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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 03/20/2023 and 7/17/2024 have been considered.
Drawing Objections
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, “A coil array comprising a plurality of coil components according to Claim 1” of claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Similarly claims 19 and 20 must show the claimed coil arrays. 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 1-7 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arata et al. (hereinafter Arata), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0257576.
Regarding Claim 1, Arata teaches, a coil component (Fig. 2) comprising:
an element assembly (2) containing a magnetic material (“ferrite” [0026]);
a coil conductor (21) in the element assembly;
a connection conductor (27, 29) in the element assembly;
an extended conductor (33) coupling the coil conductor to the connection conductor; and
an outer electrode (4, 6) on a bottom surface of the element assembly,
wherein
the coil conductor (21) is electrically coupled to the outer electrode (4, 6) with the connection conductor (27, 29) and the extended conductor interposed therebetween,
the connection conductor (27, 29) extends from a junction portion (the junction of 27, 29 with 39, 43, respectively) connected to the extended conductor (33) in a first direction (width direction, between faces 2e and 2f), and
a width of the connection conductor (27, 29) is larger than a width of the coil conductor (21) when viewed in the first direction. (Arata: Figs. 1-5, para. [0023], [0024], [0026], [0029], [0031]).
Regarding Claim 2, Arata further teaches, wherein
the coil component (Fig. 2) has a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape where a height direction is an axial direction of the coil conductor, a length direction is a long-side direction of a bottom surface (2a), and a width direction is a short-side direction of the bottom surface, and
the first direction is the width direction (width direction, between faces 2e and 2f). (Arata: Fig. 2, para. [0024]).
Regarding Claim 3 and similarly claim 9, Arata further teaches, wherein the width of the connection conductor (27, 29) is from twice to 4 times the width of the coil conductor (21). (Arata: Figs. 3 and 4, para. [0021]).
Regarding Claim 4 and similarly claims 10 and 11, Arata further teaches, wherein a second extended conductor (39) is disposed between the connection conductor (27) and the outer electrode (4). (Arata: Figs. 3 and 4, para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 5 and similarly claims 12-14, Arata further teaches, wherein the outer electrode (4, 6) is a plating layer (“a plated layer 7 is formed on the surface of each of the first and second external electrodes 4, 6” [0028]). (Arata: Fig. 3, para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 6 and similarly claims 15-17, Arata further teaches, wherein the outer electrode is an underlying electrode (4, 6) and a plating layer (7) disposed on the underlying electrode (“a plated layer 7 is formed on the surface of each of the first and second external electrodes 4, 6” [0028]). (Arata: Fig. 3, para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 7 and similarly claim 18, Arata further teaches, wherein the plating layer is a Cu layer, a Ni-Sn layer, a Ni-Au layer, a Ni-Cu layer, or a Cu- Ni-Au layer (“Ni and Sn are used for the electroplating” [0028]). (Arata: Fig. 3, para. [0028]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata, as applied to claims 1, 2 and 3, respectively, in view of Sato et al. (hereinafter Sato), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0111603.
Regarding Claim 8, and similarly claims 19 and 20, Arata is silent on including a coil array comprising a plurality of coil components according to Claim 1. (Arata: Figs. 1-5, para. [0023], [0024], [0026], [0029], [0031]).
Arata does not explicitly teach, a coil array comprising a plurality of coil components according to Claim 1.
However, Sato (Fig. 1B) teaches, a coil array comprising a plurality of coil components (1) (“the laminated electronic component according to the present embodiment may include two or more coils...the laminated electronic component is a coil component (coil array) having two coils stacked within a body” [0092]). (Sato: Figs. 1 and 7, para. [0031], [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coil component of Arata to include the plurality of coil components of Sato, the motivation being to provide multiple inductive components in one device to simplify needed connections to multiple components. Therefore, the limitations of Claim 8 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tobita et al. (US 20220319763), Miyahara (US 20170338031) and Endo et al. (US 20180277296).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM BARNES whose telephone number is (408)918-7512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (PST).
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 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.
/MALCOLM BARNES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
1/3/2026