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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, wherein a plurality of the coils are provided, and the plurality of coils are magnetically coupled with each other must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. 1 Claim s 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagi et al.( JP 2017143220) in view of Tsuchiya et al.( US 20130300531 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Akagi et al. ( figures 7-13 and para 0030-0046 ) discloses a a conductor ( 21 ) which generates a magnetic flux by being energized ( see para 0031 ) ; a core ( 23/25 ) which is provided around the conductor and forms a magnetic path through which the magnetic flux circulates ( see figure 7 ) ; and a case ( 27 ) storing the conductor and the core ( see figure 7 ) , wherein a drive frequency of the coil component is not less than 20 kHz ( see para 0036 and figure 8 ) , the conductor is a winding forming at least one coil having an axis along a first direction ( see figure 7 ) , the conductor has a cross-section forming a quadrangular winding window on a plane including the magnetic path, the plane includes the axis ( see figure 7 ) , the coil forms two or more said winding windows on the plane ( see figure 7 ) , the winding windows are arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction ( see figure 7 ) , the core includes a first core having a first magnetic permeability ( 23 ) and a second core ( 25 ) having a second magnetic permeability lower than the first magnetic permeability ( see para 0030 ) , on the plane, the first core contacts with an entirety of one side line extending in the second direction of each of the winding windows ( see figure 7 ) , protrudes in the second direction from both ends of the one side line of at least one of the winding windows ( see figure 7 ) , and is located on a side opposite to the winding windows with respect to a line including the one side line of each of the winding windows ( see figure 7 ) , the second core contacts with three side lines other than the one side line of each of the winding windows on the plane ( see figure 7 ) , the case has a bottom and a side portion extending in one direction from the bottom ( see figure 7 ) . the first core contacts with the bottom ( see para 0030 ). Akagi et al. ( figure 7 and para 0030 ) discloses the first core is a dust core but does not expressly disclose the surface resistance of the dust core between two points that are 20 mm away from each other is not less than 5Ω after a high-temperature storage test . Tsuchiya et al.( para 0026/0074/0086 ) discloses a teaching wherein the surface resistance of the dust core between two points that are 20 mm away from each other is not less than 5Ω after a high-temperature storage test .( see para 0026/0074/0086 disclosing wherein the dust core is made of Fe—Si alloy wherein the Si has a wt % between 1 to 3.8 which will allow the dust core to have the capability b etween two points that are 20 mm away from each other ). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design a wherein the surface resistance of the dust core between two points that are 20 mm away from each other as taught by Tsuchiya et al. to the inductive device of Akagi et al. so as to allow the inductive device the characteristics of having a high energy storage capacity, low core losses, and excellent temperature stability . Also, i n accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, t he limitation s” is not less than 5Ω after a high-temperature storage test ” has been given little 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 produc t does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Regarding claim 2 , Tsuchiya et al.( para 0026/0074/0086 ) discloses wherein an electrical resistivity of magnetic powder used for the dust core is not less than 20 μΩcm . .( see para 0026/0074/0086 disclosing wherein the dust core is made of Fe—Si alloy wherein the Si has a wt % between 1 to 3.8 which will allow the dust core to have the capability wherein the electrical resistivity of magnetic powder used for the dust core is not less than 20 μΩcm ) Regarding claim 3 , Tsuchiya et al.( para 0026/0074/0086 ) discloses wherein an initial electrical resistivity of the dust core is not less than 10.sup.10 μΩcm . ( see para 0026/0074/0086 disclosing wherein the dust core is made of Fe—Si alloy wherein the Si has a wt % between 1 to 3.8 which will allow the dust core to have the capability wherein an initial electrical resistivity of the dust core is not less than 10.sup.10 μΩcm ) Regarding claim 4 , Akagi et al. ( figures 7-13 and para 0030-0046 ) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a ratio of an inductance of the coil component to an inductance of the coil is not less than 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein a ratio of an inductance of the coil component to an inductance of the coil is not less than 4, since it has been held that discovering a n optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art . In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). So as to allow the inductive device to have improved characteristics such as improved s ignal quality and lower power losses. Regarding claim 6 , Akagi et al. ( figures 7-13 ) discloses wherein a number of turns of the coil is not greater than 30 Regarding claim 7 , Akagi et al. ( figures 10 -13 and para 0038-0046 ) discloses wherein a plurality of the coils are provided, and the plurality of coils are magnetically coupled with each other. Regarding claim 8 , Tsuchiya et al.( para 0026/0074/0086 ) discloses wherein the surface resistance of the dust core between the two points that are 20 mm away from each other ( see para 0026/0074/0086 disclosing wherein the dust core is made of Fe—Si alloy wherein the Si has a wt % between 1 to 3.8 which will allow the dust core to have the capability wherein the surface resistance of the dust core between the two points that are 20 mm away from each other is not less than 30Ω after the high-temperature storage test. ) Also, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations” is not less than 3 Ω after a high-temperature storage test” has been given little 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 does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). Regarding claim 9 , I n accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitations ” wherein the high-temperature storage test is a heating test at 200° C. for not less than 500 hours ” has been given little 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 does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985). 2. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akagi et al.( JP 2017143220) in view of Tsuchiya et al.(US 20130300531) in further view of Nishimura et al.(US 20110080248 ) . Regarding claim 5 , the modified inductive device of Akagi et al. ( figures 7-13 and para 0030-0046 ) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly discloses wherein a surface of the dust core is coated with a coating material, and a gas permeability coefficient of the coating material is not greater than 100 cc( STP)cm/(cm.sup.2.Math.sec.Math.cmHg). Nishimura et al.( para 0018/0069-00 7 4 ) discloses a teaching wherein a surface of the dust core is coated with a coating material, and a gas permeability coefficient of the coating material is not greater than 100 cc(STP)cm/(cm.sup.2.Math.sec.Math.cmHg). ( note: see para 0018/0034/0069 disclosing wherein the dust core has an epoxy resin coating which has the characteristic wherein a gas permeability coefficient of the coating material is not greater than 100 cc( STP)cm/(cm.sup.2.Math.sec.Math.cmHg) Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design taught by Nishimura et al. to the modified inductive device of Akagi et al. so as to allow the inductive device the characteristics of improved electrical insulation, environmental protection, and mechanical stability . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7915 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M to F; 8 -5 . 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. /RONALD HINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837