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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “a length in a second direction” is indefinite and unclear regarding “a length” of what element. As best understood, the examiner will interpret as “a length the first electrode part in a second direction”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the same plane" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 11-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0111603].
Regarding Claim 1, Sato et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-9 and Drawing 1 below) comprising:
an element body (2) including a main surface (main surface MS, see Drawing 1 below) to be used as a mounting surface (Paragraphs [0051]-[0053], main surface MS having elements 41, 42 is a mounting surface to provide contactability to a mounting substrate);
a coil (3) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 1-9); and
a first electrode part (first electrode part E1 or top element 41, see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below) and a second electrode part (second electrode part E2 or top element 42) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (first direction D1, see Drawing 1 below), embedded in the element body in such a way as to be exposed from the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below), and electrically connected to the coil (3, see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below),
wherein the first electrode part (first electrode part E1) includes a first surface (bottom surface, see Drawing 1 below) exposed from the main surface (see Drawing 1 below) and a protrusion (protrusion P1 or wedge, Paragraphs [0052]-[0054]) disposed in the element body in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 disposed in element 2 in such a way as to be space apart from the main surface MS), and
the protrusion (protrusion P1) protrudes more toward the second electrode part (second electrode part E2) than the first surface in the first direction (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 protrudes more toward second electrode part E2 than the bottom surface in the first direction D1).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. shows the first electrode part is a plating conductor (Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sato et al. shows the element body (2) includes a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (Paragraph [0035], for example, Fe-Si-Cr alloy or Fe-Si-Al alloy is considered soft magnetic metal particles).
Regarding Claim 6, Sato et al. shows a length of the first electrode part (first electrode part E1, see Drawing 1 below) in a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (main surface MS) is 5% or more and 40% or less of a length of the element body (2) in the second direction (Paragraphs [0032], [0058], [0109], [0111], a length of first electrode part E1 can be 30 μm and a length of element 2 can be 0.58 mm which is 580 μm, therefore a length of first electrode part E1 of 30 μm is 5% or more and 40% or less of a length of the element 2 of 580 μm).
Regarding Claim 7, Sato et al. shows the protrusion (protrusion P1) has a tapered shape (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 has a tapered shape).
Regarding Claim 8, Sato et al. shows length of the protrusion (protrusion P1) in a second direction (second direction D2, see Drawing 1 below) orthogonal to the main surface decreases toward the second electrode part (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 in a second direction D2 orthogonal to the main surface MS decreases toward the second electrode part E2).
Regarding Claim 11, Sato et al. shows the second electrode part (second electrode part E2, see Drawing 1 below) includes a third surface (bottom surface) exposed from the main surface (main surface MS) and a protrusion (protrusion P2) disposed in the element body (2) in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P2 disposed in element 2 in such a way as to be space apart from the main surface MS), and the protrusion (protrusion P2) of the second electrode part protrudes more toward the first electrode part than the third surface in the first direction (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P2 protrudes more toward first electrode part E1 than the bottom surface in the first direction D1).
Regarding Claim 12, Sato et al. shows the element body (2) includes a plurality of element body layers (21) in a second direction (see Fig. 3 and see Drawing 1 below) orthogonal to the main surface (main surface MS, see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below).
Regarding Claim 13, Sato et al. shows the plurality of element body layers (21) includes a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (Paragraph [0035], for example, Fe-Si-Cr alloy or Fe-Si-Al alloy is considered soft magnetic metal particles).
Regarding Claim 16, Sato et al. shows a length in a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (main surface MS) is 5 µm or more and 50 µm or less (Paragraphs, [0058], [0111]).
Regarding Claim 17, Sato et al. shows the first surface (bottom surface) forms the same plane as the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and Drawing 1 below, bottom surface of first electrode part E1 forms the same plane as the main surface MS).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0214187].
Regarding Claim 2, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a glass content of the first electrode part is 20% or less.
Imada shows a coil component (Figs. 1-8) teaching and suggesting the first electrode (8) part is 20% or less (Paragraphs [0086]-[0088]).
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 a glass content of the first electrode part is 20% or less as taught by Imada for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to improve adhesion between electrodes and body or plating layers (Paragraph [0088]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0402699].
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kim et al. shows the first electrode part (62, 32) is a plating conductor (Paragraph [0064]).
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 first electrode part is a plating conductor as taught by Kim et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to achieve desirable conductivity to achieve in durability, wear resistance, and offers a protective layer against corrosion.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0365315] (hereinafter as “Kim ‘315”).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kim ‘315 shows the first electrode part (600) is a plating conductor (Paragraphs [0067]-[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 have the first electrode part is a plating conductor as taught by Kim ‘315 for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to increase coupling force and tensile strength (Paragraph [0067]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Takahashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0281078].
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Takahashi shows (Fig. 3A) the first electrode part (70) is a plating conductor (Paragraph [0096]).
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 first electrode part is a plating conductor as taught by Takahashi for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to achieve desirable conductivity to achieve in durability, wear resistance, and offers a protective layer against corrosion.
Claim(s) 4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 4, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface.
Yosui shows a coil component (Figs. 2(A)-2(D)) teaching and suggesting the first electrode part (31A) includes a second surface (top surface) facing away from the first surface (bottom surface) and joined to the element body (see Figs. 2(A)-2(D)), and a surface roughness (30B) of the second surface (top surface) is greater than a surface roughness (30A) of the first 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 the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to reduce loss of the current flowing and facilitate electrical connection (see English translation).
Regarding Claim 9, Yosui shows the surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 2(A)-2(D), see English translation, element 30B of 3 to 5 μm is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of element 30A of 1 μm).
Regarding Claim 10, Sato et al. shows an area of the second surface (top surface of first electrode part E1, see Drawing 1 below) is larger than an area of the first surface (bottom surface) when viewed from a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, an area of the top surface of first electrode part E1 is larger than an area of the bottom surface when viewed from a second direction D2 orthogonal to the main surface MS).
Claim(s) 4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Kang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0362883].
Regarding Claim 4, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface.
Kang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the first electrode part (310) includes a second surface (top surface) facing away from the first surface (bottom surface) and joined to the element body (see Figs. 1-4), and a surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface (bottom surface, 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 the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Kang et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to improve breakdown voltage and improve flatness of a mounting surface (Paragraphs [0006], [0008]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kang et al. shows the surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 1-4, Paragraphs [0062]-[0063], the surface roughness of top surface is relatively higher than the surface roughness of bottom surface which can be greater than 1.1).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the surface roughness of the second surface is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to improve breakdown voltage and improve flatness of a mounting surface, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 10, Sato et al. shows an area of the second surface (top surface of first electrode part E1, see Drawing 1 below) is larger than an area of the first surface (bottom surface) when viewed from a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, an area of the top surface of first electrode part E1 is larger than an area of the bottom surface when viewed from a second direction D2 orthogonal to the main surface MS).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Yoon et al. [KR 2018-0014593].
Regarding Claim 7, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yoon et al. shows (Fig. 2) the protrusion (top portion of element u3 will have a protrusion based on a downward direction tapered shape as described in Paragraph [0066]) has a tapered shape (Paragraph [0066]).
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 first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to facilitate conductivity and improve electrical characteristics (Paragraphs [0010]) and reliably eliminate the difficulty in the process such as the problem of unevenness in plating deviation (Paragraphs [0070]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon et al. shows length of the protrusion (top portion of element u3 will have a protrusion based on a downward direction tapered shape as described in Paragraph [0066]) in a second direction (up-down direction such as the y-axis, see Fig. 2) orthogonal to the main surface (lower surface) decreases toward the second electrode part (see Fig. 2, top portion of element u3 will have a protrusion based on a downward direction tapered shape in a second direction D2 orthogonal to the lower surface decreases toward element u6).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Kang et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 9, Sato et al. in view of Kang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yosui shows the surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 2(A)-2(D), see English translation, element 30B of 3 to 5 μm is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of element 30A of 1 μm).
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 first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Kang et al. to reduce loss of the current flowing and facilitate electrical connection (see English translation).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Hachiya et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0274438].
Regarding Claim 14, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles.
Hachiya et al. shows a laminated inductor (Figs. 3-6) teaching and suggesting the plurality of element body layers (ML1-ML6) includes a resin (31) that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (11, see Figs. 5-6).
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 plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles as taught by Hachiya et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to facilitate insulation properties and improve reliability (Table 1, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hachiya et al. shows the resin (31) has an electrical insulating property (Paragraph [0075]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0303117] (hereinafter as “Sato ‘117”).
Regarding Claim 14, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles.
Sato ‘117 shows a laminated inductor (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the plurality of element body layers (7) includes a resin (RE) that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (MM, see Fig. 4, Paragraphs [0031], [0059]).
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 plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles as taught by Sato ‘117 for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to facilitate insulation properties and improve inductance.
Regarding Claim 15, Sato ‘117 shows the resin (RE) has an electrical insulating property (Paragraph [0059]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Kido [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0197675].
Regarding Claim 17, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kido shows the first surface (bottom surface of element 30) forms the same plane as the main surface (17, Paragraph [0060]).
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 first surface forms the same plane as the main surface as taught by Kido for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to have a compact design having a reduced in size (Paragraph [0062]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Shimoda et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0051450].
Regarding Claim 17, Sato et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Shimoda et al. shows the first surface (bottom surface of element 31) forms the same plane as the main surface (17, 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 first surface forms the same plane as the main surface as taught by Shimoda et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to have a compact design having a reduced in size (Paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, and 16-17 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 Imada [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0214187].
Regarding Claim 1, Sato et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-9 and Drawing 1 below) comprising:
an element body (2) including a main surface (main surface MS, see Drawing 1 below) to be used as a mounting surface (Paragraphs [0051]-[0053], main surface MS having elements 41, 42 is a mounting surface to provide contactability to a mounting substrate);
a coil (3) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 1-9); and
a first electrode part (first electrode part E1 or top element 41, see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below) and a second electrode part (second electrode part E2 or top element 42) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (first direction D1, see Drawing 1 below), embedded in the element body in such a way as to be exposed from the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below), and electrically connected to the coil (3, see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below),
wherein the first electrode part (first electrode part E1) includes a first surface (bottom surface, see Drawing 1 below) exposed from the main surface (see Drawing 1 below) and a protrusion (protrusion P1 or wedge, Paragraphs [0052]-[0054]) disposed in the element body in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 disposed in element 2 in such a way as to be space apart from the main surface MS), and
the protrusion (protrusion P1) protrudes more toward the second electrode part (second electrode part E2) than the first surface in the first direction (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 protrudes more toward second electrode part E2 than the bottom surface in the first direction D1).
In addition, Imada shows (Figs. 1-8 and Drawing 2 below, Paragraphs [0069]-[0074]) a first electrode part (first electrode part E1, see Figs. 4, 8, and see Drawing 2 below) and a second electrode part (second electrode part E2) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (first direction D1, see Drawing 2 below), embedded in the element body (2) in such a way as to be exposed from the main surface (lower surface, see Figs. 4, 8, and see Drawing 2 below), and electrically connected to the coil (3, see Figs. 4, 8, and see Drawing 2 below), wherein the first electrode part (first electrode part E1) includes a first surface (bottom surface, see Drawing 2 below) exposed from the main surface (see Drawing 2 below) and a protrusion (protrusion P1) disposed in the element body in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface (see Fig. 8 and see Drawing 2 below, protrusion P1 disposed in element 2 in such a way as to be space apart from the lower surface), and the protrusion (protrusion P1) protrudes more toward the second electrode part (second electrode part E2) than the first surface in the first direction (see Drawing 2 below, protrusion P1 protrudes more toward second electrode part E2 than the bottom surface in the first direction D1).
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 protrusion protrudes more toward the second electrode part than the first surface in the first direction as taught by Imada for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to suppress the peeling-off on the electrode due to impact (Paragraph [0069]) to achieve high joining strength between electrode and the body.
Regarding Claim 2, Imada shows a glass content of the first electrode part is 20% or less (Paragraphs [0086]-[0088]).
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 a glass content of the first electrode part is 20% or less as taught by Imada for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to improve adhesion between electrodes and body or plating layers (Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. shows the first electrode part is a plating conductor (Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sato et al. shows the element body (2) includes a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (Paragraph [0035], for example, Fe-Si-Cr alloy or Fe-Si-Al alloy is considered soft magnetic metal particles).
Regarding Claim 6, Sato et al. shows a length of the first electrode part (first electrode part E1, see Drawing 1 below) in a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (main surface MS) is 5% or more and 40% or less of a length of the element body (2) in the second direction (Paragraphs [0032], [0058], [0109], [0111], a length of first electrode part E1 can be 30 μm and a length of element 2 can be 0.58 mm which is 580 μm, therefore a length of first electrode part E1 of 30 μm is 5% or more and 40% or less of a length of the element 2 of 580 μm).
Regarding Claim 7, Sato et al. shows the protrusion (protrusion P1) has a tapered shape (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 has a tapered shape).
Imada shows the protrusion (protrusion P1) has a tapered shape (see Drawing 2 below, protrusion P1 has a tapered shape).
Regarding Claim 8, Sato et al. shows length of the protrusion (protrusion P1) in a second direction (second direction D2, see Drawing 1 below) orthogonal to the main surface decreases toward the second electrode part (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P1 in a second direction D2 orthogonal to the main surface MS decreases toward the second electrode part E2).
Imada shows length of the protrusion (protrusion P1) in a second direction (second direction D2, see Drawing 2 below) orthogonal to the main surface decreases toward the second electrode part (see Drawing 2 below, protrusion P1 in a second direction D2 orthogonal to the lower surface decreases toward the second electrode part E2).
Regarding Claim 11, Sato et al. shows the second electrode part (second electrode part E2, see Drawing 1 below) includes a third surface (bottom surface) exposed from the main surface (main surface MS) and a protrusion (protrusion P2) disposed in the element body (2) in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P2 disposed in element 2 in such a way as to be space apart from the main surface MS), and the protrusion (protrusion P2) of the second electrode part protrudes more toward the first electrode part than the third surface in the first direction (see Drawing 1 below, protrusion P2 protrudes more toward first electrode part E1 than the bottom surface in the first direction D1).
Imada shows the second electrode part (second electrode part E2, see Drawing 2 below) includes a third surface (bottom surface) exposed from the main surface (lower surface) and a protrusion (protrusion P2) disposed in the element body (2) in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface (see Drawing 2 below, protrusion P2 disposed in element 2 in such a way as to be space apart from the lower surface), and the protrusion (protrusion P2) of the second electrode part protrudes more toward the first electrode part than the third surface in the first direction (see Drawing 2 below, protrusion P2 protrudes more toward first electrode part E1 than the bottom surface in the first direction D1).
Regarding Claim 12, Sato et al. shows the element body (2) includes a plurality of element body layers (21) in a second direction (see Fig. 3 and see Drawing 1 below) orthogonal to the main surface (main surface MS, see Fig. 3 upside down and see Drawing 1 below).
Regarding Claim 13, Sato et al. shows the plurality of element body layers (21) includes a plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (Paragraph [0035], for example, Fe-Si-Cr alloy or Fe-Si-Al alloy is considered soft magnetic metal particles).
Regarding Claim 16, Sato et al. shows a length in a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (main surface MS) is 5 µm or more and 50 µm or less (Paragraphs, [0058], [0111]).
Regarding Claim 17, Sato et al. shows the first surface (bottom surface) forms the same plane as the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and Drawing 1 below, bottom surface of first electrode part E1 forms the same plane as the main surface MS).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0402699].
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kim et al. shows the first electrode part (62, 32) is a plating conductor (Paragraph [0064]).
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 first electrode part is a plating conductor as taught by Kim et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to achieve desirable conductivity to achieve in durability, wear resistance, and offers a protective layer against corrosion.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0365315] (hereinafter as “Kim ‘315”).
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kim ‘315 shows the first electrode part (600) is a plating conductor (Paragraphs [0067]-[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 have the first electrode part is a plating conductor as taught by Kim ‘315 for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to increase coupling force and tensile strength (Paragraph [0067]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0281078].
Regarding Claim 3, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Takahashi shows (Fig. 3A) the first electrode part (70) is a plating conductor (Paragraph [0096]).
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 first electrode part is a plating conductor as taught by Takahashi for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to achieve desirable conductivity to achieve in durability, wear resistance, and offers a protective layer against corrosion.
Claim(s) 4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 4, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface.
Yosui shows a coil component (Figs. 2(A)-2(D)) teaching and suggesting the first electrode part (31A) includes a second surface (top surface) facing away from the first surface (bottom surface) and joined to the element body (see Figs. 2(A)-2(D)), and a surface roughness (30B) of the second surface (top surface) is greater than a surface roughness (30A) of the first 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 the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to reduce loss of the current flowing and facilitate electrical connection (see English translation).
Regarding Claim 9, Yosui shows the surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 2(A)-2(D), see English translation, element 30B of 3 to 5 μm is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of element 30A of 1 μm).
Regarding Claim 10, Sato et al. shows an area of the second surface (top surface of first electrode part E1, see Drawing 1 below) is larger than an area of the first surface (bottom surface) when viewed from a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, an area of the top surface of first electrode part E1 is larger than an area of the bottom surface when viewed from a second direction D2 orthogonal to the main surface MS).
Imada shows an area of the second surface (top surface of element 8, see Fig. 8 and see Drawing 2 below) is larger than an area of the first surface (bottom surface) when viewed from a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (see Drawing 2 below, an area of the top surface of element 8 is larger than an area of the bottom surface when viewed from a second direction D2 orthogonal to the lower surface).
Claim(s) 4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada 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 Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface.
Kang et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the first electrode part (310) includes a second surface (top surface) facing away from the first surface (bottom surface) and joined to the element body (see Figs. 1-4), and a surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface (bottom surface, 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 the first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Kang et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to improve breakdown voltage and improve flatness of a mounting surface (Paragraphs [0006], [0008]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kang et al. shows the surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 1-4, Paragraphs [0062]-[0063], the surface roughness of top surface is relatively higher than the surface roughness of bottom surface which can be greater than 1.1).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the surface roughness of the second surface is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art to improve breakdown voltage and improve flatness of a mounting surface, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 10, Sato et al. shows an area of the second surface (top surface of first electrode part E1, see Drawing 1 below) is larger than an area of the first surface (bottom surface) when viewed from a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (see Drawing 1 below, an area of the top surface of first electrode part E1 is larger than an area of the bottom surface when viewed from a second direction D2 orthogonal to the main surface MS).
Imada shows an area of the second surface (top surface of element 8, see Fig. 8 and see Drawing 2 below) is larger than an area of the first surface (bottom surface) when viewed from a second direction (second direction D2) orthogonal to the main surface (see Drawing 2 below, an area of the top surface of element 8 is larger than an area of the bottom surface when viewed from a second direction D2 orthogonal to the lower surface).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. [KR 2018-0014593].
Regarding Claim 7, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yoon et al. shows (Fig. 2) the protrusion (top portion of element u3 will have a protrusion based on a downward direction tapered shape as described in Paragraph [0066]) has a tapered shape (Paragraph [0066]).
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 first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to facilitate conductivity and improve electrical characteristics (Paragraphs [0010]) and reliably eliminate the difficulty in the process such as the problem of unevenness in plating deviation (Paragraphs [0070]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon et al. shows length of the protrusion (top portion of element u3 will have a protrusion based on a downward direction tapered shape as described in Paragraph [0066]) in a second direction (up-down direction such as the y-axis, see Fig. 2) orthogonal to the main surface (lower surface) decreases toward the second electrode part (see Fig. 2, top portion of element u3 will have a protrusion based on a downward direction tapered shape in a second direction D2 orthogonal to the lower surface decreases toward element u6).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada and Kang et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 9, Sato et al. in view of Imada and Kang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yosui shows the surface roughness of the second surface (top surface) is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of the first surface (bottom surface, see Figs. 2(A)-2(D), see English translation, element 30B of 3 to 5 μm is 1.1 times or more and 10 times or less that of element 30A of 1 μm).
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 first electrode part includes a second surface facing away from the first surface and joined to the element body, and a surface roughness of the second surface is greater than a surface roughness of the first surface as taught by Yosui for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada and Kang et al. to reduce loss of the current flowing and facilitate electrical connection (see English translation).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claims 1 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Hachiya et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0274438].
Regarding Claim 14, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles.
Hachiya et al. shows a laminated inductor (Figs. 3-6) teaching and suggesting the plurality of element body layers (ML1-ML6) includes a resin (31) that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (11, see Figs. 5-6).
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 plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles as taught by Hachiya et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to facilitate insulation properties and improve reliability (Table 1, Paragraph [0091]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hachiya et al. shows the resin (31) has an electrical insulating property (Paragraph [0075]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claims 1 and 12-13 above, and further in view of Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0303117] (hereinafter as “Sato ‘117”).
Regarding Claim 14, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles.
Sato ‘117 shows a laminated inductor (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the plurality of element body layers (7) includes a resin (RE) that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles (MM, see Fig. 4, Paragraphs [0031], [0059]).
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 plurality of element body layers includes a resin that is present between the plurality of soft magnetic metal particles as taught by Sato ‘117 for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to facilitate insulation properties and improve inductance.
Regarding Claim 15, Sato ‘117 shows the resin (RE) has an electrical insulating property (Paragraph [0059]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kido [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0197675].
Regarding Claim 17, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kido shows the first surface (bottom surface of element 30) forms the same plane as the main surface (17, Paragraph [0060]).
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 first surface forms the same plane as the main surface as taught by Kido for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to have a compact design having a reduced in size (Paragraph [0062]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. in view of Imada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimoda et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0051450].
Regarding Claim 17, Sato et al. in view of Imada shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Shimoda et al. shows the first surface (bottom surface of element 31) forms the same plane as the main surface (17, 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 first surface forms the same plane as the main surface as taught by Shimoda et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. in view of Imada to have a compact design having a reduced in size (Paragraph [0044]).
PNG
media_image1.png
585
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing 1
PNG
media_image2.png
738
1019
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Drawing 2
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7981. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Shawki Ismail can be reached at (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