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
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group I, Species II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/30/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden. Regarding the group, this is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classifications, classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Group I is a method for manufacturing a coil device that requires method steps and there is a search and/or examination burden. Regarding the 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). The Species I-IV are different in structure and there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species where it is necessary to search for one of the species in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other species.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “the first surface faces any surface of the core” is indefinite and unclear how the first surface can face more than one surface of the core.
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) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. [CN 112466599].
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al. shows a coil device (Figs. 4-5 with teachings from Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a core (110);
a coil (120) including a winding portion (center portion is a winding portion, see Fig. 4) disposed inside the core (see Fig. 4), and a lead-out portion (121) led out from the winding portion (see Fig. 4); and
a terminal (140) including a wire connection portion (connection portion of element 140, see Fig. 4) joined to the lead-out portion (121) and disposed inside the core (see Fig. 4),
wherein the lead-out portion (121) includes a joint portion (joint portion where element 121 connects to connection portion of element 140) joined to the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 140, see Fig. 4), and
a non-joint portion (non-joint portion other than element 121) separated from the joint portion (see Figs. 4-5), and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion (a first thickness in the up-down direction of joint portion where element 121 connects to connection portion of element 140 is smaller than a second thickness in the up-down direction non-joint portion other than element 121, see Figs. 4-5, and also Figs. 1-2, see English translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. shows a third thickness of the wire connection portion is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (see Figs. 4-5, a third thickness in the up-down direction of connection portion of element 140 is larger than the first thickness).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al. shows the joint portion is disposed perpendicular to a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 4, joint portion is disposed perpendicular to a winding axis of element 120).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang et al. shows the joint portion is disposed on a first surface (top surface) of the wire connection portion (see Fig. 4, joint portion is disposed on a top surface of connection portion of element 140), and the first surface faces any surface of the core, which intersects a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 4, top surface faces any surface of element 110, which intersects a winding axis of element 120).
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) 1-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0348707] in view of Wakabayashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0043657].
Regarding Claim 1, Hsieh et al. shows a coil device (Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A) comprising:
a core (14);
a coil (13) including a winding portion (center portion is a winding portion, see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A) disposed inside the core (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A), and a lead-out portion (13a, 16a) led out from the winding portion (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A); and
a terminal (11a) including a wire connection portion (15a) joined to the lead-out portion (13a, 16a) and disposed inside the core (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A),
wherein the lead-out portion (13a, 16a) includes a joint portion (joint portion where element 13a, 16a connects element 15a) joined to the wire connection portion (15a), and
a non-joint portion (non-joint portion other than element 13a, 16a) separated from the joint portion (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A), and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion (a first thickness in the up-down direction of joint portion where element 13a, 16a connects element 15a is smaller than a second thickness in the up-down direction non-joint portion, see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A).
In addition, for clearer illustration, Wakabayashi shows a coil element (Figs. 3A-5B) teaching and suggesting the lead-out portion (element 21 as shown in Fig. 3B) includes a joint portion (21) joined to the wire connection portion (30), and a non-joint portion (non-joint portion as shown in Fig. 3A) separated from the joint portion (see Figs. 3A-5B), and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a first thickness in the up-down direction is smaller than a second thickness in the up-down direction of the non-joint portion, Paragraphs [0082], [0096], where element 21 is 25 μm for Fig. 3B and non-joint portion is 55 μm).
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 portion includes a joint portion joined to the wire connection portion, and a non-joint portion separated from the joint portion, and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion as taught by Wakabayashi for the coil device as disclosed by Hsieh et al. to enhance reliability of joint strength and achieving a reduction in resistance and a size reduction (Paragraphs [0008], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 2, Hsieh et al. shows a third thickness of the wire connection portion is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, a third thickness in the up-down direction of element 15a is larger than the first thickness).
Wakabayashi shows a third thickness of the wire connection portion (30) is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a third thickness in the up-down direction of element 30 is larger than the first thickness, Paragraphs [0096], [0104], where element 30 is (20 μm + 6 μm + 5 μm) = 31 μm and element 21 is 25 μm).
Regarding Claim 3, Wakabayashi shows a first width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a first width in the left-right direction of element 21 is larger than a second width in the left-right direction of the non-joint portion).
Regarding Claim 4, Wakabayashi shows a third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a third width in the left-right direction of element 30 is larger than the first width in the left-right direction of the joint portion).
Regarding Claim 5, Hsieh et al. shows the joint portion is disposed perpendicular to a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, joint portion is disposed perpendicular to a winding axis of element 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Hsieh et al. shows the joint portion is disposed on a first surface (top surface) of the wire connection portion (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, joint portion is disposed on a top surface of element 15a), and the first surface faces any surface of the core, which intersects a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, top surface faces any surface of element 14, which intersects a winding axis of element 13).
Regarding Claim 7, Hsieh et al. shows the terminal includes a first terminal (11a) and a second terminal (11b),
the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion (15a) provided in the first terminal (11a), and a second wire connection portion (15b) provided in the second terminal (11b),
the joint portion includes a first joint portion (first joint portion where element 13a, 16a connects element 15a) joined to the first wire connection portion (15a), and a second joint portion (second joint portion where element 13b, 16b connects element 15b) joined to the second wire connection portion (15b), and
the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to the first wire connection portion and the second wire connection portion, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of the core (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, first joint portion and second joint portion are joined to element 15a and element 15b, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of element 14).
Regarding Claim 8, Hsieh et al. shows the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to one end portion in the first direction of the first wire connection portion and one end portion in the first direction of the second wire connection portion, respectively (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, first joint portion and second joint portion are joined to one end portion in the first direction of element 15a and one end portion in the first direction of the element 15b, respectively).
Regarding Claim 9, Wakabayashi shows the wire connection portion (30) includes a first metal layer (312), and the first metal layer (312) is located between the joint portion (21) and the wire connection portion (30, see Figs. 3A-5B).
Regarding Claim 10, Wakabayashi shows the first metal layer (312) contains nickel (Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wakabayashi shows the wire connection portion (30) includes a second metal layer (32 or 331/332) different from the first metal layer (312, Paragraphs [0089], [0106]), and the second metal layer (32 or 331/322) includes an adhesion portion (32b or 332) covering at least a part of an end portion in a width direction of the joint portion (see Fig. 3B and 4, element 32b or 332 covering at least a part of an end portion in a width direction of element 21).
Regarding Claim 13, Wakabayashi shows the second metal layer (32 or 331/332) contains tin (Paragraphs [0089], [0106]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wakabayashi shows a material forming the core (10) is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion (332, Paragraphs [0079], [0105], [0106], based on diffusing phenomena a material of Ni forming element 10 can be incorporated into an inside of element 332).
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0218157] in view of Wakabayashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0043657].
Regarding Claim 1, Liu et al. shows a coil device (Fig. 2G) comprising:
a core (4);
a coil (3) including a winding portion (center portion is a winding portion, see Fig. 2G) disposed inside the core (see Fig. 2G), and a lead-out portion (31) led out from the winding portion (see Fig. 2G); and
a terminal (5) including a wire connection portion (connection portion of element 5, see Fig. 2G) joined to the lead-out portion (31) and disposed inside the core (see Fig. 2G),
wherein the lead-out portion (31) includes a joint portion (joint portion where element 31 connects to connection portion of element 5) joined to the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 5, see Fig. 2G), and
a non-joint portion (non-joint portion other than element 31) separated from the joint portion (see Fig. 2G), and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion (as shown in Fig. 2G, a first thickness in the up-down direction of joint portion where element 31 connects to connection portion of element 5 is smaller than a second thickness in the up-down direction non-joint portion other than element 31, see Fig. 2G).
Liu et al. does not explicitly show in the specification a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion.
Wakabayashi shows a coil element (Figs. 3A-5B) teaching and suggesting the lead-out portion (element 21 as shown in Fig. 3B) includes a joint portion (21) joined to the wire connection portion (30), and a non-joint portion (non-joint portion as shown in Fig. 3A) separated from the joint portion (see Figs. 3A-5B), and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a first thickness in the up-down direction is smaller than a second thickness in the up-down direction of the non-joint portion, Paragraphs [0082], [0096], where element 21 is 25 μm for Fig. 3B and non-joint portion is 55 μm).
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 portion includes a joint portion joined to the wire connection portion, and a non-joint portion separated from the joint portion, and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion as taught by Wakabayashi for the coil device as disclosed by Liu et al. to enhance reliability of joint strength and achieving a reduction in resistance and a size reduction (Paragraphs [0008], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wakabayashi shows a third thickness of the wire connection portion (30) is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a third thickness in the up-down direction of element 30 is larger than the first thickness, Paragraphs [0096], [0104], where element 30 is (20 μm + 6 μm + 5 μm) = 31 μm and element 21 is 25 μm).
Regarding Claim 3, Wakabayashi shows a first width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a first width in the left-right direction of element 21 is larger than a second width in the left-right direction of the non-joint portion).
Regarding Claim 4, Wakabayashi shows a third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a third width in the left-right direction of element 30 is larger than the first width in the left-right direction of the joint portion).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu et al. shows the joint portion is disposed perpendicular to a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 2G, joint portion is disposed perpendicular to a winding axis of element 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu et al. shows the joint portion is disposed on a first surface (top surface) of the wire connection portion (see Fig. 2G, joint portion is disposed on a top surface of element 5), and the first surface faces any surface of the core, which intersects a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 2G, top surface faces any surface of element 4, which intersects a winding axis of element 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu et al. shows the terminal includes a first terminal (5) and a second terminal (6),
the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion (connection portion of element 5) provided in the first terminal (5), and a second wire connection portion (connection portion of element 6) provided in the second terminal (6),
the joint portion includes a first joint portion (first joint portion where element 31 connects to connection portion of element 5) joined to the first wire connection portion (connection portion of element 5), and a second joint portion (second joint portion where element 32 connects to connection portion of element 6) joined to the second wire connection portion (connection portion of element 6), and
the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to the first wire connection portion and the second wire connection portion, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of the core (see Fig. 2G first joint portion and second joint portion are joined to connection portion of element 5 and connection portion of element 6, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of element 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu et al. shows the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to one end portion in the first direction of the first wire connection portion and one end portion in the first direction of the second wire connection portion, respectively (see Fig. 2G, first joint portion and second joint portion are joined to one end portion in the first direction of connection portion of element 5 and one end portion in the first direction of connection portion of element 6, respectively).
Regarding Claim 9, Wakabayashi shows the wire connection portion (30) includes a first metal layer (312), and the first metal layer (312) is located between the joint portion (21) and the wire connection portion (30, see Figs. 3A-5B).
Regarding Claim 10, Wakabayashi shows the first metal layer (312) contains nickel (Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wakabayashi shows the wire connection portion (30) includes a second metal layer (32 or 331/332) different from the first metal layer (312, Paragraphs [0089], [0106]), and the second metal layer (32 or 331/322) includes an adhesion portion (32b or 332) covering at least a part of an end portion in a width direction of the joint portion (see Fig. 3B and 4, element 32b or 332 covering at least a part of an end portion in a width direction of element 21).
Regarding Claim 13, Wakabayashi shows the second metal layer (32 or 331/332) contains tin (Paragraphs [0089], [0106]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wakabayashi shows a material forming the core (10) is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion (332, Paragraphs [0079], [0105], [0106], based on diffusing phenomena a material of Ni forming element 10 can be incorporated into an inside of element 332).
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0043657].
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Wakabayashi shows a third thickness of the wire connection portion (30) is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a third thickness in the up-down direction of element 30 is larger than the first thickness, Paragraphs [0096], [0104], where element 30 is (20 μm + 6 μm + 5 μm) = 31 μm and element 21 is 25 μm).
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 third thickness of the wire connection portion is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion as taught by Wakabayashi for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. to enhance reliability of joint strength and achieving a reduction in resistance and a size reduction (Paragraphs [0008], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a first width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion.
Wakabayashi shows a first width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a first width in the left-right direction of element 21 is larger than a second width in the left-right direction of the non-joint portion).
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 width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion as taught by Wakabayashi for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. to enhance reliability of joint strength and achieving a reduction in resistance and a size reduction (Paragraphs [0008], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wakabayashi shows a third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5B, a third width in the left-right direction of element 30 is larger than the first width in the left-right direction of the joint portion).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the wire connection portion includes a first metal layer, and the first metal layer is located between the joint portion and the wire connection portion.
Wakabayashi shows the wire connection portion (30) includes a first metal layer (312), and the first metal layer (312) is located between the joint portion (21) and the wire connection portion (30, see Figs. 3A-5B).
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 wire connection portion includes a first metal layer, and the first metal layer is located between the joint portion and the wire connection portion as taught by Wakabayashi for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. to enhance reliability of joint strength and achieving a reduction in resistance and a size reduction (Paragraphs [0008], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 10, Wakabayashi shows the first metal layer (312) contains nickel (Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wakabayashi shows the wire connection portion (30) includes a second metal layer (32 or 331/332) different from the first metal layer (312, Paragraphs [0089], [0106]), and the second metal layer (32 or 331/322) includes an adhesion portion (32b or 332) covering at least a part of an end portion in a width direction of the joint portion (see Fig. 3B and 4, element 32b or 332 covering at least a part of an end portion in a width direction of element 21).
Regarding Claim 13, Wakabayashi shows the second metal layer (32 or 331/332) contains tin (Paragraphs [0089], [0106]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wakabayashi shows a material forming the core (10) is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion (332, Paragraphs [0079], [0105], [0106], based on diffusing phenomena a material of Ni forming element 10 can be incorporated into an inside of element 332).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim [KR 2018-0017409].
Regarding Claim 3, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a first width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion.
Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Kim et al. shows a first width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion (see Fig. 3, a first width W1 of element 1240 is larger than a second width W2 of the non-joint portion).
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 width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion as taught by Kim et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to enhance reliability of joint strength and high contact current with large contact area, low resistance of the coil and high power transfer efficiency (Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. shows a third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion (see Fig. 3, a third width in the up-down direction of element 130 is larger than the first width W1 of the joint portion).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al. [JP 2003-022916].
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Harada et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 2(b), 4-6, and 12-13) teaching and suggesting a third thickness of the wire connection portion (29) is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (13, see Figs. 2(b), 4-6, and 12-13, a third thickness in the up-down direction of element 29 is larger than the first thickness in the up-down direction of element 13).
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 third thickness of the wire connection portion is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion as taught by Harada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability (Paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Harada et al. [JP 2003-022916].
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Harada et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 2(b), 4-6, and 12-13) teaching and suggesting a third width of the wire connection portion (29) is larger than the first width of the joint portion (13, see Figs. 2(b), 4-6, and 12-13, a third width in the front-back direction of element 29 is larger than the first width in the front-back direction of element 13).
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 third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion as taught by Harada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability (Paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukui [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0250836].
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Fukui shows a coil component (Fig. 8 with teachings form Figs. 1-7) teaching and suggesting a third thickness of the wire connection portion (element 13b of element 13) is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (14a, see Fig. 8, Paragraphs [0049], [0065], a third thickness of 0.1 mm of element 13b of element 13 is larger than the first thickness of 0.06 mm of element 14a of element 14 which is the same as element 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 a third thickness of the wire connection portion is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion as taught by Fukui for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy (Paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fukui [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0250836].
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Fukui shows a coil component (Fig. 8 with teachings form Figs. 1-7) teaching and suggesting a third width of the wire connection portion (element 13b of element 13) is larger than the first width of the joint portion (14a, see Fig. 8, a third width in the up-down direction of element 13b of element 13 is larger than the first width in the up-down direction of element 14a).
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 third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion as taught by Fukui for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy (Paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugie et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0265988].
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Sugie et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting a third thickness of the wire connection portion (41) is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (element 64 at element 41, see Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs [0027], [0040], a third thickness of 100 µm to 200 µm of element 41 is larger than the first thickness of 60 µm).
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 third thickness of the wire connection portion is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion as taught by Sugie et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Sugie et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0265988].
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Sugie et al. shows a coil component (Figs. 1-2) teaching and suggesting a third width of the wire connection portion (41) is larger than the first width of the joint portion (element 64 at element 41, see Figs. 1-2, a third width in the Wd or Ld direction of element 41 is larger than the first width in the Wd or Ld direction of element 64 at 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 a third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion as taught by Sugie et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Hsieh et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0348707].
Regarding Claim 7, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the terminal includes a first terminal and a second terminal, the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion provided in the first terminal, and a second wire connection portion provided in the second terminal, the joint portion includes a first joint portion joined to the first wire connection portion, and a second joint portion joined to the second wire connection portion, and the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to the first wire connection portion and the second wire connection portion, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of the core.
Hsieh et al. shows the terminal includes a first terminal (11a) and a second terminal (11b),
the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion (15a) provided in the first terminal (11a), and a second wire connection portion (15b) provided in the second terminal (11b),
the joint portion includes a first joint portion (first joint portion where element 13a, 16a connects element 15a) joined to the first wire connection portion (15a), and a second joint portion (second joint portion where element 13b, 16b connects element 15b) joined to the second wire connection portion (15b), and
the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to the first wire connection portion and the second wire connection portion, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of the core (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, first joint portion and second joint portion are joined to element 15a and element 15b, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of element 14).
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 includes a first terminal and a second terminal, the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion provided in the first terminal, and a second wire connection portion provided in the second terminal, the joint portion includes a first joint portion joined to the first wire connection portion, and a second joint portion joined to the second wire connection portion, and the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to the first wire connection portion and the second wire connection portion, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of the core as taught by Hsieh et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. to simplify design to facilitate electrical connection by improving contact between lead-out portion and wire connection portion and improve connection reliability.
Regarding Claim 8, Hsieh et al. shows the first joint portion and the second joint portion are joined to one end portion in the first direction of the first wire connection portion and one end portion in the first direction of the second wire connection portion, respectively (see Fig. 1E, Fig. 2C, or Fig. 4A, first joint portion and second joint portion are joined to one end portion in the first direction of element 15a and one end portion in the first direction of the element 15b, respectively).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above, and further in view of Ooi et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0043365].
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Ooi et al. shows (Figs. 2A) a material (16) forming the core (10) is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion (42, see Fig. 2A).
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 material forming the core is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion as taught by Ooi et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to enhance bonding strength and improve reliability and adhesion strength (Paragraph [0066]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above, and further in view of Kudo et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0169930].
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Kudo et al. shows (Fig. 2) a material (36) forming the core (30) is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion (right portion of element 63 or element 30a, see Fig. 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 a material forming the core is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion as taught by Kudo et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve mounting stability without characteristics degradation (Paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above, and further in view of Araki et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0098183].
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Araki et al. shows (Fig. 10) a material (14a) forming the core (12) is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion (34, see Fig. 10).
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 material forming the core is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion as taught by Araki et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding strength (Paragraph [0074]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claims 1, 9, and 11 above, and further in view of Yang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0168391].
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yang et al. shows (Figs. 4-5) a material (20) forming the core (100) is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion (adhesion portion of element L1, see Fig. 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 a material forming the core is incorporated into an inside of the adhesion portion as taught by Yang et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to prevent deterioration in reliability (Paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada [JP 2007-165779].
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion.
Yamada shows a device (Fig. 4(b) or 4(a)) teaching and suggesting the wire connection portion includes a concave portion (see Fig. 4(b) or 4(a)), and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion (3b, see Fig. 4(b) or 4(a)), the joining surface facing the wire connection portion (see Fig. 4(b) or 4(a)).
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 wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion as taught by Yamada for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve contact strength and reliably to prevent detachment (Paragraph [0044]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. [KR 101177532].
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion.
Lee et al. shows a device (Figs. 1-5(b)) teaching and suggesting the wire connection portion (340 or 350) includes a concave portion (see Figs. 1-5(b), Paragraphs [0026], [0034]), and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion (see Figs. 1-5(b), Paragraphs [0026], [0034]), the joining surface facing the wire connection portion (see Figs. 1-5(b), Paragraphs [0026], [0034]).
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 wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion as taught by Lee et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to for the coil to be inserted and fixed to improve contact strength and reliably to prevent displacement (Paragraphs [0026], [0034]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitashima [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0265993].
Regarding Claim 16, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an end portion in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion.
Kitashima shows a device (Figs. 7A-7C) teaching and suggesting an end portion (end portion of element 40) in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion (see Figs. 7A-7C, end portion of element 40 in a width direction of the joint point of element 40 is bent in a direction away from element 20, Paragraphs [0056], [0059]).
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 end portion in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion as taught by Kitashima for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve productivity, improve adhesion, and reliably connect a coil and terminal to each other (Paragraphs [0022]-[0025] [0063]).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Amada et al. [JP H10-163040].
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion.
Amada et al. shows a device (Fig. 1(J)) teaching and suggesting the wire connection portion (18) includes a concave portion (see Fig. 1(J), element 18 have a concave portion), and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion (see Fig. 1(J), the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of joint portion of element 10), the joining surface facing the wire connection portion (see Fig. 1(J)).
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 wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion as taught by Amada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve strength and coupling and bonding strength (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an end portion in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion.
Amada et al. shows a device (Fig. 1(J)) teaching and suggesting an end portion (left or right end portion of element 10) in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion (see Fig. 1(J), left or right end portion of element 10 in a width direction of the joint portion of element 10 is bent in a direction away from element 18).
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 end portion in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion as taught by Amada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve strength and coupling and bonding strength (Paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion.
Amada et al. shows a device (Fig. 1) teaching and suggesting irregularities (14) are formed on a surface of the joint portion (10, see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0011]).
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 irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion as taught by Amada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding strength from the anchor effect (Paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 18, Amada et al. shows a surface roughness of the surface of the joint portion (10), which is located opposite to the wire connection portion (18, see Fig. 1), is larger than a surface roughness of a surface of the non-joint portion (see Fig. 1, surface roughness of element 14 is larger than a surface roughness of other portion of element 10 without element 14 such as element 10 within element 12).
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al. [JP 2003-022916].
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion.
Harada et al. shows a device (Fig. 11) teaching and suggesting the wire connection portion (29) includes a concave portion (see Fig. 11, element 29 have a concave portion at element M), and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion (see Fig. 11, the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of joint portion of element 51), the joining surface facing the wire connection portion (see Fig. 11).
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 wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion as taught by Harada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding strength obtained more reliably (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 16, Regarding Claim 16, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show an end portion in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion.
Harada et al. shows a device (Figs. 9-11) teaching and suggesting an end portion (left or right end portion at element 51) in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion (see Fig. 11, left or right end portion of element 51 in a width direction of the joint portion of element 51 is bent in a direction away from element 29).
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 end portion in a width direction of the joint portion is bent in a direction away from the wire connection portion as taught by Harada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding strength obtained more reliably (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion.
Harada et al. shows a device (Figs. 9-11) teaching and suggesting irregularities (top surface of element 51) are formed on a surface (top surface) of the joint portion (element 6 at element M, see Fig. 11).
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 irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion as taught by Harada et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding strength obtained more reliably (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 18, Harada et al. shows a surface roughness of the surface of the joint portion (element 6 at element M), which is located opposite to the wire connection portion (29, see Fig. 11), is larger than a surface roughness of a surface of the non-joint portion (see Fig. 11, surface roughness of top surface of element 51 is larger than a surface roughness of other portion of element 6 without element 51).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0035728].
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion.
Li et al. shows a device (Figs. 3-6) teaching and suggesting irregularities (surface roughness at element O, Paragraph [0067]) are formed on a surface of the joint portion (top surface of element 321, see Figs. 3-6, Paragraph [0067]).
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 irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion as taught by Li et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding force (Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding Claim 18, Li et al. shows a surface roughness of the surface of the joint portion (top surface of element 321), which is located opposite to the wire connection portion (bottom portion of element 500, see Fig. 3), is larger than a surface roughness of a surface of the non-joint portion (see Fig. 3, surface roughness of top surface of element 321 is larger than a surface roughness of other portion of element 321 without element O, Paragraph [0067]).
Claim(s) 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonogai et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0335262].
Regarding Claim 15, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion.
Tonogai et al. shows a device (Fig. 5) teaching and suggesting the wire connection portion includes a concave portion (see Fig. 5), and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion (element A1 of element 31, see Fig. 5), the joining surface facing the wire connection portion (41, see Fig. 5).
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 wire connection portion includes a concave portion, and the concave portion is curved along a shape of a joining surface of the joint portion, the joining surface facing the wire connection portion as taught by Tonogai et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding strength and improve connection reliability (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 17, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion.
Tonogai et al. shows a device (Fig. 5) teaching and suggesting irregularities (A1) are formed on a surface of the joint portion (bottom portion of element 31, see Fig. 5, Paragraph [0032]).
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 irregularities are formed on a surface of the joint portion as taught by Tonogai et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Liu et al. in view of Wakabayashi to improve bonding strength and improve connection reliability (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 18, Tonogai et al. shows a surface roughness of the surface of the joint portion (bottom portion of element 31), which is located opposite to the wire connection portion (bottom portion of element 31 is located opposite to bottom surface of element 41, see Fig. 5), is larger than a surface roughness of a surface of the non-joint portion (see Fig. 5, surface roughness of element A1 is larger than a surface roughness of element B, Paragraph [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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