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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden . This is not found persuasive because the species of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (for example, searching different classifications, classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). The Species I-IV are different in structure and there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species where it is necessary to search for one of the species in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1 -2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. [ U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0348210 ] . Regarding Claim 1 , Lim et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) , comprising: an element body (101) ; a coil (120) disposed inside the element body (see Figs. 1-2) ; and an outer electrode (element 131 with element 181) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 1-2, element 131 is disposed in element 101) , wherein the outer electrode (element 131 with element 181) includes an electrode portion (131) which includes a joining surface (top surface of element 131 is a joining surface) joined to the element body (101, see Figs. 1-2) and a plating surface (bottom surface of element 131 is a plating surface) opposite to the joining surface (see Figs. 1-2) and is formed by plating (Paragraph [0034]) , and of which at least a part is embedded in the element body (see Figs. 1-2, element 131 is embedded in element 101) . Regarding Claim 2 , Lim et al. shows the outer electrode (element 131 with element 181) includes one (181) or a plurality of plated layers disposed on the plating surface of the electrode portion (see Figs. 1-2, element 181 is disposed on the bottom surface of element 131, Paragraph [0032]) . Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tajima et al. [U.S. Patent No. 10,847,307]. Regarding Claim 1, Tajima et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-3), comprising: an element body (10); a coil (20) disposed inside the element body (see Figs. 1-3); and an outer electrode (element 31 with element 321) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 1-3, element 31 is disposed in element 10), wherein the outer electrode (element 31 with element 321) includes an electrode portion (31) which includes a joining surface (top surface of element 31 is a joining surface) joined to the element body (10, see Figs. 1-3) and a plating surface (bottom surface of element 321 is a plating surface) opposite to the joining surface (see Figs. 1-3) and is formed by plating (Paragraph [0031]), and of which at least a part is embedded in the element body (see Figs. 1-3, element 31 with elements 321 is embedded in element 10). Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. an electrode portion having a plating surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. formed by plating. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Regarding Claim 2, Tajima et al. shows the outer electrode (element 31 with element 321) includes one (322) or a plurality of plated layers disposed on the plating surface of the electrode portion (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph [0031]). Regarding Claim 5, Tajima et al. shows the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer (31, Col. 4, Lines 49-52) that includes the joining surface (top surface of element 31) and contains a glass component (Col. 4, Lines 49-52). 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Sato et al. [ U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0303117 ] (hereinafter as “Sato ‘117”) . Regarding Claim 3 , Lim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material. Sato ‘117 shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the element body (2) is constituted by stacking element body layers (7) containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material (Paragraph [0031]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material as taught by Sato ‘117 for the coil component as disclosed by Lim et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics, Q characteristics, and inductance values (Paragraph [00 03 ]). Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Hachiya et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0166199 ]. Regarding Claim 3, Lim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material. Hachiya et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-6B) teaching and suggesting the element body (12) is constituted by stacking element body layers (ML1-ML7) containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material ( G1, G2, or G3, Paragraph [01 14 ] , claim 12 ). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material as taught by Hachiya et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Lim et al. to obtain higher performance and magnetic permeability with suppressing leakage of magnetic flux with improved magnetic characteristics and inductance values (Paragraph [0 007 ]). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433]. Regarding Claim 4 , Lim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface. Yosui shows a coil component (Figs. 2(A)-2(D)) teaching and suggesting surface roughness ( element 30B of element 31A or 31B ) of the joining surface (top surface) is larger than surface roughness ( element 30A of element 31A or 31B ) of the plating surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 2(A)-2(D), see English translation). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Lim et al. to reduce loss of the current flowing and facilitate electrical connection (see English translation). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Kang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0362883]. Regarding Claim 4, Lim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface. Kang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4 ) teaching and suggesting surface roughness of the joining surface (top surface of element 310 ) is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface (bottom surface of element 310 , see Figs. 1-4 , Paragraph [0062] ). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Lim et al. to improve breakdown voltage and improve flatness of a mounting surface ( Paragraphs [0006], [0008] ). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Yaso [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0082986]. Regarding Claim 5 , Lim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component. Yaso shows an electronic component (Figs. 1-5B) teaching and suggesting the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer (21) that includes the joining surface (top surface of element 21) and contains a glass component (Paragraph [0040]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component as taught by Yaso for the coil component as disclosed by Lim et al. to increase the bonding strength between the baked electrodes and the body (Paragraph [0040]). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Tajima et al. [U.S. Patent No. 10,847,307] and Yaso [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0082986] (for motivation purposes) . Regarding Claim 5, Lim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component. Tajima et al. shows an electronic component (Figs. 1- 3 ) teaching and suggesting the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer ( 3 1 , Col. 4, Lines 49-52 ) that includes the joining surface (top surface of element 3 1) and contains a glass component ( Col. 4, Lines 49-52 ). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component as taught by Tajima et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Lim et al. to increase the bonding strength between the baked electrodes and the body (Paragraph [0040] of Yaso ). Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. in view of Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0303117] (hereinafter as “Sato ‘117”). Regarding Claim 3, Tajima et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material. Sato ‘117 shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the element body (2) is constituted by stacking element body layers (7) containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material (Paragraph [0031]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material as taught by Sato ‘117 for the coil component as disclosed by Tajima et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics, Q characteristics, and inductance values (Paragraph [0003]). Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. in view of Hachiya et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0166199]. Regarding Claim 3, Tajima et al . shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material. Hachiya et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-6B) teaching and suggesting the element body (12) is constituted by stacking element body layers (ML1-ML7) containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material (G1, G2, or G3, Paragraph [0114], claim 12). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the element body is constituted by stacking element body layers containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material as taught by Hachiya et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Tajima et al. to obtain higher performance and magnetic permeability with suppressing leakage of magnetic flux with improved magnetic characteristics and inductance values (Paragraph [0007]). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433]. Regarding Claim 4, Tajima et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface. Yosui shows a coil component (Figs. 2(A)-2(D)) teaching and suggesting surface roughness ( element 30B of element 31A or 31B ) of the joining surface (top surface) is larger than surface roughness ( element 30A of element 31A or 31B ) of the plating surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 2(A)-2(D), see English translation). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Tajima et al. to reduce loss of the current flowing and facilitate electrical connection (see English translation). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tajima et al. in view of Kang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0362883]. Regarding Claim 4, Tajima et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface. Kang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting surface roughness of the joining surface (top surface of element 310) is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface (bottom surface of element 310, see Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0062]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Tajima et al. to improve breakdown voltage and improve flatness of a mounting surface (Paragraphs [0006], [0008]). Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0111603] in view of Lim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0348210 ]. Regarding Claim 1, Sato et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1A-3), comprising: an element body (2); a coil (3) disposed inside the element body (see Figs. 1A-5G); and an outer electrode (bottom and top elements 41 as shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 5F, Paragraph [0086]) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 2, 3, and 5F, bottom element 41 is disposed in element 2), wherein the outer electrode (bottom and top elements 41) includes an electrode portion ( bottom element 41 ) which includes a joining surface ( bottom surface of bottom element 4 1 is a joining surface) joined to the element body ( 2 , see Figs. 2 -3 ) and a plating surface ( top surface of top element 4 1 or top surface of bottom element 41 is a plating surface) opposite to the joining surface (see Figs. 2 - 3 ) and is formed by plating (Paragraph [0 1 3 0 ]), and of which at least a part is embedded in the element body ( see Figs. 2, 3, and 5F, bottom element 41 is embedded in element 2 ). In addition, Lim et al shows (Figs. 1-2) the outer electrode (element 131 with element 181) includes an electrode portion (131) which includes a joining surface (top surface of element 131 is a joining surface) joined to the element body (101, see Figs. 1-2) and a plating surface (bottom surface of element 131 is a plating surface) opposite to the joining surface (see Figs. 1-2) and is formed by plating (Paragraph [0034]), and of which at least a part is embedded in the element body (see Figs. 1-2, element 131 is embedded in element 101). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formed by plating as taught by Lim et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to obtain thin-film process to achieve desirable conductivity to achieve in durability, wear resistance, and offers a protective layer against corrosion. Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. an electrode portion having a plating surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. formed by plating. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Regarding Claim 2, Sato et al. shows the outer electrode (bottom and top elements 41) includes one or a plurality of plated layers (Paragraph [0130]) disposed on the plating surface of the electrode portion (Paragraph [0130]) . Lim et al. shows the outer electrode (element 131 with element 181) includes one (181) or a plurality of plated layers disposed on the plating surface of the electrode portion (see Figs. 1-2, element 181 is disposed on the bottom surface of element 131, Paragraph [0032]). Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. shows the element body (2) is constituted by stacking element body layers (21) containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material (Paragraph [0035]) . Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0111603] in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0365315]. Regarding Claim 1, Sato et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1A-3), comprising: an element body (2); a coil (3) disposed inside the element body (see Figs. 1A-5G); and an outer electrode (bottom and top elements 41 as shown in Figs. 2, 3, and 5F, Paragraph [0086]) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 2, 3, and 5F, bottom element 41 is disposed in element 2), wherein the outer electrode (bottom and top elements 41) includes an electrode portion (bottom element 41) which includes a joining surface (bottom surface of bottom element 41 is a joining surface) joined to the element body (2, see Figs. 2-3) and a plating surface (top surface of top element 41 or top surface of bottom element 41 is a plating surface) opposite to the joining surface (see Figs. 2-3) and is formed by plating (Paragraph [0130]), and of which at least a part is embedded in the element body (see Figs. 2, 3, and 5F, bottom element 41 is embedded in element 2). In addition, Kim et al shows (Figs. 1- 3 ) the outer electrode includes an electrode portion ( 600 ) which includes a joining surface (top surface of element 600 is a joining surface) joined to the element body (see Figs. 1- 3 ) and a plating surface (bottom surface of element 600 is a plating surface) opposite to the joining surface (see Figs. 1- 3 ) and is formed by plating (Paragraph s [00 67 ] -[ 0068] ). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formed by plating as taught by Kim et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to obtain thin-film process to increase coupling force and tensile strength (Paragraph [0067]) . Furthermore, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore , this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. an electrode portion having a plating surface, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. formed by plating. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Regarding Claim 2, Sato et al. shows the outer electrode (bottom and top elements 41) includes one or a plurality of plated layers (Paragraph [0130]) disposed on the plating surface of the electrode portion (Paragraph [0130]). Kim et al. shows the outer electrode includes one ( 411 ) or a plurality of plated layers disposed on the plating surface of the electrode portion (see Figs. 1- 3 , element 411 is disposed on the bottom surface of element 600 ). Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. shows the element body (2) is constituted by stacking element body layers (21) containing a plurality of metal magnetic particles of a soft magnetic material (Paragraph [0035]). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433]. Regarding Claim 4, Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface. Yosui shows a coil component (Figs. 2(A)-2(D)) teaching and suggesting surface roughness ( element 30B of element 31A or 31B ) of the joining surface (top surface) is larger than surface roughness ( element 30A of element 31A or 31B ) of the plating surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 2(A)-2(D), see English translation). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. to reduce loss of the current flowing and facilitate electrical connection (see English translation). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0362883]. Regarding Claim 4, Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface. Kang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting surface roughness of the joining surface (top surface of element 310) is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface (bottom surface of element 310, see Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0062]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have roughness of the joining surface is larger than surface roughness of the plating surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. to improve breakdown voltage and improve flatness of a mounting surface (Paragraphs [0006], [0008]). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yaso [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0082986]. Regarding Claim 5, Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component. Yaso shows an electronic component (Figs. 1-5B) teaching and suggesting the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer (21) that includes the joining surface (top surface of element 21) and contains a glass component (Paragraph [0040]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component as taught by Yaso for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. to increase the bonding strength between the baked electrodes and the body (Paragraph [0040]). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tajima et al. [U.S. Patent No. 10,847,307] and Yaso [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0082986] (for motivation purposes). Regarding Claim 5, Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show surface the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component. Tajima et al. shows an electronic component (Figs. 1-3) teaching and suggesting the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer (31, Col. 4, Lines 49-52) that includes the joining surface (top surface of element 31) and contains a glass component (Col. 4, Lines 49-52). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the electrode portion includes a baked electrode layer that includes the joining surface and contains a glass component as taught by Tajima et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Lim et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. to increase the bonding strength between the baked electrodes and the body (Paragraph [0040] of Yaso ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0318867] shows an inductor with electrode 181 having electrode layers 181a, 181b, and 181c. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7981 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH 8:00AM-6:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shawki Ismail can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /TSZFUNG J CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837