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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee [KR 102139183] in view of Yoshifumi et al. [JP2017011256] and Fumihito et al. [JP 2007329411A].
Lee discloses a multilayer coil component [figure 1] comprising: an element body [110] including a main surface arranged to constitute a mounting surface [1]; a coil [120] disposed in the element body; and a pair of L-shaped external electrodes [131, 132] each disposed on two opposing two sides the element body and each engaging the bottom and side walls thereof electrically connected to the coil and each including an underlying metal layer [131a, 132a] and a plated layer [131b, 132a] in contact with a surface of the underlying metal layer, wherein each of the pair of external electrodes includes a main surface electrode portion exposed from the main surface [figure 1]. Yoshifumi et al. discloses a body including an external electrode [figures 3-4] mounted on an electrode on a chip inductor [figure 3] having a recess extending through the second lamination layer of the electrode [figure 4] and engaging a portion of the coil [figure 10]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art at the time before the invention was effectively filed to modify the electrode structure of Lee with that of Yoshifumi et al. in order to protect the low resistance layer. Lee, as modified, discloses everything claimed except at least one recess that opens to at least the surface is formed in the underlying metal layer included in each main surface electrode portion. Fumihito et al. discloses a surface mounted electronic component [40, figure 1b] mounted within a body [figure 1a] including external electrodes [figure 1a] connected to the component within the body each including multiple recesses [17, figure 1a]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the recess design of Fumihito et al. in Lee for the purpose of accommodating solder for the connection to reduce the space occupied by the device.
The element body of Lee et al., as modified, further includes a pair of side surfaces opposing each other and adjacent to the main surface, wherein each of the pair of external electrodes includes a side surface electrode portion exposed from a corresponding side surface of the pair of side surfaces, and wherein at least one recess that opens to at least the surface is formed in the underlying metal layer included in each side surface electrode portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant essentially argues that the references of record do not teach the “underlying metal layer including a plurality of laminated electrode layers and the at least one recess is formed between two of the plurality of laminated layers.” This feature is taught by Yoshifumi [JP2017011256], noting the figures provided by applicant. The amended claim necessitated a different combination showing the claimed structure.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINCOLN D DONOVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1988. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-6:30.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/LINCOLN D DONOVAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2842