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 of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim s 6-7 and 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group I, Species II-V , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/12/2026 . Claim Objections Claims 1-5, 8-9, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 7, “the insulative unit” should be “the insulating unit”. Appropriate correction is required. 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 -5 , 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0318105 ] in view of Kawase et al. [CN 104681245] and Nishikawa et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0294090] (to show nickel and tin have lower resistance than conductive resin made of silver) . Regarding Claim 1, Lee et al. shows an electronic part (Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4) comprising: a conductive unit (50, 40 or 301 ) including an electrical conductor (50) having a terminal portion (40 or 301) , the terminal portion (40 or 301) including a conductor-exposed portion (top surface of element 40 or 301 is exposed, see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, Paragraphs [0041], [0069] , [0084]-[0085] ) provided on a surface (top surface) of the conductive unit (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, Paragraphs [0041], [0069], [0084]-[0085]) ; an insulating unit (insulating layer, insulating material, enameled wire, Paragraphs [0069], [0084]-[0085]) including an electrical insulator (insulating layer, insulating material, enameled wire, Paragraphs [0069], [0084]-[0085]) , the insulating unit being in contact with the conductive unit and covering part of the conductive unit (insulating layer, insulating material, enameled wire will be in contact with element 50, 40 or 301 and covering part of element 50, 40 or 301, Paragraphs [0069], [0084]-[0085]) ; and a terminal conductive layer (30, 20, 60) in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4) , the terminal conductive layer including: a first conductive layer (30) including conductive particles and a resin ( Paragraph [0042] ) , the first conductive layer having a first resistance (element 30 inherently have a first resistance) ; and a second conductive layer (20) formed of a metal (Paragraph [0043]) having a second resistance (element 20 inherently have a second resistance) smaller than the first resistance (element 20 made of metal such as Ni having a second resistance will inherently be smaller than element 30 made of resin and metal having a first resistance ) , the second conductive layer (20) being in contact with the first conductive layer (30, see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4) , wherein the first conductive layer (30) and the second conductive layer (20) are both in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, Paragraphs [0041], [0069], [0084] -[ 0085]) . Lee et al. does not explicitly show in the drawings the terminal portion including a conductor-exposed portion provided on a surface of the conductive unit and a terminal conductive layer in contact with the insulative unit. Kawase et al. clearly show in the drawings an inductor element (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the terminal portion (15) including a conductor-exposed portion (element 15 exposed at element 43, see Fig. 4) provided on a surface (top surface) of the conductive unit (see Fig. 4) , an insulating unit ( 12 ) including an electrical insulator ( 12, Paragraph [0047] ), the insulating unit being in contact with the conductive unit ( 101, 15, see Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0047]) and covering part of the conductive unit ( see Figs. 1-4, Paragraph [0047] ), and a terminal conductive layer (42) in contact with the insulative unit (12) and the conductor-exposed portion (see Fig. 4, element 42 in contact with element 12 and element 15 exposed at element 43) . 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 portion including a conductor-exposed portion provided on a surface of the conductive unit and a terminal conductive layer in contact with the insulative unit as taught by Kawase et al. for electronic part as disclosed by Lee et al. to facilitate insulation to prevent unwanted connection and short circuit while achieving desirable inductance values (Paragraph [0060]) . Furthermore, Nishikawa et al. clearly show a second conductive layer (47, 48 or 49) formed of a metal (Paragraph [0048]) having a second resistance (element 47, 48 or 49 inherently have a second resistance) smaller than the first resistance (element 47, 48 or 49 made of metal such as Ni having a second resistance will inherently be smaller than element 44, 45, or 46 made of resin and metal having a first resistance, Paragraph [0048]). 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 second conductive layer formed of a metal having a second resistance smaller than the first resistance as taught by Nishikawa et al. for electronic part as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. to achieve high thermal resistance and high wettability (Paragraph [00 12 ]). Regarding Claim 2, Lee et al. shows the first conductive layer ( 3 0) has a first opening (first opening at element 40b ) in a portion where the first conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4) , such that the second conductive layer (20) is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion through the first opening (first opening at element 40b) in the first conductive layer (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4) , and wherein an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, an area over which element 20 is in contact with top surface of element 40 or 301 is exposed is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of top surface of element 40 or 301 is exposed) . Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of the conductor-exposed portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to improve electrical performance and mechanical strength of the electrode structure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim 3, Lee et al. shows the insulating unit (insulating layer, insulating material, enameled wire, Paragraphs [0069], [0084]-[0085]) has a second opening (second opening at the exposed portion of element 40 or 301) through which the electrical conductor is exposed (Paragraphs [0069], [0084]-[0085]) , thereby providing the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, Paragraphs [0041], [0069], [0084]-[0085]) , and wherein the first conductive layer (30) is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion along an entire edge (left or right edge or upper or lower edge) of the second opening (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, element 30 is in contact with top surface of element 40 is exposed along an entire left or right edge of the second opening or see Figs. 3C, 4, element 30 is in contact with top surface of element 301 is exposed along an entire upper or lower edge of the second opening) . Kawase et al. shows the insulating unit (12) has a second opening (second opening at exposed portion of element 15) through which the electrical conductor is exposed (see Fig. 4), thereby providing the conductor-exposed portion (see Fig. 4), and wherein the first conductive layer (42) is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion along an entire edge of the second opening (see Fig. 4, element 42 is in contact with exposed portion of element 15 along an entire edge of the second opening). Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al. shows the first conductive layer (30) has a first opening (first opening at element 40b) , while the insulating unit (insulating layer, insulating material, enameled wire, Paragraphs [0069], [0084]-[0085]) has a second opening (second opening at the exposed portion of element 40 or 301) , wherein the first conductive layer (30) is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4) through the second opening (second opening at the exposed portion of element 40 or 301) along an entire edge (left or right edge or upper or lower edge) of the second opening (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, element 30 is in contact with top surface of element 40 is exposed along an entire left or right edge of the second opening or see Figs. 3C, 4, element 30 is in contact with top surface of element 301 is exposed along an entire upper or lower edge of the second opening) , while the second conductive layer (20) is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4) through the first opening along an entire edge of the first opening (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, element 20 is in contact with top surface of element 40 or 301 is exposed through first opening at element 40b along an entire edge of first opening at element 40b) , and wherein an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, an area over which element 20 is in contact with top surface of element 40 or 301 is exposed is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of top surface of element 40 or 301 is exposed) . Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of the conductor-exposed portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to improve electrical performance and mechanical strength of the electrode structure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim 5, Lee et al. shows an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is larger than an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with an edge (left or right edge) of the first conductive layer (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, an area over which element 20 is in contact with top surface of element 40 or 301 is exposed is larger than an area over which element 20 is in contact with a left or right edge of element 30) . Regarding Claim 8 , Kawase et al. shows the conductive unit is formed of a single metal (copper, Paragraph [0046]). Regarding Claim 12 , Lee et al. shows the insulating unit covers the conductive unit except the conductor-exposed portion where the electrical conductor of the conductive unit is exposed (see Figs. 1B, 2A-2B, 3C, 4, Paragraphs [0041], [0069], [0084] -[ 0085]) . Kawase et al. shows the insulating unit (12) covers the conductive unit (101, 15) except the conductor-exposed portion (element 15 exposed at element 43, see Fig. 4) where the electrical conductor of the conductive unit is exposed (see Fig. 4, Paragraph [0047]). Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshioka et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 202 0 / 0265990 ]. Regarding Claim 2, Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above. Yoshioka et al. shows (Figs. 2 and 7) the first conductive layer ( 411 ) has a first opening (first opening at element 4 10 ) in a portion where the first conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 2 and 7 ), such that the second conductive layer ( 412 ) is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (top surface of element 31 is exposed) through the first opening (first opening at element 410 ) in the first conductive layer ( see Figs. 2 and 7 ), and wherein an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of the conductor-exposed portion (see Figs. 2 and 7 , an area over which element 412 is in contact with top surface of element 31 is exposed is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of top surface of element 31 is exposed). 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 conductive layer has a first opening in a portion where the first conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion, such that the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion through the first opening in the first conductive layer, and wherein an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of the conductor-exposed portion as taught by Yoshioka et al. for electronic part as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics where the inductor component can be stably mounted due to self-alignment effect and stress on the inductor wiring can be relaxed (Paragraph s [0 109 ] -[0110] ). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is equal to or greater than 50% of an entire area of the conductor-exposed portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to improve electrical performance and mechanical strength of the electrode structure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim 5, Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above. Yoshioka et al. shows an area over which the second conductive layer (412) is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion (top surface of element 31 is exposed) is larger than an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with an edge (left or right edge) of the first conductive layer (see Figs. 2 and 7 , an area over which element 412 is in contact with top surface of element 31 is exposed is larger than an area over which element 412 is in contact with a left or right edge of element 411 ). 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 area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with the conductor-exposed portion is larger than an area over which the second conductive layer is in contact with an edge of the first conductive layer as taught by Yoshioka et al. for electronic part as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics where the inductor component can be stably mounted due to self-alignment effect and stress on the inductor wiring can be relaxed (Paragraphs [0109]-[0110]). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inui et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0139609]. Regarding Claim 9, Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the first conductive layer includes such an amount of the conductive particles that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90%. Inui et al. shows a coil device (Figs. 3A-3B) teaching and suggesting the first conductive layer (81) includes such an amount of the conductive particles (AM1a+AM1b = Am) that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer (81) is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90% (see Figs. 3A-3B, Paragraphs [0064]-[0068], AM1a+AM1b+AR1 = 100% and AR1 can be 5.0% to 18.0% so therefore AM1a+AM1b = Am = 82.0% to 95.0%) . 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 conductive layer includes such an amount of the conductive particles that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90% as taught by Inui et al. for electronic part as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics where adhesion strength of the electrode layer tends to improve (Paragraph [00 67 ]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first conductive layer includes such an amount of the conductive particles that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics and inductance values . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inui et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0358683] (hereinafter as “Inui ‘683”). Regarding Claim 9, Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the first conductive layer includes such an amount of the conductive particles that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90%. Inui ‘683 shows a coil device (Fig. 4A) teaching and suggesting the first conductive layer (81) includes such an amount of the conductive particles (83) that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer (81) is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90% (see Fig. 4A, Paragraph [0062], element 83 is 60% or more). 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 conductive layer includes such an amount of the conductive particles that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90% as taught by Inui ‘683 for electronic part as disclosed by Lee et al. in view of Kawase et al. and Nishikawa et al. to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics where joining reliability of a terminal electrode is high and low resistance (Paragraph [0005]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first conductive layer includes such an amount of the conductive particles that a ratio of a cross-sectional area of the conductive particles to a cross-sectional area of the first conductive layer is equal to or greater than 10% and equal to or smaller than 90%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art to achieve desirable magnetic characteristics and inductance values . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TSZFUNG J CHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7981 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Shawki Ismail can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3985 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TSZFUNG J CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837