FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/191,868, entitled LAMINATED COIL COMPONENT.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 13 and 17-19 are rejected.
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14-16 and 20 are allowed.
I. STATUS OF CLAIMS
Applicant filed an amendment on May 18, 2026 (hereinafter the “May 2026 Amendment”) in response to the non-final Office action mailed January 13, 2026 (hereinafter the “2026 NF Action”). In the May 2026 Amendment, claims 1-3 were amended and claims 4-20 were unchanged. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending.
II. PRIORITY
Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP2022-056388, filed March 30, 2022.
III. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiner further finds that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner concludes that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiner’s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
IV. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
IV.A. Obviousness Rejections Applying Kim and Park
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent Application Publication No. KR2012-0036100 to Sin Gon Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Korean Publication No. KR2012-0055253 to Sung Jin Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches
1. A laminated coil component comprising:
See Kim FIGS. 1 and 4, reprinted below:
PNG
media_image1.png
418
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
616
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim FIG. 1 Kim FIG. 4 (annotated by Examiner)
an element body including a plurality of insulating layers laminated in a lamination direction;
See Kim FIGS. 1 and 4 above, element body 30 shown comprising a plurality of stacked insulating layers 300-380 having a lamination direction vertical in FIGS. 1 and 4.
a coil inside the element body; and
See Kim FIGS. 1 and 4 above, note coil inside body comprising loops 51-55 and 72-76 on insulating layers.
an external electrode on a surface of the element body and electrically connected to the coil,
See Kim FIGS. 1 and 4, note external electrodes 10/100a and 20/100b.
wherein the coil includes a plurality of coil conductors laminated in the lamination direction and electrically connected via a via conductor penetrating the insulating layer in the lamination direction, the plurality of coil conductors laminated in the lamination direction includes a laminated portion including the plurality of coil conductors adjacent to each other, the laminated portion has a parallel section in which all the coil conductors constituting the laminated portion overlap each other when viewed from the lamination direction, the parallel sections are connected in parallel by the via conductor,
See Kim FIGS. 1 and 4 above, note coil inside body 30 comprising loops on lamination layers connected together by via conductor groups shown in dotted lines.
the coil is electrically connected to a same external electrode via a plurality of lead-out conductors, each of the lead-out conductors includes a lead-out via conductor penetrating the insulating layer in the lamination direction,
See Kim FIGS. 1 and 4 above, note coil loops connected to output laminate layer 10a via identified vias/lead out conductors in FIG. 4 above.
the plurality of lead out conductors includes extend from the same land portion of one of the plurality of coil condutors in a direction toward the external electrode.
See Kim FIG. 4 above, note identified vias/lead out conductors extend from same land identified in figure.
However, while Kim teaches the plurality of lead-out via conductors, Kim does not explicitly disclose the relative dimensions thereof. Nevertheless, Park teaches output via electrodes for laminate coil components wherein via conductors between laminate layers have widths of less than 100µm. See Park ¶¶0066-0069. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to provide the multiple via holes of Kim to have a diameter of less than 100µm. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because dimensions are known in the art for such vias as taught by Park.
Furthermore, modifying the lead-out via conductors of Kim to have the relative dimensions as recited in the claims would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation because where the where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). As evidenced above, Kim otherwise discloses all the recited features of claim 1, except for the relative dimensional width of the lead-out via conductors. It would have thus been obvious as ordinary skill in the art to make the width of the lead-out via conductors to have the recited dimensions less than 100µm. Furthermore, such a modification is predictable in view of Park which discloses precisely such a relative dimension for multiple via conductors.
Thus, Kim and Park in combination teach a diameter of the lead-out via conductor is 100µm or less.
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 1 and further:
wherein the plurality of coil conductors laminated in the lamination direction includes an outermost coil conductor located at an outermost position in the lamination direction, the outermost coil conductor includes the same land portion at an end portion thereof.
Note combination proposed for claim 1. Further see Kim FIG. 4 above, note identified vias/lead out conductors extend from same land identified in figure.
Regarding claim 4, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 1 and further:
wherein the laminated portion includes three or more of the coil conductors.
Note combination proposed for claim 1. Further see Kim FIGS. 1 and 4 above, note coil inside body comprising loops 51-55 and 72-76 on insulating layers.
Regarding claim 9, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 3 and further:
wherein the laminated portion includes three or more of the coil conductors.
Note combination proposed for claim 3. Further see Kim FIGS. 1 and 4 above, note coil inside body comprising loops 51-55 and 72-76 on insulating layers.
IV.B. Obviousness Rejections Applying Kobayashi, Kim and Park
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent No. 2000-286125 to Keiichi Kobayashi (hereinafter “Kobayashi”) in view of Kim and Park.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches
1. A laminated coil component comprising:
See Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 an d10, reprinted below:
PNG
media_image3.png
252
258
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
408
402
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kobayashi FIG. 1 Kobayashi FIGS. 9 and 10
an element body including a plurality of insulating layers laminated in a lamination direction;
See Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above, element body 10/100 shown comprising a plurality of insulating layers 102 having a lamination direction horizontal towards electrodes in FIG. 1 and vertical in FIGS. 9 and 10.
a coil inside the element body; and
See Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above, note coil 12 inside body 10/100 comprising loops 103 on lamination layers 102.
an external electrode on a surface of the element body and electrically connected to the coil,
See Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above, note external electrodes 13.
wherein the coil includes a plurality of coil conductors laminated in the lamination direction and electrically connected via a via conductor penetrating the insulating layer in the lamination direction, the plurality of coil conductors laminated in the lamination direction includes a laminated portion including the plurality of coil conductors adjacent to each other, the laminated portion has a parallel section in which all the coil conductors constituting the laminated portion overlap each other when viewed from the lamination direction, the parallel sections are connected in parallel by the via conductor,
See Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above, note coil 12 inside body 10/100 comprising loops 103 on lamination layers 102 connected together by via conductors 104.
the coil is electrically connected to a same external electrode via a plurality of lead-out conductors, each of the lead-out conductors includes a lead-out via conductor penetrating the insulating layer in the lamination direction, and …
See Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above, note coil loops 103 connected to output electrodes 13 via lead-out via conductors in top three and bottom three layers 102 above.
However, while Kobayashi teaches a single lead-out conductor and all the vias to be a single line connected to respective lands, Kobayashi does not teach using multiple lead-out conductors. Nevertheless, as shown above in FIG. 4 of Kim, Kim teaches using four via conductors and four lead-out conductors, each group of four such lead-out conductors connected to a single land. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to modify Kobayashi to have four lead-out conductors instead of a single via/lead-out conductor connected to a single land. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as stated in Kim, such use of multiple vias instead of a single via provides the improvement such that the resistance of the via electrode can be lowered, which improves the electrical characteristics of the internal electrodes inside the stacked inductor. See at least Kim ¶¶0065-0066.
Furthermore, while this combination teaches the plurality of lead-out via conductors, they do not explicitly disclose or discuss the relative dimensions thereof. Nevertheless, Park teaches output via electrodes for laminate coil components wherein via conductors between laminate layers have widths of less than 100µm. See Park ¶¶0066-0069. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to provide the multiple vias of Koyahashi in view of Kim to have a diameter of less than 100µm. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because dimensions are known in the art for such vias as taught by Park.
Furthermore, modifying the lead-out via conductors of Kobayashi and Kim to have the relative dimensions as recited in the claims would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation because where the where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). As evidenced above, Kobayashi and Kim otherwise disclose all the recited features of claim 1, except for the relative dimensional width of the lead-out via conductors. It would have thus been obvious as ordinary skill in the art to make the width of the lead-out via conductors to have the recited dimensions less than 100µm. Furthermore, such a modification is predictable in view of Park which discloses precisely such a relative dimension for multiple via conductors.
Thus, Kobayashi, Kim and Park in combination teach a diameter of the lead-out via conductor is 100µm or less.
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 1 and further:
wherein the plurality of coil conductors laminated in the lamination direction includes an outermost coil conductor located at an outermost position in the lamination direction, the outermost coil conductor includes the same land portion at an end portion thereof.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claim 1 above. Further note each group of the plurality of vias and lead-out conductors from the outermost coil conductor in combination would be connected to the same land portion.
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 1 and further:
wherein the laminated portion includes three or more of the coil conductors.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claim 1 above. Further see Kobayashi FIGS. 9 and 10 above showing at least four coil conductors 103.
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 1 and further:
wherein the lamination direction and a direction of a coil axis of the coil are parallel to a mounting surface of the element body along a same direction.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claim 1 above. See also Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above wherein the lamination direction, coil axis and mounting surface are in a same direction.
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 1 and further:
wherein each length of all the coil conductors constituting the laminated portion is a length of ¾ turns of the coil.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claim 1 above. See also Kobayashi FIGS. 9 and 10 above wherein each coil conductor 103 is a ¾ turn coil.
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 3 and further:
wherein the laminated portion includes three or more of the coil conductors.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claims 1 and 3 above. Further see Kobayashi FIGS. 9 and 10 above showing at least four coil conductors 103.
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 3 and further:
wherein the lamination direction and a direction of a coil axis of the coil are parallel to a mounting surface of the element body along a same direction.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claims 1 and 3 above. See also Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above wherein the lamination direction, coil axis and mounting surface are in a same direction.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 4 and further:
wherein the lamination direction and a direction of a coil axis of the coil are parallel to a mounting surface of the element body along a same direction.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claims 1 and 4 above. See also Kobayashi FIGS. 1, 9 and 10 above wherein the lamination direction, coil axis and mounting surface are in a same direction.
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 3 and further:
wherein each length of all the coil conductors constituting the laminated portion is a length of ¾ turns of the coil.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claims 1 and 3 above. See also Kobayashi FIGS. 9 and 10 above wherein each coil conductor 103 is a ¾ turn coil.
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 4 and further:
wherein each length of all the coil conductors constituting the laminated portion is a length of ¾ turns of the coil.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claims 1 and 4 above. See also Kobayashi FIGS. 9 and 10 above wherein each coil conductor 103 is a ¾ turn coil.
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi, Kim and Park teach the component of claim 5 and further:
wherein each length of all the coil conductors constituting the laminated portion is a length of ¾ turns of the coil.
Note combination of Kobayashi, Kim and Park proposed for claims 1 and 5 above. See also Kobayashi FIGS. 9 and 10 above wherein each coil conductor 103 is a ¾ turn coil.
V. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14-16 and 20 are allowed. Examiner finds that regarding claim 2, the prior art of record in this application do not show or discuss wherein “the first sum being determined by a same first cross section, is equal to or greater than a second sum of sectional areas of the coil conductors constituting the parallel section, the second sum being determined by a same second cross section” in the manner as recited in claim and in combination with the other features of the claims. Claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 14-16 and 20 are allowed for the same reasons based on their dependency to claim 2.
VI. EXAMINER’S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments provided in the May 2026 Amendment. However, Examiner finds the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided in this Office action.
VII. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 12, 13 and 17-19 are rejected.
Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14-16 and 20 are allowed.
Applicant's substantial amendments provided in the May 2026 Amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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 KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights