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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 11-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0366248] in view of Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0111603].
Regarding Claim 1, Maruyama et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 8A-8C with teachings from Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
an element body (10) including a main surface (14) to be used as a mounting surface (Paragraph [0082]);
a coil (32) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 8A-8C);
a first electrode part (right element 40) and a second electrode part (left element 40) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (Y-direction), embedded in the element body (see Figs. 8A-8C) in such a way as to be exposed from the main surface (see Figs. 8A-8C, right element 40 and left element 40 exposed from element 14), and electrically connected to the coil (see Figs. 8A-8C); and
an external electrode (right element 50 or 62) disposed on the element body (10),
wherein the first electrode part (right element 40) includes a first surface (bottom surface of right element 40) exposed from the main surface (14, see Figs. 8A-8C), and
the first surface (bottom surface of right element 40) includes a first region covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 8A-8C, bottom surface of right element 40 includes a first region covered by right element 50 or 62), and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 8A-8C, bottom surface of right element 40 includes a second region that is exposed and not covered by right element 50 or 62).
Maruyama et al. does not explicitly show the first electrode part includes a first surface exposed from the main surface and a protrusion disposed in the element body in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface, the protrusion protrudes more toward the second electrode part than the first surface in the first direction.
Sato et al. shows an electronic component (Figs. 1-9 and Drawing 1 below) teaching and suggesting 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).
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 first surface exposed from the main surface and a protrusion disposed in the element body in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface, the protrusion protrudes more toward the second electrode part than the first surface in the first direction as taught by Sato et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Maruyama et al. to improve adhesion between the outer electrodes and the body and have high joining strength (Paragraph [0053]).
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, Maruyama et al. shows the element body (10) includes a plurality of element body layers (G1-G9) in a second direction (Z-direction, see Fig. 3) orthogonal to the main surface (14, see Fig. 3 and Figs. 8A-8C).
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 of the first electrode part 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 a same plane as the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and Drawing 1 below, bottom surface of first electrode part E1 forms a same plane as the main surface MS).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, 11-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takezawa et al. [JP 2009-206110] in view of Sato et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0111603].
Regarding Claim 1, Takezawa et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-3) comprising:
an element body (11) including a main surface (lower surface) to be used as a mounting surface (Paragraph [0012]);
a coil (12) disposed in the element body (see Figs. 1-3);
a first electrode part (14A) and a second electrode part (14B) spaced apart from each other in a first direction (left-right direction), embedded in the element body (see Figs. 1-3) in such a way as to be exposed from the main surface (see Figs. 1-3, element 14A and element 14B exposed from lower surface, Paragraphs [0012], [0015]), and electrically connected to the coil (see Figs. 1-3); and
an external electrode (13A) disposed on the element body (11),
wherein the first electrode part (14A) includes a first surface (bottom surface of element 14A) exposed from the main surface (see Figs. 1-3), and
the first surface (bottom surface of element 14A) includes a first region covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 1 and 3, bottom surface of element 14A includes a first region covered by element 13A), and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 1 and 3, bottom surface of element 14A includes a second region that is exposed and not covered by element 13A).
Takezawa et al. does not explicitly show the first electrode part includes a first surface exposed from the main surface and a protrusion disposed in the element body in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface, the protrusion protrudes more toward the second electrode part than the first surface in the first direction.
Sato et al. shows an electronic component (Figs. 1-9 and Drawing 1 below) teaching and suggesting 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).
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 first surface exposed from the main surface and a protrusion disposed in the element body in such a way as to be spaced apart from the main surface, the protrusion protrudes more toward the second electrode part than the first surface in the first direction as taught by Sato et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Takezawa et al. to improve adhesion between the outer electrodes and the body and have high joining strength (Paragraph [0053]).
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, Takezawa et al. shows the element body (11) includes a plurality of element body layers (11A) in a second direction (up-down direction) orthogonal to the main surface (lower surface, see Figs. 1-3).
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 of the first electrode part 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 a same plane as the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and Drawing 1 below, bottom surface of first electrode part E1 forms a same plane as the main surface MS).
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 Maruyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0366248].
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).
Sato et al. does not show an external electrode disposed on the element body, the first surface includes a first region covered by the external electrode, and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode.
Maruyama et al. shows an electronic component (Figs. 8A-8C) teaching and suggesting an external electrode (right element 50 or 62) disposed on the element body (10), the first surface (bottom surface of right element 40) includes a first region covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 8A-8C, bottom surface of right element 40 includes a first region covered by right element 50 or 62), and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 8A-8C, bottom surface of right element 40 includes a second region that is exposed and not covered by right element 50 or 62).
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 an external electrode disposed on the element body, the first surface includes a first region covered by the external electrode, and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode as taught by Maruyama et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to prevent the generation of crack in the body (Paragraphs [0101], [0110], Table 1).
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 of the first electrode part 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 a same plane as the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and Drawing 1 below, bottom surface of first electrode part E1 forms a same plane as the main surface MS).
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 Takezawa et al. [JP 2009-206110].
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).
Sato et al. does not show an external electrode disposed on the element body, the first surface includes a first region covered by the external electrode, and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode.
Takezawa et al. shows an electronic component (Figs. 1 and 3) teaching and suggesting an external electrode (13A) disposed on the element body (11), the first surface (bottom surface of element 14A) includes a first region covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 1 and 3, bottom surface of element 14A includes a first region covered by element 13A), and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode (see Figs. 1 and 3, bottom surface of element 14A includes a second region that is exposed and not covered by element 13A).
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 an external electrode disposed on the element body, the first surface includes a first region covered by the external electrode, and a second region that is exposed and not covered by the external electrode as taught by Takezawa et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Sato et al. to reduce thermal stress and prevent the generation of cracks in the body (Abstract, Advantage).
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 of the first electrode part 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 a same plane as the main surface (see Fig. 3 upside down and Drawing 1 below, bottom surface of first electrode part E1 forms a same plane as the main surface MS).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imada [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0214187].
Regarding Claim 2, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0402699].
Regarding Claim 3, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. 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, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0281078].
Regarding Claim 3, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 4, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. [KR 2018-0014593].
Regarding Claim 7, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. and Kang et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. and Kang et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. and Kang et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. and Kang et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yosui [WO 2014/115433].
Regarding Claim 9, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. and Kang et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. and Kang et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. and Kang et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. and Kang et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. and Kang et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. and Kang et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. 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, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. 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, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kido [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0197675].
Regarding Claim 17, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kido shows the first surface (bottom surface of element 30) forms a 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 a same plane as the main surface as taught by Kido for the coil component as disclosed by Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa 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 Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimoda et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0051450].
Regarding Claim 17, Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Shimoda et al. shows the first surface (bottom surface of element 31) forms a 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 a same plane as the main surface as taught by Shimoda et al. for the coil component as disclosed by Maruyama et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Takezawa et al. in view of Sato et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Maruyama et al. OR Sato et al. in view of Takezawa et al. 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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights