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 with traverse of 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. 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-V 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. However, claim 9 can be examined since prior art is provided by applicant.
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.
Claims 4-5 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 4 recites the limitation "the one side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-8 and 10-11 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 (122) led out from the winding portion (see Fig. 4); and
a terminal (150) including a wire connection portion (151, 1511) joined to the lead-out portion (122) and disposed inside the core (see Fig. 4),
wherein the wire connection portion (151, 1511) is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 4, element 151, 1511 is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of element 120).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. shows the wire connection portion (151, 1511) is disposed substantially parallel to one surface (left surface) or the other surface (right surface) of the core (110, see Fig. 4, element 151, 1511 is substantially parallel to the left surface or right surface), the one surface and the other surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis (see Fig. 4, left surface and right surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang et al. shows a part of the terminal (left portion of element 150) is exposed from the one surface (left surface, see Fig. 4) or the other surface of the core (110), and the wire connection portion (151, 1511) is disposed substantially parallel to the one surface or the other surface of the core (see Fig. 4, element 151, 1511 is disposed substantially parallel to the left surface of element 110).
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. shows an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion (151, 1511) with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil (120) is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil (120, see Fig. 4, an end portion on one side of element 151, 1511 with respect to a winding axis direction of element 120 is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion of the one side of element 120).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang et al. shows the lead-out portion (122) is joined to a first surface (right surface) of the wire connection portion (151, 1511), the first surface facing the coil (see Fig. 4, right surface facing element 120).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang et al. shows the core (110) includes a corner (one corner shown in Fig. 3) at which a plurality of surfaces (left, right, front, back surfaces) disposed substantially parallel to the winding axis of the coil (120) intersect each other (see Figs. 3-4), and
at least a part of the wire connection portion (151, 1511) is located at the corner (see Figs. 3-4, based on the setup of element 150, at least a part of element 151, 1511 is located at the corner).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang et al. shows the corner includes a first corner (front corner) and a second corner (back corner) located opposite to the first corner along a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 3-5),
the wire connection portion (151, 1511) includes a first wire connection piece (1511) to which the lead-out portion (122) is joined (see Figs. 3-5), and a second wire connection piece (front surface of element 150 shown in Fig. 5) located opposite to the first wire connection piece along the direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 3-5), and
the first wire connection piece is disposed at the first corner (see Figs. 3-4, based on the setup, element 1511 is disposed at the front corner), and the second wire connection piece is disposed at the second corner (see Figs. 3-4, based on the setup, front surface of element 150 shown in Fig. 5 is disposed at the back corner).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang et al. shows the lead-out portion (122) is biased by an elastic force (this is a method step) of the lead-out portion (122) so as to press (this is a method step) the wire connection portion (151, 1511).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the lead-out portion connected to the wire connection portion, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. biased by an elastic force of the lead-out portion so as to press the wire connection portion. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang et al. shows the lead-out portion (122) includes a joint portion (joint portion where element 122 connects element 1511) joined to the wire connection portion (151, 1511), and a non-joint portion (non-joint portion other than element 122) 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 left-right direction of joint portion where element 122 connects element 1511 is smaller than a second thickness in the left-right direction of the non-joint portion, see Figs. 4-5 and also Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11, 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 left-right direction of element 151, 1511 is larger than the first thickness).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi [JP 2020-191368].
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi shows a coil device (Figs. 10-12) comprising:
a core (10);
a coil (306) including a winding portion (312) disposed inside the core (see Figs. 10-12), and a lead-out portion (316) led out from the winding portion (see Figs. 10-12); and
a terminal (8) including a wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316) joined to the lead-out portion (316) and disposed inside the core (see Figs. 10-12),
wherein the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316) is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 10-11, connection portion of element 8 to element 316 is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of element 306).
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi shows the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316) is disposed substantially parallel to one surface (right surface) or the other surface (left surface) of the core (10, see Figs. 10-12, connection portion of element 8 to element 316 is substantially parallel to the right surface or left surface), the one surface and the other surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis (see Figs. 10-12, right surface and left surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi shows an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316) with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil (306) is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil (306, see Figs. 10-12, an end portion on one side of connection portion of element 8 to element 316 with respect to a winding axis direction of element 306 is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion of the one side of element 306).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi shows the lead-out portion (316) is joined to a first surface (bottom surface, see Fig. 12) of the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316), the first surface facing the coil (see Fig. 12, bottom surface facing element 306).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi shows the core (10) includes a corner (upper right corner shown in Fig. 12) at which a plurality of surfaces (left, right, top, bottom surfaces) disposed substantially parallel to the winding axis of the coil (306) intersect each other (see Fig. 12), and
at least a part of the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316) is located at the corner (see Fig. 12, at least a part of connection portion of element 8 to element 316 is located at the upper right corner).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi shows the lead-out portion (316) is biased by an elastic force (this is a method step) of the lead-out portion (316) so as to press (this is a method step) the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the lead-out portion connected to the wire connection portion, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. biased by an elastic force of the lead-out portion so as to press the wire connection portion. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahashi shows the lead-out portion (316) includes a joint portion (joint portion of element 316 to element 8) joined to the wire connection portion (connection portion of element 8 to element 316), the coil (306) is made of a rectangular wire (see Figs. 10-12, see English translation) wound in a flatwise manner (see Figs. 10-12), and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion (see Figs. 10-12, a wide surface of element 306 forms a joining surface of joint portion of element 316 to element 8 to connection portion of element 8 to element 316).
Regarding Claim 14, Takahashi shows the terminal (8) includes a first terminal (right element 8) and a second terminal (left element 8),
the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion (connection portion of right element 8 to element 316) provided in the first terminal (see Fig. 12), and a second wire connection portion (connection portion of left element 8 to element 316) provided in the second terminal (see Fig. 12),
the lead-out portion includes a first lead-out portion (right element 316) and a second lead-out portion (left element 316), and
the first lead-out portion and the second lead-out 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. 12, right element 316 and left element 316 are joined to connection portion of right element 8 to element 316 and connection portion of left element 8 to element 316, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of element 10).
Regarding Claim 15, Takahashi shows the first lead-out portion (right element 316) and the second lead-out portion (left element 316) 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. 12, right element 316 and left element 316 are joined to one end portion in the first direction of the connection portion of right element 8 to element 316 and one end portion in the first direction of the connection portion of left element 8 to element 316, respectively).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada [JP 2007-165779].
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada shows a coil device (Fig. 4(b) with teachings from Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a core (7);
a coil (2) including a winding portion (3) disposed inside the core (see Figs. 1-3), and a lead-out portion (3b) led out from the winding portion (see Figs. 1-3); and
a terminal (4) including a wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) joined to the lead-out portion (3b) and disposed inside the core (see Figs. 1-3),
wherein the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b), right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b) is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of element 2 as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada shows the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) is disposed substantially parallel to one surface (left surface) or the other surface (right surface) of the core (2, see Figs. 1-3, right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b) is substantially parallel to the left surface or right surface), the one surface and the other surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis (see Figs. 1-3, left surface and right surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada shows a part of the terminal (left portion of element 4) is exposed from the one surface (left surface, see Figs. 1-3) or the other surface of the core (2), and the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) is disposed substantially parallel to the one surface or the other surface of the core (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b), right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b) is disposed substantially parallel to the left surface of element 7).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada shows an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil (2) is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil (2, see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b), an end portion on one side of right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b) with respect to a winding axis direction of element 2 is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion of the one side of element 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada shows the lead-out portion (3b) is joined to a first surface (left surface) of the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)), the first surface facing the coil (see Fig. 4(b), left surface facing element 3b of element 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada shows the core (7) includes a corner (front corner shown in Fig. 1) at which a plurality of surfaces (left, right, front, back surfaces) disposed substantially parallel to the winding axis of the coil (2) intersect each other (see Figs. 1-2), and
at least a part of the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) is located at the corner (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada shows the corner includes a first corner (front corner) and a second corner (back corner) located opposite to the first corner along a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 1-2),
the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) includes a first wire connection piece (front element 41) to which the lead-out portion (3b) is joined (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b)), and a second wire connection piece (back element 41) located opposite to the first wire connection piece along the direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b)), and
the first wire connection piece is disposed at the first corner (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b), front element 41 is disposed at the front corner), and the second wire connection piece is disposed at the second corner (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b), back element 41 is disposed at the back corner).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamada shows the lead-out portion (3b) is biased by an elastic force (this is a method step) of the lead-out portion (3b) so as to press (this is a method step) the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the lead-out portion connected to the wire connection portion, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. biased by an elastic force of the lead-out portion so as to press the wire connection portion. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamada shows the lead-out portion (3b) includes a joint portion (joint portion of element 3b to element 4a) joined to the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)), the coil (2) is made of a rectangular wire (see Fig. 4(b), Paragraph [0047]) wound in a flatwise manner (see Fig. 4(b)), and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion (see Fig. 4(b), a wide surface of element 2 forms a joining surface of joint portion of element 3b to element 4a to right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamada shows the terminal includes a first terminal (4) and a second terminal (5),
the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion (element 4a, 42) provided in the first terminal (see Figs. 1-3), and a second wire connection portion (element 5a, 52) provided in the second terminal (see Figs. 1-3),
the lead-out portion includes a first lead-out portion (3b) and a second lead-out portion (3a), and
the first lead-out portion and the second lead-out 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 Figs. 1-3, element 3b and element 3a are joined to element 4a, 42 and element 5a, 52, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of element 7).
Regarding Claim 15, Yamada shows the first lead-out portion (3b) and the second lead-out portion (3a) 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 Figs. 1-3, element 3b and element 3a are joined to one end portion in the first direction of element 4a, 42 and one end portion in the first direction of element 5a, 52, respectively).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0348707].
Regarding Claim 1, Hsieh et al. shows a coil device (Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C) comprising:
a core (14);
a coil (13) including a winding portion (center portion is a winding portion, see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C) disposed inside the core (see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C), and a lead-out portion (13b, 16b) led out from the winding portion (see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C); and
a terminal (11b) including a wire connection portion (15b) joined to the lead-out portion (13b, 16b) and disposed inside the core (see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C),
wherein the wire connection portion (15b) is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C, element 15b is disposed substantially parallel to a winding axis of element 13).
Regarding Claim 2, Hsieh et al. shows the wire connection portion (15b) is disposed substantially parallel to one surface (right surface) or the other surface (left surface) of the core (7, see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C, element 15b is substantially parallel to the right surface or left surface), the one surface and the other surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis (see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C, right surface and left surface facing each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis).
Regarding Claim 4, Hsieh et al. shows an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion (15b) with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil (13) is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil (13, see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C, an end portion on one side of element 15b with respect to a winding axis direction of element 13 is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion of the one side of element 13).
Regarding Claim 5, Hsieh et al. shows the lead-out portion (13b, 16b) is joined to a first surface (top surface) of the wire connection portion (15b), the first surface facing the coil (see Fig. 1E or Fig. 2C, top surface facing element 13b, 16b of element 13).
Regarding Claim 6, Hsieh et al. shows the core (14) includes a corner (front corner shown in Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C) at which a plurality of surfaces (left, right, front, back surfaces) disposed substantially parallel to the winding axis of the coil (13) intersect each other (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C), and
at least a part of the wire connection portion (15b) is located at the corner (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C, at least a part of element 15b is located at the front corner).
Regarding Claim 7, Hsieh et al. shows the corner includes a first corner (front corner) and a second corner (back corner) located opposite to the first corner along a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C),
the wire connection portion (15b) includes a first wire connection piece (15b) to which the lead-out portion (13b, 16b) is joined (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C), and a second wire connection piece (15d) located opposite to the first wire connection piece along the direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C), and
the first wire connection piece is disposed at the first corner (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C, element 15b is disposed at the front corner), and the second wire connection piece is disposed at the second corner (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C, element 15d is disposed at the back corner).
Regarding Claim 8, Hsieh et al. shows the lead-out portion (13b, 16b) is biased by an elastic force (this is a method step) of the lead-out portion (13b, 16b) so as to press (this is a method step) the wire connection portion (15b).
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the lead-out portion connected to the wire connection portion, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. biased by an elastic force of the lead-out portion so as to press the wire connection portion. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding Claim 9, Hsieh et al. shows the lead-out portion (13b, 16b) includes a joint portion (joint portion of element 13b, 16b to element 15b) joined to the wire connection portion (15b), the coil (13) is made of a rectangular wire (see Fig. 1E, Paragraphs [0046], [0055]) wound in a flatwise manner (see Fig. 1E), and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion (see Fig. 1E, a wide surface of element 13 forms a joining surface of joint portion of element 13b, 16b to element 15b to element 15b).
Regarding Claim 10, Hsieh et al. shows the lead-out portion (13b, 16b) includes a joint portion (joint portion where element 13b, 16b connects element 15b) joined to the wire connection portion (15b), and a non-joint portion (non-joint portion other than element 13b, 16b) separated from the joint portion (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C), 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 13b, 16b connects element 15b is smaller than a second thickness in the up-down direction of the non-joint portion, see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C).
Regarding Claim 11, 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 and Fig. 2C, a third thickness in the up-down direction of element 15b is larger than the first thickness).
Regarding Claim 14, Hsieh et al. shows the terminal (11) includes a first terminal (11b) and a second terminal (11a),
the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion (15b) provided in the first terminal (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C), and a second wire connection portion (15a) provided in the second terminal (see Fig. 1E and Fig. 2C),
the lead-out portion includes a first lead-out portion (13b, 16b) and a second lead-out portion (13a, 16a), and
the first lead-out portion and the second lead-out 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 and Fig. 2C, element 13b, 16b and element 13a, 16a are joined to element 15b and element 15a, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of element 14).
Regarding Claim 15, Hsieh et al. shows the first lead-out portion (13b, 16b) and the second lead-out portion (13a, 16a) 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 and Fig. 2C, element 13b, 16b and element 13a, 16a are joined to one end portion in the first direction of element 15b and one end portion in the first direction of element 15a, respectively).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. in view of He [CN 109979727].
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, He shows an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion (304) with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil (2) is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil (see Fig. 11, an end portion on one side of element 304 with respect to a winding axis direction of element 2 is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of 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 an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil as taught by He for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. to have a simplified design with good electrical characteristics and no offset of the coil (see English translation).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. in view of Shang [U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0268231].
Regarding Claim 4, Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Shang shows an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion (3) with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil (2) is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil (see Fig. 3, an end portion on one side of element 3 with respect to a winding axis direction of element 2 is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of 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 an end portion on one side of the wire connection portion with respect to a winding axis direction of the coil is disposed at a position substantially equal to a position of an end portion on the one side of the coil as taught by Shang for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. to have a simplified design with good electrical characteristics and no offset of the coil (Paragraph [0020]).
Claim(s) 6-7, 9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Yamada [JP 2007-165779].
Regarding Claim 6, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yamada shows the core (7) includes a corner (front corner shown in Fig. 1) at which a plurality of surfaces (left, right, front, back surfaces) disposed substantially parallel to the winding axis of the coil (2) intersect each other (see Figs. 1-2), and
at least a part of the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) is located at the corner (see Figs. 1-2).
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 corner at which a plurality of surfaces disposed substantially parallel to the winding axis of the coil intersect each other, and at least a part of the wire connection portion is located at the corner as taught by Yamada for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. to facilitate electrical connection to achieve desirable operating characteristics and coupling to improve occupancy rate to ensure high inductance (Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada shows the corner includes a first corner (front corner) and a second corner (back corner) located opposite to the first corner along a direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 1-2),
the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)) includes a first wire connection piece (front element 41) to which the lead-out portion (3b) is joined (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b)), and a second wire connection piece (back element 41) located opposite to the first wire connection piece along the direction substantially perpendicular to the winding axis of the coil (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b)), and
the first wire connection piece is disposed at the first corner (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b), front element 41 is disposed at the front corner), and the second wire connection piece is disposed at the second corner (see Figs. 1-3 and 4(b), back element 41 is disposed at the back corner).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly show the lead-out portion includes a joint portion joined to the wire connection portion, the coil is made of a rectangular wire wound in a flatwise manner, and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion.
Yamada shows the lead-out portion (3b) includes a joint portion (joint portion of element 3b to element 4a) joined to the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)), the coil (2) is made of a rectangular wire (see Fig. 4(b), Paragraph [0047]) wound in a flatwise manner (see Fig. 4(b)), and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion (see Fig. 4(b), a wide surface of element 2 forms a joining surface of joint portion of element 3b to element 4a to right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)).
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, the coil is made of a rectangular wire wound in a flatwise manner, and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion as taught by Yamada for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. to facilitate electrical connection by improving contact between lead-out portion and wire connection portion and improve connection reliability (Paragraph [0011], [0049]).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not explicitly 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 lead-out portion includes a first lead-out portion and a second lead-out portion, and the first lead-out portion and the second lead-out 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.
Yamada shows the terminal includes a first terminal (4) and a second terminal (5), the wire connection portion includes a first wire connection portion (element 4a, 42) provided in the first terminal (see Figs. 1-3), and a second wire connection portion (element 5a, 52) provided in the second terminal (see Figs. 1-3), the lead-out portion includes a first lead-out portion (3b) and a second lead-out portion (3a), and the first lead-out portion and the second lead-out 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 Figs. 1-3, element 3b and element 3a are joined to element 4a, 42 and element 5a, 52, respectively, on the same side in a first direction of element 7).
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 specific design arrangements of the terminal as taught by Yamada for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. to facilitate electrical connection to achieve desirable operating characteristics and coupling to improve occupancy rate to ensure high inductance (Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 15, Yamada shows the first lead-out portion (3b) and the second lead-out portion (3a) 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 Figs. 1-3, element 3b and element 3a are joined to one end portion in the first direction of element 4a, 42 and one end portion in the first direction of element 5a, 52, respectively).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. in view of Arimitsu et al. [JP 2018-006676].
Regarding Claim 8, Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Arimitsu et al. shows the lead-out portion (6b) is biased by an elastic force of the lead-out portion (6b) so as to press the wire connection portion (85, 86, Paragraphs [0007], [0038], [0048], [0053]).
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 is biased by an elastic force of the lead-out portion so as to press the wire connection portion as taught by Arimitsu et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. to reliably contact the wire connection portion to the lead-out portion and improve bonding quality (Paragraph [0055]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. in view of Yamada [JP 2007-165779].
Regarding Claim 9, Hsieh et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Yamada shows the lead-out portion (3b) includes a joint portion (joint portion of element 3b to element 4a) joined to the wire connection portion (right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)), the coil (2) is made of a rectangular wire (see Fig. 4(b), Paragraph [0047]) wound in a flatwise manner (see Fig. 4(b)), and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion (see Fig. 4(b), a wide surface of element 2 forms a joining surface of joint portion of element 3b to element 4a to right portion of element 4a as shown in Fig. 4(b)).
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, the coil is made of a rectangular wire wound in a flatwise manner, and a wide surface of the rectangular wire forms a joining surface of the joint portion to the wire connection portion as taught by Yamada for the coil device as disclosed by Hsieh et al. to facilitate electrical connection by improving contact between lead-out portion and wire connection portion and improve connection reliability (Paragraph [0011], [0049]).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0061556].
Regarding Claim 10, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Takahashi OR Yamada does not show 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.
Wakabayashi shows a coil element (Figs. 3A-5) teaching and suggesting the lead-out portion (20) includes a joint portion (221) joined to the wire connection portion (30), and a non-joint portion (non-joint portion other than at element 221) separated from the joint portion (see Figs. 3A-5), and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5, a first thickness in the up-down direction is smaller than a second thickness in the up-down 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 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 Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. to enhance reliability of joint strength and achieving a reduction in resistance and a size reduction (Paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wakabayashi shows a third thickness of the wire connection portion (30) is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5, a third thickness in the up-down direction of element 30 is larger than the first thickness).
Regarding Claim 12, Wakabayashi shows a first width of the joint portion is larger than a second width of the non-joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5, a first width in the left-right direction of element 221 is larger than a second width in the left-right direction of the non-joint portion).
Regarding Claim 13, Wakabayashi shows a third width of the wire connection portion is larger than the first width of the joint portion (see Figs. 3B-5, 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).
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi [U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0043657] (hereinafter as “Wakabayashi ‘657”).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Takahashi OR Yamada does not show 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.
Wakabayashi ‘657 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 ‘657 for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. to enhance reliability of joint strength and achieving a reduction in resistance and a size reduction (Paragraphs [0008], [0021]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wakabayashi ‘657 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 12, Wakabayashi ‘657 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 13, Wakabayashi ‘657 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).
Claim(s) 10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim [KR 2018-0017409].
Regarding Claim 10, Wang et al. OR Hsieh et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
Takahashi OR Yamada does not show 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.
Kim et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 3) teaching and suggesting the lead-out portion (1240, 1242) includes a joint portion (1240) joined to the wire connection portion (130), and a non-joint portion (1242) separated from the joint portion (see Fig. 3), and a first thickness of the joint portion is smaller than a second thickness of the non-joint portion (see Fig. 3, a first thickness D1 is smaller than a second thickness D2 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 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 Kim et al. for the coil device as disclosed by Wang et al. OR Takahashi OR Yamada OR Hsieh et al. 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 12, 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).
Regarding Claim 13, 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) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Harada et al. [JP 2003-022916].
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR 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. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh 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 Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability (Paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fukui. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0250836].
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh 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. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy (Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh 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 Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy (Paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sugie et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0265988].
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh 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. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. in view of Wakabayashi OR Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh 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 Takahashi in view of Wakabayashi OR Yamada in view of Wakabayashi OR Hsieh et al. in view of Wakabayashi to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Harada et al. [JP 2003-022916].
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show a third thickness of the wire connection portion is larger than the first thickness of the joint portion.
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. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. to achieve excellent reliability (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. 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 Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. to achieve excellent reliability (Paragraph [0039]).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fukui. [U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0250836].
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. 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. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy (Paragraph [0015]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. 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 Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy (Paragraph [0015]).
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sugie et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0265988].
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. 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. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy.
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. in view of Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. 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 Kim et al. OR Takahashi in view of Kim et al. OR Yamada in view of Kim et al. OR Hsieh et al. in view of Kim et al. to achieve excellent reliability and enhance position accuracy.
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