NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This non-final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/189,725, entitled COIL COMPONENT.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected.
Claim 2 is objected to.
I. PRIORITY
Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP2022-054179, filed March 29, 2022.
II. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner concludes that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV).
The Examiner further finds that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner concludes that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims).
Because of the Examiner’s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II).
III. DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTIONS
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1.321(c) or §1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP §717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP §2159. See MPEP §2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP §804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. §1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. §1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. §1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §706.07(e) and §714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
III.A. Double Patenting Rejections Over 9667 Application
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-19 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 18/189,667 (hereinafter the “9667 Application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because these noted claims of the 9667 Application read on claims 1 and 3-20 pending in this application. This is a provisional double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1 in this application, claim 1 of the 9667 Application recites:
1. A coil component comprising:
Claim 1 of the 9667 Application recites “1. A coil component comprising:”
an element assembly including a coil conductor including a wound conductor, and a magnetic portion containing metal magnetic particles and resin; and
Claim 1 of the 9667 Application recites “an element assembly including a coil conductor including a wound conductor, and a magnetic portion containing metal magnetic particles and resin…”
an outer electrode electrically connected to an exposed surface of an extended part of the coil conductor, exposed on a surface of the element assembly, and on the surface of the element assembly,
Claim 1 of the 9667 Application recites “and an outer electrode electrically connected to an exposed surface, exposed on a surface of the element assembly, of an extended part of the coil conductor and disposed on the surface of the element assembly…”
wherein the metal magnetic particles include first metal magnetic particles, second metal magnetic particles, and third metal magnetic particles, a particle size distribution of the metal magnetic particles, calculated in accordance with a circle equivalent diameter obtained from a cross-sectional image in a cross section of the magnetic portion, has at least two peaks and at least one bottom, and metal magnetic particles larger than or equal to the bottom having a minimum frequency are defined as large metal magnetic particles, those of the large metal magnetic particles having a recessed portion that satisfies a predetermined condition in the cross section are defined as the second metal magnetic particles,
those of the large metal magnetic particles not having the recessed portion are defined as the first metal magnetic particles,
those of the metal magnetic particles smaller than the bottom having the minimum frequency are defined as the third metal magnetic particles, and the predetermined condition is L02 > L01, where a minimum distance between distal ends at an opening of the recessed portion is L01, and a longest distance of line segments parallel to a line segment that has the minimum distance between the distal ends of the opening in line segments corresponding to chords in the recessed portion of a cross section of each of the second metal magnetic particles is L02.
Claim 1 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein the metal magnetic particles include first metal magnetic particles and second metal magnetic particles, a particle size distribution of the metal magnetic particles, calculated in accordance with a circle equivalent diameter obtained from a cross-sectional image in a cross section of the magnetic portion, has at least two peaks and at least one bottom, and those of the metal magnetic particles larger than or equal to the bottom having a minimum frequency are defined as the first metal magnetic particles, and those of the metal magnetic particles smaller than the bottom having the minimum frequency are defined as the second metal magnetic particles, the first metal magnetic particles include particles each having a recessed portion that satisfies a predetermined condition in the cross section, the predetermined condition is L02>L01 where a minimum distance between distal ends at an opening of the recessed portion is L01 and a longest distance of line segments parallel to a line segment that has the minimum distance between the distal ends at the opening in line segments corresponding to chords in the recessed portion of a cross section of each of the first metal magnetic particles is L02…”
Specifically, Examiners find that the first magnetic particles in claim 1 of the 9667 Application “include particles each having a recessed portion” is open ended with “include” and thus this limitation would encompass the interpretation that some first magnetic particles have a recessed portion and some magnetic particles do not have a recessed portion. Thus, first magnetic particle of claim 1 of the 9667 Application read on the first and second magnetic particle of this application and further the second magnetic particles of claim 1 of the 9667 Application read on the third magnetic particles of this application.
Regarding claim 3 in this application, claim 6 of the 9667 Application recites:
3. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein a mean particle size of the first metal magnetic particles is from 10µm to 50µm.
Claim 6 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein a peak having a maximum frequency in the particle size distribution of the first metal magnetic particles is from 10μm to 50μm.”
Regarding claim 4 in this application, claim 7 of the 9667 Application recites:
4. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein a mean particle size of the third metal magnetic particles is from 0.2µm to 10µm.
Claim 7 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein a peak having a maximum frequency in the particle size distribution of the second metal magnetic particles is from 0.2μm to 10μm.”
Regarding claim 5 in this application, claim 8 of the 9667 Application recites:
5. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein each of the first metal magnetic particles and each of the second metal magnetic particles have the same composition.
Claim 8 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein each of the first metal magnetic particles and each of the second metal magnetic particles have the same composition.”
Regarding claim 6 in this application, claim 9 of the 9667 Application recites:
6. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein an electrically insulating coating is on an outer surface of each of the second metal magnetic particles, and an electrically insulating coating is absent from at least part of a surface inside the recessed portion of each of the second metal magnetic particles.
Claim 9 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein an electrically insulating coating is on an outer surface of each of the first metal magnetic particles, and an electrically insulating coating is absent from at least part of a surface inside the recessed portion of each of the first metal magnetic particles.”
Regarding claim 7 in this application, claim 10 of the 9667 Application recites:
7. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein in the cross section of the magnetic portion, a content of the resin is from 5% to 25% in area.
Claim 10 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein a content of the resin is from 5% to 25% in area in the cross section of the magnetic portion.”
Regarding claim 8 in this application, claim 1 of the 9667 Application reads on the general content of the first, second and third magnetic particles as discussed above with regard to claim 1 in this application, but not the particular content ranges for each group of magnetic particles. Nevertheless, providing the specific ranges of magnetic particles to those of claim 1 of the 9667 Application to have the relative dimensions as recited in the claims would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation and the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.05(ii). It would have thus have been obvious to optimize the ranges of the magnetic particles for those particles of claim 1 of the 9667 Application to arrive at claim 8 of this application because such optimization would be routine skill in the art to maximize the permeability of the core element.
Regarding claim 9 in this application, claim 1 of the 9667 Application recites:
9. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein at least part of at least one of the third metal magnetic particles is inside the recessed portion of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles.
Claim 1 of the 9667 Application recites “at least part of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles is inside the recessed portion of at least one of the first metal magnetic particles.”
Regarding claim 10 in this application, claim 2 of the 9667 Application recites:
10. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein a whole of at least one of the third metal magnetic particles is inside the recessed portion of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles.
Claim 2 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein a whole of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles is inside the recessed portion of at least one of the first metal magnetic particles.”
Regarding claim 11 in this application, claim 4 of the 9667 Application recites:
11. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein when a whole of at least one of the third metal magnetic particles is inside the recessed portion of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles in the cross section of the magnetic portion, a content of the third metal magnetic particles inside the recessed portion is higher than or equal to 40% on average.
Claim 4 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein when a whole of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles is inside the recessed portion of at least one of the first metal magnetic particles, a content of the second metal magnetic particles inside the recessed portion is higher than or equal to 40% on average in the cross section of the magnetic portion.”
Regarding claim 12 in this application, claim 5 of the 9667 Application recites:
12. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein in the cross section of the magnetic portion, at least part of at least one of other second metal magnetic particles and at least part of the third metal magnetic particles are inside the recessed portion of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles, and a content of the other second metal magnetic particles and the third metal magnetic particles in the recessed portion of the second metal magnetic particles is higher than or equal to 50% on average.
Claim 5 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein in the cross section of the magnetic portion, at least part of at least one of other first metal magnetic particles and at least part of the second metal magnetic particles are inside the recessed portion of at least one of the first metal magnetic particles, and a content of the other first metal magnetic particles and the second metal magnetic particles in the recessed portion of the first metal magnetic particles is higher than or equal to 50% on average.”
Regarding claim 13 in this application, claim 14 of the 9667 Application recites:
13. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein where a particle size at which a peak having a maximum frequency is located in a particle size distribution of the third metal magnetic particles is d.sub.3, an average value of the minimum distance L.sub.01 between the distal ends at the opening of the recessed portion of each of the second metal magnetic particles in the cross section of the magnetic portion satisfies L.sub.01 > d.sub.3.
Claim 14 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein where a particle size at which a peak having a maximum frequency is located in a particle size distribution of the second metal magnetic particles is d.sub.2, an average value of the minimum distance L.sub.01 between the distal ends at the opening of the recessed portion of each of the first metal magnetic particles in the cross section of the magnetic portion satisfies L.sub.01>d.sub.2.”
Regarding claim 14 in this application, claim 12 of the 9667 Application recites:
14. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein where an outer perimeter of the second metal magnetic particle having the recessed portion is L1 and a perimeter of a circle having an equivalent circle area is L2 in the cross section of the magnetic portion, an average value of L1/L2 is less than or equal to 5.0.
Claim 12 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein where an outer perimeter of the first metal magnetic particle having the recessed portion is L1 and a perimeter of a circle having an area of an equivalent circle is L2 in the cross section of the magnetic portion, an average value of L1/L2 is less than or equal to 5.0.
Regarding claim 15 in this application, claim 13 of the 9667 Application recites:
15. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein where the minimum distance between the distal ends at the opening of the recessed portion of each of the second metal magnetic particles is L.sub.01 and a perimeter other than an inside of the opening of the recessed portion of each of the second metal magnetic particles is Lc in the cross section of the magnetic portion, an average value of L.sub.01/(Lc + L.sub.01) is from 0.03 to 0.4.
Claim 13 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein where the minimum distance between the distal ends at the opening of the recessed portion of each of the first metal magnetic particles is L.sub.01 and a perimeter other than an inside of the opening of the recessed portion of each of the first metal magnetic particles is Lc in the cross section of the magnetic portion, an average value of L.sub.01/(Lc+L.sub.01) is from 0.03 to 0.4.”
Regarding claim 16 in this application, claim 15 of the 9667 Application recites:
16. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein where an area of a region inside the line segment that has the minimum distance between the distal ends at the opening of each of the second metal magnetic particles is S.sub.0 and a cross-sectional area of each of the second metal magnetic particles having the recessed portion is Sc in the cross section of the magnetic portion, an average value of S.sub.0/(Sc + S.sub.0) is from 0.05 to 0.8.
Claim 15 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein where an area of a region inside a line segment that has the minimum distance between the distal ends at the opening of the recessed portion of each of the first metal magnetic particles is S.sub.0 and a cross-sectional area of each of the first metal magnetic particles having the recessed portion is Sc in the cross section of the magnetic portion, an average value of S.sub.0/(Sc+S.sub.0) is from 0.05 to 0.8.”
Regarding claim 17 in this application, claim 16 of the 9667 Application recites:
17. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic portion further contains inorganic oxide particles.
Claim 16 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein the magnetic portion further contains inorganic oxide particles.”
Regarding claim 18 in this application, claim 17 of the 9667 Application recites:
18. The coil component according to claim 17, wherein in the cross section of the magnetic portion, at least part of at least one of the third metal magnetic particles and at least part of at least one of the inorganic oxide particles are in the recessed portion of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles.
Claim 17 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein in the cross section of the magnetic portion, at least part of at least one of the second metal magnetic particles and at least part of at least one of the inorganic oxide particles are in the recessed portion of at least one of the first metal magnetic particles.”
Regarding claim 19 in this application, claim 18 of the 9667 Application recites:
19. The coil component according to claim 17, wherein the inorganic oxide particles are glass.
Claim 18 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein the inorganic oxide particles are glass.”
Regarding claim 20 in this application, claim 19 of the 9667 Application recites:
20. The coil component according to claim 17, wherein the inorganic oxide particles are ferrite.
Claim 19 of the 9667 Application recites “wherein the inorganic oxide particles are ferrite.”
IV. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent on a rejected claim, but would be allowable over the prior art, including any double patenting rejection over the 9667 Application. Regarding this claim, Examiner finds the prior art cited in this application does not show or teach “a mean particle size of the first metal magnetic particles is greater than a mean particle size of the second metal magnetic particles” as recited in the claim and in combination with the other features of the claim.
While claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under double patenting as provided above, Examiner find these claims are nevertheless allowable over the prior art of record in this reissue application. For example, JP2021-52075 discloses the general structures of the recited coil component and further the relative distribution of larger and smaller magnetic particles, with a frequency bottom at a minimum frequency. See JP2021-52075 FIGS. 1, 3 and 4. Similarly see US2019/0392978. Furthermore, JP2007-142369 teaches a coil component using generally C-shaped magnetic components. Finally, JP2020-0155637 teaches a coil component using magnetic particles included in other magnetic particles. However, Examiner does not find these references teach modifications of each other to arrive at the particular structures and arrangements as recited in claims 1 and 3-20, particularly, the shapes and size distribution frequencies of the first, second and third magnetic particles as recited in the claims and in combination with the other features of the claims.
V. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected.
Claim 2 is objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992