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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there would be no motivation to use the “quadrangular prism shape” of the first center pole part of Hong in place of the first center pole part of Park, let alone any reasonable expectation that would provide superior and unexpected results, such as passing ESD and impulse tests, and high inductance as a result of the deflection angles of the first and second soft magnetic particles and the quadrangular prism shape as claimed.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is found not persuasive, respectfully. As seen in FIG. 7 of Park, the magnetic particles 61 and 71 have different deflection angles from the winding axis, which is an imaginary vertical line in T axis direction at the center of the core 55. Applicant does not dispute the examiner’s interpretation that the average deflection angle of the first soft magnetic particles and the average deflection angle of the second soft magnetic particles are different. Hong expressly teaches the insertion of the quadrangular prims shaped first center pole part 60 in the core part 55 “significantly increase[s] the packing factor and magnetic permeability, thereby improving inductance” (para. [0058]). In this regard, Hong has already discovered the “high inductance” as applicant’s unexpected result. Therefore, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have a clear motivation to replace first center pole part of Park with the quadrangular prism shape first center pole part of Hong. In addition, FIG. 10 of Park also reasonably teaches the first center pole part 60b having quadrangular prism shape. Accordingly, the examiner maintains Park in view of Hong sufficiently teaches “a shape of the first center pole part is a quadrangular prism shape; and an average deflection angle of the first soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part and an average deflection angle of the second soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part are different” as recited in claim 1, and there’s clearly a proper motivation to combine Hong to Park as stated above.
Applicant also argues that Park does not teach “an average value of cos 2θ of the soft magnetic metal particles included in the center pole part is 0.1 or larger, in which θ represents deflection angles of the soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part” as claimed in claim 8. Applicant asserts that it’s not appropriate for the examiner to broadly assert that Park teaches these claimed limitation without further explanation. Similarly, “(by visual inspection)” is inappropriate.
After careful consideration without passion or prejudice, the argument is not found persuasive, respectfully. As an initial matter, the examiner interprets “an average value of cos2θ of the soft magnetic metal particles included in the center pole part is 0.1 or larger” as cos2θ ≥ 0.1. So, in this case, θ would be between 0˚ and 42.13˚ inclusive or between 137.87˚ and 180˚ inclusive, with the best understanding of the examiner. If this is not true, applicant can further clarify the claimed θ values in the claims to expedite the prosecution. In this Office action, the examiner interprets the claimed limitations would be met if θ is between 0˚ and 42.13˚ inclusive or between 137.87˚ and 180˚ inclusive.
As clearly seen in FIG. 7 of Park, the axes of magnetic particles 61 are parallel to the winding axis. That is, the deflection angles of the magnetic particles 61 against the winding axis are 0˚ or 180˚, which meet the claimed limitations. The claim limitations as currently recited does not preclude 0˚ and 180˚ degree deflection angles. FIG. 7 undisputably shows the magnetic metal powder 61 have rectangular shapes with the respective lengths substantially longer than the widths, and Park expressly teaches the magnetic powders 61 “having the shape of anisotropy”(para. [0089]). Therefore, the “(by visual inspection)” is a reasonable explanation for the teaching of “an average value of cos 2θ of the soft magnetic metal particles included in the center pole part is 0.1 or larger, in which θ represents deflection angles of the soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part” and the aspect ratio as claimed in claims 6 and 8.
Applicant further argues Park does not teach the limitations of claim 3. In response, applicant does not further clarify where in the cos2θα is greater. Park discloses where the deflection angles of the first soft magnetic metal particles against the axis are greater in some area. So under broadest reasonable claim interpretation, the examiner maintains Park meets the limitations of claim 3. Applicant does not show this in the drawings either.
In response to the argument that Park does not teach claim 6 limitations, the examiner maintains FIG. 7 sufficiently shows the aspect ratio as claimed, as explained above.
With respect to drawings objection, applicant argues that FIG. 3 shows the claimed features. The argument is not found persuasive. At best, FIG. 3 of the present invention shows one magnetic particle that has a deflection angle against the winding axis. FIG. 3 does not show the “average defection angle” of the respective the first soft magnetic metal particles and the second soft magnetic metal particles, let alone the “different” deflection angles of the first and second soft magnetic metal particles. Therefore, the drawings objection is maintained. The present invention does not also show the features of claim 3. So, it’s possible such drawings objection would be made in future Office action(s).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an average deflection angle of the first soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part and an average deflection angle of the second soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part are different” as claimed in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2017/0004915 A1, hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claim 8, Park teaches a coil component 100 (FIG. 7) comprising a core part 50 including soft magnetic metal particles 61 and 71, and a coil part formed by winding a conductor in a coil form, wherein
the coil part is inside of the core part;
the core part comprises a center pole part (magnetic core part inside coil part 40) positioned in an area surrounded by an inner diameter (diameter of inner circumference) of the coil part;
an average value of cos 2θ of the soft magnetic metal particles included in the center pole part is 0.1 or larger, in which θ represents deflection angles of the soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part; and
an average aspect ratio of the soft magnetic metal particles included in the center pole part is 1.1 or larger (by visual inspection) (paras. [0052], [0089]-[0091]).
With respect to claim 9, Park teaches the coil component according to claim 8, wherein the average aspect ratio of the soft magnetic metal particles included in the center pole part is 1.1 or larger and 5.0 or smaller (by visual inspection) (paras. [0089]).
With respect to claim 10, Park teaches the coil component according to claim 8, wherein the core part comprises a dust core including the soft magnetic metal particles and a resin (para. [0052]).
With respect to claim 11, Park teaches a production method of the coil component according to claim 8 comprising the core part including the soft magnetic metal particles and the coil part formed by winding the conductor in a coil form, in which the coil part is inside the core part; wherein
the production method of the coil component comprises
preparing a center core by pressing; and
arranging the center core so that a pressure applied direction of the center core while pressing and a winding axis direction of the coil part are perpendicular to each other (paras. [0089]-[0091]). Claim 11 is treated as a product-by-process limitation because claim 11 depends on a product claim. Therefore, the process limitations do not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With respect to claim 12, Park teaches the production method according to claim 11 comprising:
preparing a coil, a base core, and cover core;
arranging the center core, the coil, and the cover core on the base core; and
integrally pressing the base core, the center core, and the cover core (paras. [0089]-[0091]). Claim 12 is treated as a product-by-process limitation because claim 12 depends on a product claim. Therefore, the process limitations do not carry weight in a claim drawn to structure. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Hong et al. (U.S. PG. Pub. No. 2016/0293319 A1, hereinafter “Hong”).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches a coil component 100 (FIG. 7) comprising a core part 50 and a coil part 40 formed by winding a conductor in a coil form, wherein
the coil part is inside of the core part;
the core part comprises a center pole part (magnetic core part inside coil part 40) positioned in an area surrounded by an inner diameter (diameter of inner circumference) of the coil part;
the center pole part comprises a first center pole part (pole part made of magnetic particles 61 or 71 in the center pole part) including first soft magnetic metal particles, and a second center pole part (the other of pole part magnetic particles 61 or 71 in the center pole part, pole part made of magnetic particles 71 surrounds middle pole part made of magnetic particles 61, and pole part made of magnetic particles 71 near coil part 40 surround pole part made of magnetic particles 61) including second soft magnetic metal particles and being arranged around the first center pole part;
the first center pole part comprises at least two opposing faces (left and right faces) opposing each other;
the two opposing faces are parallel to a winding axis direction (T axis direction); and
an average deflection angle (deflection of pole part 61 or 71) of the first soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part and an average deflection (deflection of the other of pole part 61 or 71) angle of the second soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part are different (paras. [0089]-[0091]).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park does not expressly teach a shape of the first center pole part is a quadrangular prism shape.
Hong teaches a coil component 100 (FIG. 1), wherein a shape of the first center pole part 60 is a quadrangular prism shape (para. [0061]).
PNG
media_image2.png
493
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the center pole core shape as taught by Hong to the coil component of Park to facilitate manufacturing while improving inductance (paras. [0058] and [0061]).
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches the coil component according to claim 1, wherein
an average value of cos 2θα is larger than an average value of cos 2θβ, in which θα represents deflection angles of the first soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part and θβ represents deflection angles of the second soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part (para. [0089]).
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches the coil component according to claim 1, wherein
an average value of cos 2θα is larger than an average value of cos 2θγ, in which θα represents deflection angles of the first soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part and θγ represents deflection angles of third soft magnetic metal particles included in an area outside of the coil part against the winding axis direction of the coil part (para. [0089]).
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches the coil component according to claim 1, wherein
an average value of cos 2θα is 0.1 or larger, in which θα represents deflection angles of the first soft magnetic metal particles against the winding axis direction of the coil part (para. [0089]).
With respect to claim 6, Park teaches the coil component according to claim 1, wherein an average aspect ratio of the first soft magnetic metal particles included in the first center pole part is 1.1 or larger and 5.0 or smaller (paras. [0052] and [0089]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGTIN LIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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 S. 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.
/MANG TIN BIK LIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights