DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden such that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one species would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining species. This is not found persuasive because the species of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (for example, searching different classifications, classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). However, claim 10 can be examined since applicant has provided prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 5-7 and 9-10 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 5 recites “the thickness of the embedded part is 1/4 or more and less than the thickness of the terminal” is indefinite and unclear. The examiner suggests clarification.
The term “a relatively high resin content” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a relatively high resin content” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since there is no comparison between “a resin-rich part having a relatively high resin content” and another element, the examiner is open to interpretation to compare with different element. The examiner suggests a more specific claim limitation.
The term “a relatively high magnetic material” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a relatively high magnetic material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since there is no comparison between “a magnetic-rich part having a relatively high magnetic content” and another element, the examiner is open to interpretation to compare with different element. The examiner suggests a more specific claim limitation.
The term “a relatively high resin content” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a relatively high resin content” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since there is no comparison between “a resin-rich part having a relatively high resin content” and another element, the examiner is open to interpretation to compare with different element. The examiner suggests a more specific claim limitation.
The term “a relatively high magnetic material” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a relatively high magnetic material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since there is no comparison between “a magnetic-rich part having a relatively high magnetic content” and another element, the examiner is open to interpretation to compare with different element. The examiner suggests a more specific claim limitation.
Claim 9 recites “the terminal extends linearly along the bottom of the core from one end to the other end in its extending direction” is indefinite and unclear regarding the term “its”. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the extending direction" in line 1. 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, 5-6, 8-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kudo et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0027287].
Regarding Claim 1, Kudo et al. shows a coil device (Figs. 1D, 1F with general teachings of Figs. 1A-1C) comprising a core (element 4 having elements 41, 42),
a coil (106, 6) having a winding (106α, 6α) embedded inside the core (see Fig. 1D), and a lead-out led (106a or 106b; 6a or 6b) from the winding (106α, 6α) to a bottom (bottom surface) of the core (see Fig. 1D), wherein
the lead-out (106a or 106b; 6a or 6b) comprises a terminal (bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b) arranged at the bottom of the core (see Fig. 1D),
the terminal (bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b) comprises an embedded part embedded inside the core (see Fig. 1D, Paragraph [0057]) and an exposed part (exposed part of bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b to contact element 8a or 8b) exposed from the core (see Fig. 1D), and
a metal layer (8a or 8b) is formed on a surface of the exposed part (see Fig. 1D, element 8a or 8b formed on a surface of exposed part of bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b).
Regarding Claim 2, Kudo et al. shows the metal layer (8a or 8b) is comprised by a metal film (Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kudo et al. shows the exposed part (exposed part of bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b to contact element 8a or 8b) comprises a first end (first end of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b) forming an end of the lead-out (see Figs. 1A-1D), and a second end (second end of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b which is at the bent portion) located on the opposite side of the first end along an extending direction of the exposed part (see Figs. 1A-1D), and
a curved surface that curves toward the bottom of the core is formed on the surface of the exposed part at the second end (see Figs. 1A-1D, there is a curved surface that curves toward the bottom surface of element 4 is formed on the surface of the exposed part of bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b to contact element 8a or 8b at the second end).
Regarding Claim 5, Kudo et al. shows the thickness (H) of the embedded part (6a2 or 6b2) is 1/4 or more and less than the thickness of the terminal (see Fig. 1F, the thickness H of element 6a2 or 6b2 is less than the thickness of element 6a or 6b which is thickness H plus remainder thickness at element 6a1 or 6b1).
Regarding Claim 6 (see 112 rejections above), Kudo et al. shows the core (element 4 having elements 41, 42) comprises a resin and a magnetic material (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]),
a resin-rich part having a relatively high resin content (element 41 contain resin can be considered a resin-rich part having a relatively high resin content when compared with element 6 made of copper, Paragraphs [0041], [0044]-[0045]) and a magnetic material-rich part having a relatively high magnetic material content (element 42 contain magnetic material can be considered a magnetic material-rich part having a relatively high magnetic material content when compared with element 6 made of copper, Paragraphs [0041], [0044]-[0045]) are formed at the bottom of the core (see Fig. 1D), and
the exposed part is exposed from the magnetic material-rich part (see Fig. 1D, the exposed part is exposed from element 42).
Regarding Claim 8, Kudo et al. shows the coil is formed by winding an insulation coated flat wire (see Fig. 1D, Paragraph [0093]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kudo et al. shows the terminal (bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b) extends linearly along the bottom of the core from one end to the other end in its extending direction (see Figs. 1A-1D, bottom portion of element 106a or 106b; 6a or 6b extends linearly along the bottom surface of element 4 from one end to the other end in its extending direction, Paragraphs [0053], [0072]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kudo et al. shows the lead-out (6a or 6b; 106a or 106b) comprises a connection (portion of element 6 parallel to the z-direction between element 6α and element 6a) embedded inside the core and connects the winding (6α) and the terminal (bottom portion of element 6a, see Fig. 1A),
the connection is bent from the winding to the terminal (see Fig. 1A, portion of element 6 parallel to the z-direction is bent from element 6α to bottom portion of element 6a),
a distance between the terminal and the winding with respect to a winding axial direction of the coil is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of the connection (see Fig. 1A, a distance between bottom portion of element 6a and lowermost turn of element 6α with respect to a winding axial direction of element 6 is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of portion of element 6 parallel to the z-direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Kawamura et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0198226].
Regarding Claim 3, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kawamura et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 7B or 7A) teaching and suggesting the exposed part (exposed part of bottom portion of element 46b or 46a to contact element 70b or 70a) comprises a first end (right end of element 46b shown in Fig. 7B or left end of element 46a shown in Fig. 7A) forming an end of the lead-out (see Figs. 7B or 7A), and a second end (left end of element 46b at element 48b shown in Fig. 7B or right end of element 46a at element 48a shown in Fig. 7A) located on the opposite side of the first end along an extending direction of the exposed part (see Figs. 7B or 7A), and
a curved surface (48b or 48a) that curves toward the bottom of the core is formed on the surface of the exposed part at the second end (see Fig. 7B or 7A, element 48b or 48a curves toward the bottom surface of element 14 is formed on the surface of exposed part of bottom portion of element 46b or 46a to contact element 70b or 70a at the second end).
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 curved surface that curves toward the bottom of the core is formed on the surface of the exposed part at the second end as taught by Kawamura et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to improve vibration reliability (Paragraphs [0086]-[0087]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawamura et al. shows the metal layer (70b or 70a) does not exist at a position spaced apart from a bottom surface of the metal layer toward the bottom of the core on the curved surface (see Figs. 7B or 7A, element 70b or 70a does not exist at a position spaced apart from a bottom surface of element 70b or 70a toward the bottom surface of element 14 on element 48b or 48a).
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 metal layer does not exist at a position spaced apart from a bottom surface of the metal layer toward the bottom of the core on the curved surface as taught by Kawamura et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to reduce manufacture cost and weight while facilitating electrical connection and achieve desirable operating characteristics.
Regarding Claim 12, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kawamura et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 2A) teaching and suggesting the lead-out (44a) comprises a connection (48a) embedded inside the core and connects the winding (40) and the terminal (46a, see Fig. 2A),
the connection is bent from the winding to the terminal (see Fig. 2A, element 48a parallel is bent from element 40 to element 46a),
a distance between the terminal and the winding with respect to a winding axial direction of the coil is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of the connection (see Fig. 2A, a distance between bottom portion of element 46a and lowermost turn of element 40 with respect to a winding axial direction of element 40 is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of portion of element 48a).
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 lead-out comprises a connection embedded inside the core and connects the winding and the terminal, the connection is bent from the winding to the terminal, a distance between the terminal and the winding with respect to a winding axial direction of the coil is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of the connection as taught by Kawamura et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to eliminate large forces so that disconnection of the lead wires is reduced to improve vibration reliability (Paragraph [0075]).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0318105].
Regarding Claim 3, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Lee et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1A-1B) teaching and suggesting the exposed part (exposed part of element 40a to contact element 40b) comprises a first end (right end of element 40a) forming an end of the lead-out (see Figs. 1A-1B), and a second end (left end of element 40b) located on the opposite side of the first end along an extending direction of the exposed part (see Figs. 1A-1B), and
a curved surface that curves toward the bottom of the core is formed on the surface of the exposed part at the second end (see Figs. 1A-1B, there is a curved surface that curves toward the top surface of element 10 is formed on the surface of the exposed part of element 40a to contact element 40b at the second end).
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 curved surface that curves toward the bottom of the core is formed on the surface of the exposed part at the second end as taught by Lee et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to facilitate electrical connect to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics with improved electrical performance and mechanical strength of the electrode structure (Paragraphs [0008], [0036]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al. shows the metal layer (40b) does not exist at a position spaced apart from a bottom surface of the metal layer toward the bottom of the core on the curved surface (see Figs. 1A-1B, element 40b does not exist at a position spaced apart from a top surface of element 40b toward the top surface of element 10 on the curved surface).
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 metal layer does not exist at a position spaced apart from a bottom surface of the metal layer toward the bottom of the core on the curved surface as taught by Lee et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to reduce manufacture cost and weight while facilitating electrical connection and achieve desirable operating characteristics (Paragraphs [0008], [0036]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Lee et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 3A, 4) teaching and suggesting the terminal (301 or 302) extends linearly along the bottom of the core from one end to the other end in its extending direction (see Figs. 3A, 4).
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 terminal extends linearly along the bottom of the core from one end to the other end in its extending direction as taught by Lee et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to simplified design in order to facilitate electrical connect to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics with improved electrical performance and mechanical strength of the electrode structure (Paragraphs [0008], [0036]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Araki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0098181].
Regarding Claim 6, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Araki et al. shows (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting the core (10, 20) comprises a resin and a magnetic material (Paragraph [0022]), a resin-rich part (20) having a relatively high resin content (Paragraph [0023]) and a magnetic material-rich part (10) having a relatively high magnetic material content (Paragraph [0023], since element 10 is low resin content then it is considered relatively high magnetic material) are formed at the bottom of the core (see Figs. 1-2), and the exposed part (exposed part of element 30) is exposed from the magnetic material-rich part (see Figs. 1-2).
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 core comprises a resin and a magnetic material, a resin-rich part having a relatively high resin content and a magnetic material-rich part having a relatively high magnetic material content are formed at the bottom of the core, and the exposed part is exposed from the magnetic material-rich part as taught by Yang et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to enable high moisture resistance (Paragraph [0023]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Yang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0375529].
Regarding Claim 7, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part.
Yang et al. shows a coil component (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting a surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part (a surface roughness of bottom surface of element 100 in contact with element 410 or 420 which is considered magnetic material-rich part when compared with element 300 made of copper is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom surface of element 100 in contact with element 500 which is considered resin-rich part when compared with element 300 made of copper, Paragraphs [0065], [0075]).
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 surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part as taught by Yang et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to improve adhesive force between the body and electrodes (Paragraph [0075]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Araki et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0130580].
Regarding Claim 7, Kudo et al. in view of Araki et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show a surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part.
However, Lee et al. teaches that resin-rich part has smaller roughness that magnetic material rich-part (Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
Therefore, with the teaching of Lee et al. in Paragraphs [0046]-[0047], Araki et al. would teach a surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part (a surface roughness of bottom surface of element 10 being magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom surface of element 20 being resin-rich part, Paragraphs [0022]-[0023]) to enable high moisture resistance (Paragraph [0023]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Araki et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0326041].
Regarding Claim 7, Kudo et al. in view of Araki et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part.
Kawaguchi et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-5) teaching and suggesting a surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part (a surface roughness of bottom surface of element 10 at element S1 which is considered magnetic material-rich part when compared with element 31 made of copper is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom surface of element 10 at element S2 which is considered resin-rich part when compared with element 31 made of copper, Paragraphs [0040], [0051]).
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 surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the magnetic material-rich part is larger than the surface roughness of the bottom of the core in the resin-rich part as taught by Kawaguchi et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to improve adhesive force between the body and electrodes and prevent sneaking of solder at mounting (Paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Takahashi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0075058].
Regarding Claim 8, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Takahashi et al. shows the coil (15) is formed by winding an insulation coated flat wire (see Figs. 1A-1B, Paragraphs [0057], [0061]).
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 coil is formed by winding an insulation coated flat wire as taught by Takahashi et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and shorts while achieving desirable inductance values.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Fukui [JP 2010-177492].
Regarding Claim 10, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the extending direction of the terminal is inclined with respect to a first direction, where sides of the core face each other, or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a plane parallel to the bottom of the core.
Fukui shows a coil device (Fig. 10 and Drawing 1 below) teaching and suggesting the extending direction of the terminal (9a) is inclined with respect to a first direction, where sides of the core face each other (see Fig. 10 and Drawing 1 below, an extending direction of element 9a is inclined with respect to a first direction [x-direction or y-direction], where sides of element 5 face each other), or a second direction perpendicular to the first direction in a plane parallel to the bottom of the core.
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 coil is formed by winding an insulation coated flat wire as taught by Fukui for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to improve bonding reliability between an end portion of a winding and an external electrode (Paragraph [0001]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a first distance between the exposed part and one side of the core and a second distance between the exposed part and the other side of the core are different, with respect to a direction where the one side of the core and the other side of the core face each other.
Fukui shows a coil device (Fig. 10 and Drawing 1 below) teaching and suggesting a first distance (first distance D1) between the exposed part and one side of the core (5, see Drawing 1 below) and a second distance (second distance D2) between the exposed part and the other side of the core (see Drawing 1 below) are different (see Drawing 1 below, first distance D1 and second distance D2 are clearly shown to be different), with respect to a direction (y-direction) where the one side of the core and the other side of the core face each other (see Drawing 1 below).
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 first distance between the exposed part and one side of the core and a second distance between the exposed part and the other side of the core are different, with respect to a direction where the one side of the core and the other side of the core face each other as taught by Fukui for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to have a compact design to reduce manufacture cost and weight and to improve bonding reliability between an end portion of a winding and an external electrode (Paragraph [0001]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Umeno et al. [JP 2001-155932].
Regarding Claim 12, Kudo et al. shows the lead-out (6a or 6b; 106a or 106b) comprises a connection (portion of element 6 parallel to the z-direction between element 6α and element 6a) embedded inside the core and connects the winding (6α) and the terminal (bottom portion of element 6a, see Fig. 1A).
Umeno et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 8) teaching and suggesting the connection (bent portion between element 35 and element 41) is bent from the winding (35) to the terminal (41, see Fig. 8), a distance between the terminal and the winding with respect to a winding axial direction of the coil is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of the connection (see Fig. 8, a distance between bottom portion of element 41 and lowermost turn of element 35 with respect to a winding axial direction of element 35 is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of bent portion between element 35 and element 41).
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 connection is bent from the winding to the terminal, a distance between the terminal and the winding with respect to a winding axial direction of the coil is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of the connection as taught by Umeno et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and inductance values.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Honda et al. [WO 2020/179298].
Regarding Claim 12, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Honda et al. shows (Fig. 1) the lead-out (right element 3) comprises a connection (curved portion of right element 3 along the z-direction) embedded inside the core and connects the winding (3a) and the terminal (bottom portion of right element 3, see Fig. 1), the connection (curved portion of right element 3 along the z-direction) is bent from the winding (3a) to the terminal (bottom portion of right element 3, see Fig. 1), a distance between the terminal and the winding with respect to a winding axial direction of the coil is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of the connection (see Fig. 1, a distance between bottom portion of right element 3 and lowermost turn of element 3a with respect to a winding axial direction of element 3a is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of bent portion of curved portion of right element 3 along the z-direction).
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 connection is bent from the winding to the terminal, a distance between the terminal and the winding with respect to a winding axial direction of the coil is smaller than an inner diameter of a bent part of the connection as taught by Honda et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and inductance values where reliability and electrical performance is improved (Abstract, Advantage).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Ahn et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0126006].
Regarding Claim 13, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a tip of the embedded part has a convex shape.
Ahn et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 11A-11D) teaching and suggesting a tip (tip of element 121a or 121b) of the embedded part has a convex shape (see Figs. 11A-11D).
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 tip of the embedded part has a convex shape as taught by Ahn et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to have the coil stably seated in the magnetic body and provide a high-inductance coil component (Paragraph [0099]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ahn et al. shows a tip of the embedded part has a tapered surface (see Figs. 11A-11D, tip of element 121a or 121b has a tapered surface), and
the tapered surface is inclined within the core in a direction away from the bottom of the core (see Figs. 11A-11D, the tapered surface is inclined within element 130 in a direction away from left or right surface of element 130).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kudo et al. in view of Kitajima et al. [JP 2015-220272].
Regarding Claim 13, Kudo et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a tip of the embedded part has a convex shape.
Kitajima et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting a tip (tip of element 6a) of the embedded part has a convex shape (see Figs. 1-4).
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 tip of the embedded part has a convex shape as taught by Kitajima et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Kudo et al. to improve bonding strength (Paragraphs [0011], [0032]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kitajima et al. shows a tip of the embedded part has a tapered surface (see Figs. 1-4, tip of element 6a has a tapered surface), and
the tapered surface is inclined within the core in a direction away from the bottom of the core (see Figs. 1-4, the tapered surface is inclined within element 4 in a direction away from left surface of element 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawing 1
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
Prosecution Insights