coil WG1 or WG2 and a second coil (the other of WG1 or WG2) in the substrate and connected in series;
a first terminal A or D connected to the first coil; and
a second terminal (the other of terminal A or D) connected to the second coil; wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil is a spiral coil or a helical coil wound with more than one turn;
at least a portion of the first coil overlaps at least a portion of the second coil when seen in a plan view (as seen in FIG 1) from a direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate;
a direction of a magnetic field generated by the first coil is opposite to a direction of a magnetic field generated by the second coil;
the first coil and the second coil have the same or substantially the same shape and the same or substantially the same dimensions and overlap when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate (paras. [0032], [0033] and [0037]).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schiek does not expressly teach the first coil and the second coil have the same or substantially the same outermost dimensions when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate.
Berlin teaches an inductor device 30 (FIGs. 4-5), wherein
the first coil 32A and the second coil 34A have the same or substantially the same shape and the same or substantially the same dimensions and overlap when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate (not expressly shown); and
the first coil and the second coil have the same or substantially the same outermost dimensions when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate (para. [0033]).
PNG
media_image3.png
334
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the first coil and the second coil shape and dimension as taught by Berlin to the inductor device of Schiek to facilitate manufacturing as producing the same or substantially the same shape and dimension of coils would be easier than producing different shape and dimension coils.
With respect to claims 4 and 18, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the inductor device according to claim 1 and the circuit module of claim 15, respectively, wherein the first coil and the second coil are wound in the same direction when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate (Schiek, para. [0037]).
With respect to claim 5, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the inductor device according to claim 4, wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil includes an outer terminal end (external end) and an inner terminal end (internal end);
the outer terminal end of the first coil is connected to the first terminal;
the outer terminal end of the second coil is connected to the second terminal; and
the inner terminal end of the first coil and the inner terminal end of the second coil are connected (Schiek, para. [0033]).
With respect to claim 8, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the inductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first coil and the second coil are wound in directions opposite to each other when seen in a plan view from the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate (Berlin, para. [0022]).
With respect to claim 13, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the inductor device according to claim 1, wherein
the substrate includes a dielectric layer BM in which a plurality of dielectrics LIs are stacked; and
the first coil and the second coil are provided in layers in the dielectric layer that are different from each other (Schiek, paras. [0032], [0033] and [0041]).
With respect to claim 14, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the inductor device according to claim 13, wherein
the dielectric layer includes a wiring layer HI therein; and
the first coil and the second coil are provided in the wiring layer (Schiek, para. [0033]).
With respect to claim 15, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches a circuit module (Schiek, para. P0001]) comprising:
the inductor device of claim 1,
a plurality of electronic components (not expressly shown) mounted on the substrate; and
wherein
the substrate includes a support substrate SU and a wiring layer BM on the support substrate;
the wiring layer includes wiring (wiring of the first and second coils) to connect the plurality of electronic components to each other; and
the first coil and the second coil are provided in the wiring layer (Schiek, para. [0032] and [0033]).
With respect to claim 19, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the circuit module according to claim 18, wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil includes an outer terminal end (external end) and an inner terminal end (internal end);
the outer terminal end of the first coil is connected to one end of an upper surface of the substrate on which the plurality of electronic components are mounted;
the outer terminal end of the second coil is connected to another end of the upper surface of the substrate on which the plurality of electronic components are mounted; and
the inner terminal end of the first coil and the inner terminal end of the second coil are connected (Schiek, paras. [0032], [0033] and [0037]).
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoh, or Schiek in view of Berlin, as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Viala (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2019/0371518 A1).
With respect to claims 2 and 16, Andoh, or Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the inductor device according to claim 1 or circuit module according to claim 15, respectively. Andoh, or Schiek in view of Berlin does not expressly teach a distance between the first coil and the second coil in the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate is about 0.1 mm or smaller.
Viala teaches an inductor 2 (Fig. 1), wherein a distance (thickness of dielectric layer 30) between the first coil 42 and the second coil 40 in the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate 20 is about 0.1 mm or smaller (para. [0040]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the distance as taught by Viala to the inductor device of Andoh, or Schiek in view of Berlin to provide the desired magnetic coupling coefficient k (para. [0040]).
With respect to claims 3 and 17, Andoh in view of Viala, or Schiek in view of Berlin and Viala teaches the inductor device according to claim 2 or circuit module according to claim 15, respectively, wherein the distance between the first coil and the second coil in the direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate is about 0.01 mm or larger (Viala, para. [0040]).
With respect to claim 11, Andoh in view of Viala, or Schiek in view of Berlin and Viala teaches the inductor device according to claim 1. Andoh in view of Viala, or Schiek in view of Berlin and Viala does not expressly teach each of the first coil and the second coil includes adjacent conductors, and a distance between adjacent conductors in each of the first coil and the second coil is about 0.01 mm or smaller.
Viala teaches an inductor 2 (Fig. 3), wherein each of the first coil and the second coil includes adjacent conductors, and a distance (pitch between turns) between adjacent conductors (interpreted as turns) in each of the first coil 40 and the second coil 42 is about 0.01 mm or smaller (para. [0048] and [0052]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the distance between the turns/conductors of the coils as taught by Viala to the inductor device of Andoh in view of Viala, or Schiek in view of Berlin and Viala to provide the desired magnetic coupling (para. [0052]).
With respect to claim 12, Andoh in view of Viala, or Schiek in view of Berlin and Viala teaches the inductor device according to claim 1, wherein each of the first coil and the second coil includes adjacent conductors (interpreted as turns of the first and second coil), a distance (pitch between turns/conductors) between the adjacent conductors in each of the first coil and the second coil is about 0.002 mm or larger (Viala, para. [0048] and [0052]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiek in view of Berlin, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wasson et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2012/0029343 A1, hereinafter “Wasson”).
With respect to claim 9, Schiek in view of Berlin teaches the inductor device according to claim 8, wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil includes an outer terminal end and an inner terminal end;
the outer terminal end of the first coil is connected to the first terminal;
the inner terminal end of the second coil is connected to the second terminal; and
the inner terminal end of the first coil and the outer terminal end of the second coil are connected.
Wasson teaches an inductor device (FIG. 4), wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil includes an outer terminal end (external end) and an inner terminal end (internal end);
the outer terminal end of the first coil 100-3 is connected to the first terminal (hatched terminal connected to external end of coil 100-3);
the inner terminal end (internal end of coil 100-2 connected to hatched terminal) of the second coil is connected to the second terminal (hatched terminal connected to internal end); and
the inner terminal end of the first coil 100-3 and the outer terminal end of the second coil 1002-2 are connected (Wasson, para. [0049]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to connect the terminals of the first and second coils as taught by Wasson to the inductor device of Schiek in view of Berlin to provide the required foldability to facilitate manufacturing (para. [0050]).
With respect to claim 10, Schiek in view of Berlin and Wasson teaches the inductor device according to claim 8, wherein
each of the first coil and the second coil includes an outer terminal (external end) end and an inner terminal end (internal end);
the inner terminal end of the first coil 100-2 is connected to the first terminal (hatched terminal connected to internal end);
the outer terminal end of the second coil 100-3 is connected to the second terminal (hatched terminal connected to exterior end); and
the outer terminal end of the first coil 1000-2 and the inner terminal end of the second coil are 100-3 connected (Wasson, para. [0049]).
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 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 MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights