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 .
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 2014/0333404).
Regarding claim 1, Bae teaches a coil component (100, fig. 3) comprising: a magnetic body (130) having a main surface ([0043]); a first coil pattern (120) disposed so as to overlap the main surface of the magnetic body ([0034]); and a first resin layer (110’) disposed so as to overlap the main surface of the magnetic body and containing particles and binder resin ([0039]-[0040] and [0048]), wherein the first coil pattern has a first surface facing the main surface of the magnetic body and a second surface positioned on a side opposite to the first surface (fig. 3), and wherein the first coil pattern is embedded in the first resin layer such that at least the first and second surfaces of the first coil pattern are covered with the first resin layer (fig. 3 and [0046]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae.
Regarding claim 2, Bae teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Bae further teaches wherein the first resin layer (110’) has a third surface facing the main surface of the magnetic body and a fourth surface positioned on a side opposite to the third surface (fig. 3) but silent to a distance as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bae to have a distance between the first surface of the first coil pattern and the third surface of the first resin layer is larger than a distance between the second surface of the first coil pattern and the fourth surface of the first resin layer as claimed since it is just a matter of design option for placing/positioning the coil pattern with respect to the first resin layer and the magnetic body. Moreover, as can be easily seen in figure 3, the resin layer 110’ between the first surface of the main body 130 with the first surface of the coil pattern 120 is larger than the resin layer between the second surface of the coil 120 and the fourth surface of the resin layer 110’.
Regarding claim 3, Bae teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the first surface of the first coil pattern is larger in radial width than the second surface of the first coil pattern. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bae for the first surface of the first coil pattern is larger in radial width than the second surface of the first coil pattern since it is just a matter of design option for the first coil pattern.
Regarding claim 9, Bae teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Bae further teaches the particles (111) disperse between the first and second surfaces of coil patterns 120 (fig. 3, [0040]-[0044]) but silent to a density of the particles as claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bae for a density of the particles in the first resin layer is locally high at a height position same as that between the first and second surfaces of the first coil pattern since it is just a matter of design option for dispersing the particles within the layer.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2023/0352230).
Regarding claim 4, Bae teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Bae further teaches the first coil pattern is metal material ([0034]) but silent to teach the first coil patter has a seed part and a main body as claimed.
However, Kawakami teaches coil pattern having a seed part and a main body part as claimed ([0035] and [0103]).
In view of Kawakami’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bae by incorporating the teaching as taught by Kawakami in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would not involve any inventive feature since it is well-known in the art for the antenna having seed part and main body part.
Claim(s) 5-7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Finn et al. (US 2024/0028860).
Regarding claim 5, Bae teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Bae further teaches a second coil pattern connected to the first coil pattern and positioned on a same plane as the first coil pattern (fig. 2) but fails to teach wherein the magnetic body has a through hole, and wherein the second coil pattern overlaps the through hole.
However, Fin teaches smartcard (figs. 5A and 8) having coil component (542-548) comprising a magnetic body (542); a first coil pattern (544A); a second coil pattern (544C) connected to the first coil pattern and position on a same plane as the first coil pattern; wherein the magnetic body has a through hole, and wherein the second coil pattern overlaps the through hole (fig. 5A, [0448]-[0455] and [0494]-[0495]).
In view of Fin’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bae by incorporating the teaching as taught by Fin in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Bae as modified by Fin teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a thickness of the first resin layer as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bae and Fin to have the thickness of the first resin layer as claimed since it is just a matter of design option for the thickness of the first resin layer.
Regarding claim 7, Bae as modified by Fin teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Bae further teaches wherein the second coil pattern is embedded in the first resin layer, wherein the second coil pattern has a fifth surface facing the through hole and a sixth surface positioned on a side opposite to the fifth surface, and wherein the fifth and sixth surfaces are covered with the first resin layer (fig.2).
Regarding claim 10, Bae teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for a second resin layer as claimed.
However, Fin teaches smartcard having coil component comprising a first second resin layer (548); a second resin layer (538); a magnetic body (542); and wherein the magnetic body is sandwiched between the first and second resin layers (figs. 5A and 8).
In view of Fin’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bae by incorporating the teaching as taught by Fin in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Bae teaches a coil component (100, fig. 3) comprising: a magnetic body (130) having a main surface ([0043]); a first coil pattern (120) disposed so as to overlap the main surface of the magnetic body ([0034]); and a first resin layer (110’) disposed so as to overlap the main surface of the magnetic body and containing particles and binder resin ([0039]-[0040] and [0048]), wherein the first coil pattern has a first surface facing the main surface of the magnetic body and a second surface positioned on a side opposite to the first surface (fig. 3), and wherein the first coil pattern is embedded in the first resin layer such that at least the first and second surfaces of the first coil pattern are covered with the first resin layer (fig. 3 and [0046]).
Bae fails to teach an IC card comprising the coil component.
However, Fin teaches IC card comprising a coil component (542-548, fig. 5A, [0448]-[0455] and [0494]-[0495]).
In view of Fin’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bae by incorporating the teaching as taught by Fin since it is just a matter of intended use of the coil component. Moreover, it has been decided that selection of intended use of a prior art is an obvious expedient over the prior art. See M.P.E.P. 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to further teach or suggest wherein the second coil pattern includes a seed part containing resin and a main body part laminated on the seed part and constituted by a metal material, wherein a part of the second coil pattern that includes the seed part is exposed from the first resin layer, and wherein another part of the second coil pattern that includes the main body part is embedded in the first resin layer as recited in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Suzuki (US 11,476,041); Higuchi (EP 1065627A2); Kim (US 2022/0076092); Asai (US 2020/0373064); Yoon (US 10,699,179); Kawaguchi (US 2019/0088413); Tsukada (US 2016/0104065); Fin (US 2014/0209691); Emori (EP 1031939A1) and Fujioka (EP 0481776A2) are cited because they are related to antenna component.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876