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 group 1/species 1 (claims 1-19, figures 1a-2d and 2f-2h) in the reply filed on 04/22/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination can be made for this entire application could be made without serios burden. This is not found persuasive because the figures to the different species recite mutually exclusive characteristics which are not obvious variants of each other and would be a serious search burden if a restriction was not implemented. Also independent 2 is withdrawn from consideration since the limitations “ an inward protrusion continuously and integrally formed with the terminal body and extending from the main surface into an inside of the element body” is taught in species 9; figures 5a-5e and not disclosed in species 1; figures 1a-2d and 2f-2h. Dependent claims 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 14 ,16 and 18 are also withdrawn from consideration since they directly or indirectly depend on independent claim 2. Also independent 15 is withdrawn from consideration since the limitations “ wherein the outward protrusion has a thickness thicker towards a tip of the outward protrusion” is taught in species 2; figure 2e and not disclosed in species 1; figures 1a-2d and 2f-2h.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the terminal body has a thickness smaller than that of the wire; and the terminal body has a width larger than that of the wire must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Note: para 0070 of the applicants pgpub teaches that theses limitations are true for an embodiment with a non-circular wire being used. Where in species chosen clearly show these limitations?
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1 Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nakashima et al. (US 20210043364).
Regarding claim 1, Nakashima et al. (figures 1-7 and para 0020-0071) discloses an element body (see figures 1-7); and an electrode terminal (30/31); wherein the electrode terminal comprises a terminal body (31) extending in a planar shape along a main surface of the element body (see figures 3a-6), and an outward protrusion (31a) continuously and integrally formed with the terminal body and protruding outside the main surface (see figures 3a-3b/6 and para 0028-0031/0062).
Regarding claim 19, Nakashima et al. (figures 3a-6 and para 0027/0032) disclosing wherein a plating film (32) is formed at an outer surface of the terminal body opposite an inner surface thereof in contact with the element body
2 Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sekiguchi et al. (US 20180374621)
Regarding claim 1, Sekiguchi et al.(figures 1-4 and para 0029-0064) discloses an element body (see figures 1-4); and an electrode terminal (30/24); wherein the electrode terminal comprises a terminal body (30/242) extending in a planar shape along a main surface of the element body (see figure 2), and an outward protrusion (302/3061) continuously and integrally formed with the terminal body and protruding outside the main surface (para 0053-0060).
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.
3 Claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 20060103262) in view of Sekiguchi et al. (US 20180374621)
Regarding claim 1, Sano (figures 1-5 and para 0037-0070) discloses an element body (see figures 1-4); and an electrode terminal (40); wherein the electrode terminal comprises a terminal body (see figure 5) extending in a planar shape along a main surface of the element body (see figure 5).
Sano does not expressly disclose an outward protrusion continuously and integrally formed with the terminal body and protruding outside the main surface.
Sekiguchi et al.(figures 1-4 and para 0029-0064) discloses an outward protrusion (302/3061) continuously and integrally formed with the terminal body and protruding outside the main surface (para 0053-0060).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed to design wherein an outward protrusion continuously and integrally formed with the terminal body and protruding outside the main surface as taught by Sekiguchi et al to the inductive device of Sano so as to remove weak points like seams or welds thereby allowing the terminal portion to handle higher mechanical stresses, vibrations, and repeated insertions without the risk of the protrusion snapping off or loosening while also saving to production cost since less parts are needed to make the inductive device.
Regarding claim 4, Sano (figures 1-5 and para 0037-0070) discloses wherein the terminal body is continuously and integrally formed with a wire of an electric element embedded inside the element body; the terminal body has a thickness smaller than that of the wire (see figure 5 showing a terminal portion/body 41 having a thickness smaller than that of the wire); and the terminal body has a width larger than that of the wire. (see figures 4-5 and para 0045-0051)Note:( also see figure 2 of Sekiguchi et al showing a terminal portion/body 302 having a thickness smaller than that of the wire 22; and figures 1/3 of Sekiguchi et al showing the terminal body has a width larger than that of the wire)
Regarding claim 7, Sano (figure 5) discloses wherein the terminal body extends in the planar shape along the main surface at least in a direction towards a center of the electric element.
Regarding claim 9, Sano (para 0021) discloses wherein the electric element comprises a coil portion made of the wire.
Regarding claim 11, Sano (para 0021) discloses wherein the element body comprises a magnetic powder.
Regarding claim 12, Sano (para 0024) discloses wherein the element body comprises a magnetic powder.
Regarding claim 13, the modified inductive device of Sano (figure 5) discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a protrusion length of the outward protrusion with respect to the terminal body is ½ or more of a thickness of the terminal body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to design wherein a protrusion length of the outward protrusion with respect to the terminal body is ½ or more of a thickness of the terminal body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.Such as to greatly enhances the physical and electrical reliability of the terminal; which allows for electrical contact resistance, reduces the risk of overheating from high currents, and ensures a stable voltage drop
Regarding claim 17, designing wherein at least one of an inner surface or a side surface of the terminal body in contact with the element body has surface roughness larger than that of an outer surface of the terminal body opposite the inner surface would have been an obvious design consideration based on intended application/environment use Such as to ensure improved structural adhesion and prevents component delamination during thermal expansion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD HINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7915. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8 -5.
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.
/RONALD HINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights