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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/09/2022 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maki et al. (hereinafter Maki), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0103865.
Regarding Claim 1, Maki teaches, a coil component (Fig. 2) comprising:
an element body (S) having a first face (S2) and a second face (S1), the first face being adjacent or continuous to the second face;
a conductor (M) provided inside and/or on a surface of the element body; and
an outer electrode (E) electrically connected to the conductor, the outer electrode including:
a first base electrode layer (e1) formed on the first face of the element body,
a second base electrode layer (e2) formed on the second face of the element body and at least partly spaced apart from the first base electrode layer, and
a metal layer (e3) that continuously covers the first base electrode layer and the second base electrode layer. (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0016], [0022]).
Regarding Claim 4, Maki further teaches, wherein the metal layer has a higher metal packing fraction than the first, second, and third base electrode layers (“Ag paste containing a Ag powder, a glass material, a resin, and a solvent as raw materials is prepared. The volume of the glass material is preferably less than the volume of the Ag powder. More preferably, the ratio of the volume of the glass material to the volume of the Ag powder is from 0.7 to 0.75 inclusive” [0044] discloses a higher metal packing fraction for the metal layer (e3) since (e3) is a plating layer (“the third electrode e3, which is a plated electrode” [0048]) without the dilution of the glass and resin of the first and second electrode (e1, e2)). (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0044], [0048]).
Regarding Claim 5, Maki further teaches, wherein the metal layer includes a nickel layer continuously covering the first and second base electrode layers, and a tin layer covering the nickel layer, and the tin layer is thinner than the nickel layer (“third electrode e3 may include the Ni layer e3a and the Sn layer e3b” [0048], Fig. 4). (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 6, Maki further teaches, wherein the outer electrode includes a conductive resin layer (“Ag powder, a glass material, a resin” [0044]) provided between the metal layer and at least one of the first base electrode layer and the second base electrode layer. (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0048]).
Regarding Claim 7, Maki further teaches, a circuit board arrangement comprising:
a coil component (Fig. 2) set forth in claim 1; and
a substrate (b) on which the coil component is mounted by solder bonding (h), the solder bonding extending over an end face (end face of E) of the outer electrode. (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0016], [0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, Maki further teaches, an electronic device (Fig. 2) comprising the circuit board arrangement set forth in claim 7. (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0016], [0022]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki, as applied to claim 1, in view of Nishibayashi et al. (hereinafter Nishibayashi), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0312562.
Regarding Claim 2, Maki is silent on including a plurality of third base electrode layers provided between the first base electrode layer and the second base electrode layer. (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0016], [0022]).
Maki does not explicitly teach, wherein the outer electrode includes a plurality of third base electrode layers provided between the first base electrode layer and the second base electrode layer, and the plurality of third base electrode layers are at least partly spaced apart from the first base electrode layer and the second base electrode layer.
However, Nishibayashi (Fig. 2) teaches, wherein the outer electrode includes a plurality of third base electrode layers (6) provided between the first base electrode layer (6) and the second base electrode layer (6), and the plurality of third base electrode layers are at least partly spaced apart from the first base electrode layer and the second base electrode layer. (Nishibayashi: Figs. 2 and 8, para. [0028], [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the outer electrode of Maki to include the plurality of third base electrode layers provided between the first base electrode layer and the second base electrode layer of Nishibayashi, the motivation being that “residual stress of underlayer external electrode 6 provided on ceramic main body 1 is relieved” [0034]. (Nishibayashi: Figs. 2 and 8, para. [0034]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 2 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maki, as applied to claim 1, in view of Kobayashi et al. (hereinafter Kobayashi), U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0365399.
Regarding Claim 3, Maki is silent on including the length of the metal layer extending in the direction from the bottom face to the end face is shorter on the end face than on the bottom face. (Maki: Figs. 1, 2 and 4, para. [0016], [0022]).
Maki does not explicitly teach, wherein the second face is a bottom face that opposes a substrate when the coil component is mounted on the substrate, the first face is an end face, and a length of the metal layer in its extending direction from the bottom face to the end face is shorter on the end face than on the bottom face.
However, Kobayashi teaches (Fig. 8), wherein the second face is a bottom face (24c) that opposes a substrate (70, Fig. 7) when the coil component is mounted on the substrate, the first face is an end face (24a), and a length of the metal layer (62) in its extending direction from the bottom face to the end face is shorter on the end face than on the bottom face. (Kobayashi: Figs. 1, 7 and 8, para. [0083], [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the outer electrode of Maki to include the length of the metal layer extending in the direction from the bottom face to the end face is shorter on the end face than on the bottom face of Kobayashi, the motivation being that “the bonding member such as solder or so is adhered” [0088]. (Kobayashi: Figs. 1, 7 and 8, para. [0088]). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 3 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kobayashi et al. (US 20190096577), and Kenjiro et al. (JP 2008300769 A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALCOLM BARNES whose telephone number is (408)918-7512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm (PST).
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, 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.
/MALCOLM BARNES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
12/04/2025