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 .
Claims 1, 5 and 20 are amended
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 1-4, 8, 11-14 and 19-20are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachiya (US 20180166199 A1) in view of Kudo (US 20170169930 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Hachiya teaches that an inductor component comprising:
an element body (11, Fig. 4; para 0090-0097) including magnetic powder and
having a first principal surface (not labeled; upper surface of 11 in Fig. 2) and a
second principal surface (not labeled; lower surface of 11 in Fig. 2);
an inductor wiring (13) in the element body;
a first vertical wiring (upper left 13c in Fig. 4) that is in the element body, is connected to a first end portion (upper left end part of coil 13 in Fig. 4) of the inductor wiring, and extends to the first principal surface (construed from Fig. 4);
a second vertical wiring (lower right 13c in Fig. 4) that is in the element body, is connected to a second end portion (lower right end part of coil 13 in Fig. 4) of the inductor wiring, and extends to the first principal surface (construed from Fig. 4; i.e. extended to first surface through element 15);
a first external terminal (14) connected to the first vertical wiring and exposed on the first principal surface; and
a second external terminal (15) connected to the second vertical wiring and exposed on the first principal surface,
the magnetic powder containing an Fe element (see para 0097) as a main component, and
the first principal surface including an oxidized region (R1, Drawing: 1) in which an oxide film (R3, see para 0171-0173), in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are oxidized, is exposed and a non- oxidized region ( R2, Drawing: 1) in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are exposed.
Hachiya does not teach a second vertical wiring except a second vertical wiring directly contact the first principal surface.
However, Kudo teaches that a second vertical wiring (12, Fig. 1; para 0063 ) directly contact the first principal surface (30a).
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 a second vertical wiring directly contact the first principal surface to provide a better and stable connection between internal coil and outer electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
203
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing: 1, an annotated version of Fig. 6A
Regarding Claim 2:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that the element body includes a resin containing (see para 0120) the magnetic powder, and
the plurality of particles (G1-G3, Fig. 6B) of magnetic powder in the oxidized region include a magnetic powder particle in contact with the resin with the oxide film interposed between the magnetic powder particle and the resin.
Regarding Claim 3:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that the element body includes a resin containing the magnetic powder (see para 0120), and
the plurality of particles of magnetic powder in the oxidized region include a magnetic
powder particle in direct contact with the resin.
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches the oxidized region and the non-oxidized region except a ratio of a reflectance of a wavelength of from 600 nm to 800 nm relative to a
reflectance of a wavelength of less than 600 nm is higher in the oxidized region than in the non-oxidized region.
As of limitation “a ratio of a reflectance of a wavelength of from 600 nm to 800 nm relative to a reflectance of a wavelength of less than 600 nm is higher in the oxidized region than in the non-oxidized region”, it is seen that Hachiya certainly teaches substantially identical structure as shown in Fig. 4 such as an inductor wiring, a first vertical wiring, a second vertical wiring, the oxidized region and the non-oxidized region in same filed of endeavor. As per MPEP § 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, it is inherent to be labeled as a ratio of a reflectance of a wavelength of from 600 nm to 800 nm relative to a reflectance of a wavelength of less than 600 nm is higher in the oxidized region than in the non-oxidized region.
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that the oxide film is on cut surfaces of the plurality of particles of the magnetic powder (construed form Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 8:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that a thickness (not labeled; see para 0120 and 13A-13B) of the oxide film is smaller than a particle size D50 of the magnetic powder (construed from Fig. 13A)
Regarding Claim 11:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that the oxidized region is only on the first principal surface (construed from Fig. 6A).
Regarding Claim 12:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that the element body has a plurality of side surfaces (left/right side surface in Fig. 4) and between the first principal surface
and the second principal surface and connecting the first principal surface and the second principal surface (see Fig. 4), and
the oxidized region is only on at least one of the side surfaces and the first principal surface (construed from Drawing: 1).
Regarding Claim 14:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that wherein the inductor wiring includes a plurality of the inductor wirings (see Fig. 3), and the plurality of inductor wirings are on an identical plane parallel to the first principal surface and are electrically separated from each other.
Regarding Claim 19:
As applied to claim 1, Hachiya teaches that a particle size D50 of the magnetic powder in the oxidized region is larger than a particle size D50 of the magnetic powder in the non-oxidized region (construed from Drawing :1)
Claim 20 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over by Hachiya.
Regarding Claim 20:
Hachiya teaches that an inductor component comprising:
an element body (11, Fig. 4; para 0090-0097) including magnetic powder and
having a first principal surface (not labeled; upper surface of 11 in Fig. 2) and a
second principal surface (not labeled; lower surface of 11 in Fig. 2);
an inductor wiring (13) in the element body;
a first vertical wiring (upper left 13c in Fig. 4) that is in the element body, is connected to a first end portion (upper left end part of coil 13 in Fig. 4) of the inductor wiring, and extends to the first principal surface (construed from Fig. 4);
a second vertical wiring (lower right 13c in Fig. 4) that is in the element body, is connected to a second end portion (lower right end part of coil 13 in Fig. 4) of the inductor wiring, and extends to the first principal surface (construed from Fig. 4; i.e. extend through element 15 to first surface);
a first external terminal (14) connected to the first vertical wiring and exposed on the first principal surface; and
a second external terminal (15) connected to the second vertical wiring and exposed on the first principal surface,
the magnetic powder containing an Fe element (see para 0097) as a main component, and
the first principal surface including an oxidized region (R1, Drawing: 1) and a non- oxidized region ( R2, Drawing: 1) in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are exposed.
Hachiya does not teach a second vertical wiring except a second vertical wiring directly contact the first principal surface.
However, Kudo teaches that a second vertical wiring (12, Fig. 1; para 0063 ) directly contact the first principal surface (30a).
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 a second vertical wiring directly contact the first principal surface to provide a better and stable connection between internal coil and outer electrode.
Hachiya does not teach that the first principal surface having an oxidized region containing the Fe element at 65% by weight or more and an O element at 24% by weight or more among a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder, and a non-oxidized region in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are exposed,
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first principal surface having an oxidized region containing the Fe element at 65% by weight or more and an O element at 24% by weight or more among a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder, and a non-oxidized region in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are exposed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to facilitate good magnetic shielding effect. 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 the first principal surface having an oxidized region containing the Fe element at 65% by weight or more and an O element at 24% by weight or more among a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder, and a non-oxidized region in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are exposed as claimed to meet design requirement for certain application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 recites, An inductor component comprising:
an element body including magnetic powder and having a first principal surface and a second principal surface;
an inductor wiring in the element body;
a first vertical wiring that is in the element body, is connected to a first end portion of the inductor wiring, and extends to the first principal surface;
a second vertical wiring that is in the element body, is connected to a second end portion of the inductor wiring, and extends to the first principal surface;
a first external terminal connected to the first vertical wiring and exposed on the first principal surface; and
a second external terminal connected to the second vertical wiring and exposed on the first principal surface,
the magnetic powder containing an Fe element as a main component, and
the first principal surface including an oxidized region in which an oxide film, in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are oxidized, is exposed and a non-oxidized region in which a plurality of particles of the magnetic powder are exposed,
wherein
the oxide film is on cut surfaces of the plurality of particles of the magnetic powder on the first principal surface.
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 15 are 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:
Claim 9 recites, the second principal surface has the oxidized region, and
an area of the oxidized region on the second principal surface is larger than an area of
the oxidized region on the first principal surface.
Claim 10 recites, the second principal surface has the oxidized region, and
a thickness of the oxide film on the second principal surface is smaller than a thickness
of the oxide film on the first principal surface
Claim 13 recites, a first extended wiring connected to the first end portion of the inductor wiring and exposed from a side surface, wherein the element body has the side surface between the first principal surface and the second principal surface and connecting the first principal surface and the second principal surface, and the side surface from which the first extended wiring is exposed has the oxidized region
Claim 15 recites, the element body includes an immediately upper portion between the first principal surface and an upper surface of the inductor wiring on a side of the first principal surface, a particle size D50 of the magnetic powder is from 1/10 of a thickness of the immediately upper portion to twice the thickness of the immediately upper portion, and a thickness of the element body is 300 pm or less
The references of record do not teach or suggest the aforementioned limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify those references to include such limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied reference, and/or newly found prior art reference(s).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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