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 without traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group I, Species II-III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
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 1-6 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 1 recites “the side surface of the exterior member includes recesses” is indefinite and unclear because as shown in the originally filed Fig. 2 there is a recess for a side surface. The current claim limitation state that “the side surface” which is one side surface includes more than one recess. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 3 recites “the recess plane” is indefinite and unclear since there are two recess planes. The examiner suggests clarification.
Claim 4 recites “T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion” is indefinite and unclear because “a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion” should result in a negative value. As best understood, the claim limitation should be “a difference between the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion and the thickness of each of the lead portions”.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272945] in view of Yagasaki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0128275].
Regarding Claim 1, Arai et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 5 or 7 with teachings from Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
an exterior member (10) including a magnetic material (Paragraph [0028]) and having a bottom surface (lower surface) and a side surface (left or right surface) connected to the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7); and
an electric conductive member (18, 16) including a metallic material (Paragraph [0029]) and partially covered by the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7), wherein
the electric conductive member (18, 16) includes (i) a coil portion (top portion of element 18, 16, Paragraph [0029]) covered by the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7), (ii) lead portions (middle portions of element 18, 16 that connect end portions of top portion of element 18, 16 to lower surface of element 10) each connected to a corresponding one of both ends of the coil portion (see Figs. 5 or 7), extending toward the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7), and covered by the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7), and (iii) terminal electrodes (bottom portion of element 18, 16) each connected to a corresponding one of the lead portions (see Figs. 5 or 7) and exposed from the bottom surface of the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7),
the side surface (left or right surface) of the exterior member includes recesses (see 112 rejections above, see Figs. 5 or 7, left or right surface of element 10 includes recesses) that are recessed inward of the exterior member from the side surface (see Figs. 5 or 7, recesses are recessed inward of element 10 from the left or right surface) and connected to the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7),
the terminal electrodes (bottom portion of element 18, 16) each extend along the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7) toward a corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7), are bent from the bottom surface toward the corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7, bottom portion of element 18, 16 are bent from the lower surface toward the corresponding one of the recesses), and housed in the corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7),
at least a part of each of the lead portions is located opposite to the corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7, at least a part of each of middle portions of element 18, 16 is located opposite to the corresponding one of the recesses).
Arai et al. does not explicitly show each of the lead portions has a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of a wire of the coil portion.
Yagasaki et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-9) teaching and suggesting each of the lead portions (portion of left and right elements 13 covered by element 11) has a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of a wire of the coil portion (see Figs. 1-9, portion of left and right elements 13 covered by element 11 have a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of element 12 since elements 13 are crushed flat).
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 each of the lead portions has a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of a wire of the coil portion as taught by Yagasaki et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. to not generate stress easily so that risks of cracks that cause poor connection due to wire breakage can be eliminated and connection relationship can be maintained in a favorable and stable manner (Paragraphs [0011]-[0013]).
Regarding Claim 2, Arai et al. shows each of the lead portions has a flat shape (see Figs. 5 or 7, middle portions of element 18, 16 has a flat shape).
Yagasaki et al. shows each of the lead portions has a flat shape (see Figs. 1-9, portion of left and right elements 13 covered by element 11 has a flat shape).
Regarding Claim 3, Arai et al. shows each of the recesses includes a recess plane parallel to the side surface (see Figs. 5 or 7, each of the recesses includes a recess plane parallel to the left or right surface), and
each of the lead portions includes a lead portion plane opposite to the recess plane (see Figs. 5 or 7, middle portions of element 18, 16 includes a lead portion plane opposite to the recess plane).
Regarding Claim 4, Yagasaki et al. shows each of the lead portions has a thickness perpendicular to the side surface (see Fig. 1(B), portion of left and right elements 13 covered by element 11 has a thickness perpendicular to the bottom surface as shown in Fig. 1(B)).
Arai et al. in view of Yagasaki et al. does not explicitly show T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface, 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 not generate stress easily so that risks of cracks that cause poor connection due to wire breakage can be eliminated and connection relationship can be maintained in a favorable and stable manner. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Yagasaki et al. shows each of the lead portions has a width larger than the diameter or a width of the wire of the coil portion (see Figs. 5 or 7, middle portions of element 18, 16 has a width larger than a diameter or a width of element 12a or 12, Paragraphs [0062], [0082], [0109]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yagasaki et al. shows an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of the wire of the coil portion is 1:1 (element 12 have a circular cross section and diameter so therefore an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of element 12 is 1:1, Paragraphs [0062], [0067]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. in view of Yagasaki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohtsubo et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0307694].
Regarding Claim 4, Yagasaki et al. shows each of the lead portions has a thickness perpendicular to the side surface (see Fig. 1(B), portion of left and right elements 13 covered by element 11 has a thickness perpendicular to the bottom surface as shown in Fig. 1(B)).
Arai et al. in view of Yagasaki et al. does not explicitly show T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface.
Ohtsubo et al. shows a coil part (Fig. 13 with teachings from Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting each of the lead portions has a thickness perpendicular to the side surface (see Figs. 1-2, portion of left and right elements 34 covered by element 12 has a thickness perpendicular to the bottom surface as shown in Figs. 1-2) and T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions (thickness of element 34 can be 0.6 mm or 0.4 mm, Paragraph [0073]) and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion (diameter of element 11 is 1.2 mm, Paragraph [0032]), and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface (see 112 rejections above, a depth of each recesses can be 0.4 mm or 0.2 mm, Paragraph [0072], therefore, (1.2-0.4)/2 ≥ 0.2 is 0.4 mm ≥ 0.2 mm).
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 T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface as taught by Ohtsubo et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. in view of Yagasaki et al. to allows the outer electrodes to resist stress applied and vibration proof can be increased to facilitate reliability of the coil component (Paragraph [0073]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. in view of Yagasaki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. [WO 2016/035862].
Regarding Claim 6, Arai et al. in view of Yagasaki et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Sakai et al. shows (Fig. 2) an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of the wire of the coil portion is 1:1 (element 21, 21A have a square cross section so therefore an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of element 21, 21A is 1:1, see Fig. 2, 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 an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of the wire of the coil portion is 1:1 as taught by Sakai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. in view of Yagasaki et al. to have a simplified design to achieve desirable operating characteristics.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0272945] in view of Tanaka et al. [JP 2012-195399].
Regarding Claim 1, Arai et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 5 or 7 with teachings from Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
an exterior member (10) including a magnetic material (Paragraph [0028]) and having a bottom surface (lower surface) and a side surface (left or right surface) connected to the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7); and
an electric conductive member (18, 16) including a metallic material (Paragraph [0029]) and partially covered by the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7), wherein
the electric conductive member (18, 16) includes (i) a coil portion (top portion of element 18, 16, Paragraph [0029]) covered by the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7), (ii) lead portions (middle portions of element 18, 16 that connect end portions of top portion of element 18, 16 to lower surface of element 10) each connected to a corresponding one of both ends of the coil portion (see Figs. 5 or 7), extending toward the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7), and covered by the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7), and (iii) terminal electrodes (bottom portion of element 18, 16) each connected to a corresponding one of the lead portions (see Figs. 5 or 7) and exposed from the bottom surface of the exterior member (see Figs. 5 or 7),
the side surface (left or right surface) of the exterior member includes recesses (see 112 rejections above, see Figs. 5 or 7, left or right surface of element 10 includes recesses) that are recessed inward of the exterior member from the side surface (see Figs. 5 or 7, recesses are recessed inward of element 10 from the left or right surface) and connected to the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7),
the terminal electrodes (bottom portion of element 18, 16) each extend along the bottom surface (see Figs. 5 or 7) toward a corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7), are bent from the bottom surface toward the corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7, bottom portion of element 18, 16 are bent from the lower surface toward the corresponding one of the recesses), and housed in the corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7),
at least a part of each of the lead portions is located opposite to the corresponding one of the recesses (see Figs. 5 or 7, at least a part of each of middle portions of element 18, 16 is located opposite to the corresponding one of the recesses).
Arai et al. does not explicitly show each of the lead portions has a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of a wire of the coil portion.
Tanaka et al. shows an inductor (Figs. 1-5) teaching and suggesting each of the lead portions (portion of left and right elements 26 covered by element 21) has a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of a wire of the coil portion (see Figs. 1-5, portion of left and right elements 26 covered by element 21 have a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of element 22 since elements 13 are crushed into a plate shape, Paragraphs [0016], [0020], [0025], [0030]).
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 each of the lead portions has a thickness smaller than a diameter or a thickness of a wire of the coil portion as taught by Tanaka et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. to achieve low stress where crack arising in a copper wire can be prevented, thus preventing occurrence of crack in the core and improving reliability (Abstract, Advantage, Paragraph [0069]).
Regarding Claim 2, Arai et al. shows each of the lead portions has a flat shape (see Figs. 5 or 7, middle portions of element 18, 16 has a flat shape).
Tanaka et al. shows each of the lead portions has a flat shape (see Figs. 1-5, portion of left and right elements 26 covered by element 21 has a flat shape).
Regarding Claim 3, Arai et al. shows each of the recesses includes a recess plane parallel to the side surface (see Figs. 5 or 7, each of the recesses includes a recess plane parallel to the left or right surface), and
each of the lead portions includes a lead portion plane opposite to the recess plane (see Figs. 5 or 7, middle portions of element 18, 16 includes a lead portion plane opposite to the recess plane).
Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka et al. shows each of the lead portions has a thickness perpendicular to the side surface (see Fig. 2, portion of left and right elements 26 covered by element 21 has a thickness perpendicular to the bottom surface as shown in Fig. 2).
Arai et al. in view of Tanaka et al. does not explicitly show T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface, 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 low stress where crack arising in a copper wire can be prevented, thus preventing occurrence of crack in the core and improving reliability. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Tanaka et al. shows each of the lead portions has a width larger than the diameter or a width of the wire of the coil portion (see Figs. 1-5, portion of left and right elements 26 covered by element 21 has a width larger than a diameter or a width of element 22).
Regarding Claim 6, Tanaka et al. shows an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of the wire of the coil portion is 1:1 (element 22 have a circular cross section and diameter so therefore an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of element 22 is 1:1, Paragraphs [0030], [0045]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. in view of Tanaka et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ohtsubo et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0307694].
Regarding Claim 4, Tanaka et al. shows each of the lead portions has a thickness perpendicular to the side surface (see Fig. 2, portion of left and right elements 26 covered by element 21 has a thickness perpendicular to the bottom surface as shown in Fig. 2).
Arai et al. in view of Tanaka et al. does not explicitly show T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface.
Ohtsubo et al. shows a coil part (Fig. 13 with teachings from Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting each of the lead portions has a thickness perpendicular to the side surface (see Figs. 1-2, portion of left and right elements 34 covered by element 12 has a thickness perpendicular to the bottom surface as shown in Figs. 1-2) and T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions (thickness of element 34 can be 0.6 mm or 0.4 mm, Paragraph [0073]) and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion (diameter of element 11 is 1.2 mm, Paragraph [0032]), and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface (see 112 rejections above, a depth of each recesses can be 0.4 mm or 0.2 mm, Paragraph [0072], therefore, (1.2-0.4)/2 ≥ 0.2 is 0.4 mm ≥ 0.2 mm).
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 T/2 ≥ dp is satisfied, where T is a difference between the thickness of each of the lead portions and the diameter or the thickness of the wire of the coil portion, and dp is a depth of each of the recesses that is recessed inward of the side surface as taught by Ohtsubo et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. in view of Tanaka et al. to allows the outer electrodes to resist stress applied and vibration proof can be increased to facilitate reliability of the coil component (Paragraph [0073]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. in view of Tanaka et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai et al. [WO 2016/035862].
Regarding Claim 6, Arai et al. in view of Tanaka et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Sakai et al. shows (Fig. 2) an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of the wire of the coil portion is 1:1 (element 21, 21A have a square cross section so therefore an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of element 21, 21A is 1:1, see Fig. 2, 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 an aspect ratio of a transverse cross section of the wire of the coil portion is 1:1 as taught by Sakai et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Arai et al. in view of Tanaka et al. to have a simplified design to achieve desirable operating characteristics.
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