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 1 is amended
Claim 2 is cancelled previously
Claim 3 is cancelled
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, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keiichi (US 20200033428 A1) in view of Kawasaki (US 20190189331 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Keiichi teaches A coil component comprising:
an element body (1, Fig. 3; para 0035-0070) made of a metal powder-containing
resin (see para 0036);
a pair of coils (3a, 3b, Fig. 2-3) provided in the element body, the pair of coils
overlap each other in a coil axis direction (vertical direction in Fig. 2), and each of the pair of coils has a pair of end portions (left/right end part of 3a/3b in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, respectively) extending to a surface (surface of 2 in Fig. 2) of the element body;
two pairs of external terminals (6a-6b/6a’-6b’, Fig. 5) provided on the surface of the
element body and connected to the end portions of the pair of coils, respectively;
a magnetic sheet (4) provided in the element body and interposed
between the pair of coils in the coil axis direction;
an insulator (10, Fig. 3) interposed between at least one of the pair of coils
and the magnetic sheet.
Keiichi does not teach the magnetic sheet is made of a magnetic material containing magnetic powder and resin, wherein the magnetic powder of the magnetic sheet has a flat shape and wherein the magnetic powder extends in a direction intersecting a thickness direction of the magnetic sheet
However, Kawasaki teaches that the magnetic sheet is made of a magnetic material containing magnetic powder and resin (see claim 1), wherein the magnetic powder (35, Fig. 4; para 0037-0038) of the magnetic sheet has a flat shape (see Fig. 4 ) and wherein the magnetic powder extends in a direction (i.e. horizontal direction in Fig. 4) intersecting a thickness direction (i.e. vertical direction in Fig. 4) of the magnetic sheet
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 magnetic sheet is made of a magnetic material containing magnetic powder and resin, wherein the magnetic powder of the magnetic sheet has a flat shape and wherein the magnetic powder extends in a direction intersecting a thickness direction of the magnetic sheet to provide a coil component using a top plate containing the magnetic-powder containing resin, capable of making a short circuit failure and peel-off of the top plate less likely to occur while reducing the height (see para 0006).
Regarding Claim 4:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Keiichi teaches that a thickness (i.e. thickness of 4 in vertical direction in Fig. 3) of the magnetic sheet is greater than a thickness (thickness (i.e. thickness of 10 in vertical direction in Fig. 3) of a portion of the insulator interposed between the magnetic sheet and the coil (construed from Fig. 3)
Regarding Claim 5:
As applied to claim 1, the modified Keiichi teaches the magnetic sheet and the element body except a magnetic permeability of the magnetic sheet is higher than a magnetic permeability of the element body.
As of limitation "a magnetic permeability of the magnetic sheet is higher than a magnetic permeability of the element body ", it is seen that Keiichi certainly teaches substantially identical structure as shown in Fig. 2-3 such as an element body made of a metal powder-containing resin, a magnetic sheet is made of a magnetic material containing magnetic powder, resin and an insulator provided in the element body 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 obvious to be labeled as a magnetic permeability of the magnetic sheet is higher than a magnetic permeability of the element body.
Regarding Claim 6:
As applied to claim 1, Keiichi teaches that at least one of a portion corresponding to an inner peripheral region of the coil (upper inner part of 3a or lower part 3b in Fig. 3) and a portion corresponding to an outer peripheral region (left/right upper part of 3a or 3b in Fig. 3) of the coil is omitted from the magnetic sheet.
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
Prosecution Insights