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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(a) Claim 1. line 10, typing error: “a via connection conductor” should be “the via connection conductor”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaoru (US 20160042862 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Kaoru teaches that a multilayer coil component, comprising:
a multilayer body (12, Fig. 1; para 0017-0045) including a plurality of insulation
layers (16a-16j; Fig. 2) that are laminated together, and that includes a coil (L, Fig. 2; para 0019) inside the multilayer body; and
an outer electrode (14a-14b) on an outer surface (i.e. left and right side of the body) of the multilayer body and electrically connected to the coil,
wherein
the coil includes a plurality of coil conductors (18a-18d, 20a-20c; Fig. 2) that are laminated together with the insulation layers and connected together via a connection conductor (v1-v3), and
at a connection portion at which a first coil conductor (18c) and a second coil conductor (20b), being coil conductors adjacent to each other, are connected via a connection conductor (v2),
a conductor width (not labeled; i.e. width of v2 in Fig. 2) of the connection conductor is smaller (construed from Fig. 2; width of v2 is smaller than width of W1) than a conductor width of the first coil conductor (W1), and a conductor width (W2) of the second coil conductor is smaller than the conductor width of the first coil conductor (i.e. W2< W1 or W1 >W2; see para 0032).
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 2-6, 9-16 and 19-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Kaoru.
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, Kaoru teaches in the connection portion, the conductor width of the connection conductor except in the connection portion, the conductor width of the connection conductor is from 30% to 90% of the conductor width of the first coil conductor.
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 in the connection portion, the conductor width of the connection conductor is from 30% to 90% of the conductor width of the first coil conductor.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 in the connection portion, the conductor width of the connection conductor is from 30% to 90% of the conductor width of the first coil conductor as claimed to meet design requirements for certain application.
Regarding Claims 3, 9:
As applied to claim 1 and 2, Kaoru teaches in the connection portion, the conductor width of the second coil conductor is from 30% to 90% of the conductor width of the first coil conductor as explained in claim 2 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claims 4, 10 and 11:
As applied to claim 1, 2 and 3, Kaoru teaches in the connection portion, a difference between the conductor width of the connection conductor and the conductor width of the first coil conductor is from 40 μm to 200 μm as explained in claim 2 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Furthermore, Hirukawa (US 20190304656 A1) taught in para 0094 that If the multilayer coil component according to the present disclosure is 1005 in size, the width of the connecting conductor is preferably not less than about 40 μm and not more than about 100 μm (i.e., from about 40 μm to about 100 μm).
Regarding Claims 5, 12-14:
As applied to claim 1, 2-4, Kaoru teaches wherein in the connection portion, a difference between the conductor width of the second coil conductor and the conductor width of the first coil conductor is from 40 μm to 200 μm as explained in claim 2 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claims 6, 15-16:
As applied to claim 1, and 2-3, Kaoru teaches in the connection portion, the conductor width of the first coil conductor is from 180 μm to 380 μm as explained in claim 2 analysis above in light of MPEP 2144.05 (II-A).
Regarding Claim 19-20:
As applied to claim 2 and 3, Kaoru teaches that wherein of the insulation layers, an insulation layer (16a, Fig. 2) between the first coil conductor and the second coil conductor includes a non-magnetic material (insulator layers 16 are made of ceramic green sheets which is a non-magnetic material; see para 0041).
Claims 8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaoru in view of Tozawa (US 20190348212 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
As applied to claim 1, and 2-3, Kaoru teaches that wherein of the insulation layers, an insulation layer (16a, Fig. 2) between the first coil conductor and the second coil conductor (see para 0041) except first coil conductor and the second coil conductor includes a non-magnetic material.
However, Tozawa taught in para 0038 (see Fig. 3) that each of the non-magnetic layers 4 is configured by a sintered body of a ceramic green sheet including a non-magnetic material, for example. The non-magnetic material is a Cu—Zn based ferrite material, a dielectric material, or a glass ceramic material, for example.
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 first coil conductor and the second coil conductorinclude non-magnetic material to provide superior corrosion resistance, and reducing weight in specialized applications.
Claims 7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaoru in view of Miyoshi (US 20100253464 A1).
Regarding Claim 7 and 17-18:
As applied to claim 1-3, Kaoru teaches wherein in the connection portion, the conductor width of the second coil conductor except in the connection portion, the conductor width of the second coil conductor is smaller than the conductor width of the connection conductor.
However, Miyoshi taught that in the connection portion, the conductor width of the second coil conductor (20, Fig. 2 para 0036) is smaller than the conductor width of the connection conductor (b1).
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 in the connection portion, the conductor width of the second coil conductor is smaller than the conductor width of the connection conductor to provide an electronic component capable of obtaining a large inductance value and a high Q value and a method of manufacturing the electronic component (see para 0013).
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