NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION This non-final Office action addresses U.S. Application Serial No. 18/323,361, entitled COIL COMPONENT AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR COIL COMPONENT. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected. Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 have allowable subject matter. I. PRIORITY Examiner recognizes the Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP2022-109261, filed July 6, 2022. I. OBJECTION TO CLAIMS Method claim 17 is objected to because it is a method claim that depends from an apparatus claim (claim 13). Examiners find this is merely a typographical error and method claim 17 should depend from method claim 16. Appropriate correction is required. Examiners will assume claim 17 depends from claim 16 for purposes of this Office action. II I . CLAIM INTERPRETATION After careful review of the original specification, the prosecution history, and unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions (either express or implied) with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision with regard to pending and examined claims. Because the Examiner is unable to locate any lexicographic definitions with the required clarity, deliberateness, and precision, the Examiner conclude s that Applicant is not his own lexicographer for the pending and examined claims. See MPEP §2111.01(IV). SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The Examiner further find s that because the pending and examined claims herein recite neither “step for” nor “means for” nor any substitute therefore, the examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I). Because all examined claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181(I), the Examiner conclude s that all examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f). See also Ex parte Miyazaki , 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)( precedential)(where the Board did not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because “means for” was not recited and because applicant still possessed an opportunity to amend the claims). Because of the Examiner’ s findings above that Applicant is not his own lexicographer and the pending and examined claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f) the pending and examined claims will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification since patentee has an opportunity to amend claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al. , 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II). I V . CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. I V .A. Anticipation Rejections Applying Nakashima Claim s 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 202 2/0102053 to Haruki Nakashima et al. (hereinafter “ Nakashima ”) . Regarding claim 1 , Nakashima discloses: 1. A coil component comprising: See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 , reprinted below: Nakashima FIG.1 Nakashima FIG S . 10 and 11 See further Nakashim a ¶0108 wherein “ the features of the first to fifth embodiments may be combined variously ” and ¶0112 wehrein “ the shape of the upper surface of the flange portion of the core may be any of a convex shape, a flat shape, or a concave shape and the shape of the second planar portion of the magnetic plate as the magnetic plate combined with this core may be any of a convex shape, a flat shape, or a concave shape. ” Thus, Nakashim discloses and contemplates the combin a tion of the core 10 shown in FIG. 11 with the top plate 15 shown in FIG. 10 for the inductor assemlby shown in FIG. 1. This combination as explicitly disclosed in Nakashima is applied in these rejections. a core having a core portion extending in an axial direction, and a first flange portion and a second flange portion respectively disposed at both ends of the core portion in the axial direction; See Nakashima FIGS. 1 , 10 and 11 , core 10 having core flanges 11 and 12 . a coil wound around the core portion; and See Nakashima FIGS. 1 , 10 and 11, coils 21 and 22 . a top plate which spans between the first flange portion and the second flange portion, See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above, top plate 15. wherein the first flange portion has a first facing surface facing the top plate, the top plate has a second facing surface facing the first flange portion, See Nakashima FIGS. 1 , 10 and 11 above, note core flange 11 has surface facing top plate 15 and top plate 15 has surface facing core flange 11 . in a cross section that is orthogonal to the axial direction and that intersects with the first flange portion, a protruding portion having a convex shape and convex toward the top plate is on the first facing surface, and See Nakashima FIGS. 1 , 10 and 11 above, note protruding convex top surface of core flange 11. a recessed portion having a concave shape and complementing the convex shape of the protruding portion of the first flange portion is on the second facing surface. See Nakashima FIGS. 1 , 10 and 11 above, note recessed concave surface 152 on top plate 15 . Regarding claim 2 , Nakashima discloses the component of claim 1 as evidence above and further: 2. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein the top plate has a top surface on an opposite side to the second facing surface, and in the cross section, a topmost part of the protruding portion of the first flange portion is at a center of the first flange portion in a direction parallel to the top surface of the top plate. See Nakashima FIGS. 1 , 10 and 11 above, note top plate 15 ha s a top surface and the recesses concave portion 152 centered on opposite side s thereof. Regarding claim 3 , Nakashima discloses the component of claim 1 as evidence above and further: 3. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein the top plate has a top surface on an opposite side to the second facing surface, and in the cross section, where a direction from the core toward the top plate is an upper side, a topmost part of an inner surface of the recessed portion, a topmost part of the protruding portion, and at least one of both end parts of the recessed portion in a direction parallel to the top surface of the top plate are disposed in this order from the top plate side. See Nakashima FIGS. 1 , 10 and 11 above, note arrange ment of top side and protru ding concave surface of the top plate 15 and the protruding convex portion 114 of the core flange 11 . Regarding claim 5 , Nakashima discloses the component of claim 1 as evidence above and further: 5. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein the top plate has a top surface on an opposite side to the second facing surface, and a bottom surface on an opposite side to the top surface and having the second facing surface, and the bottom surface of the top plate has a cutout in at least one of both end parts in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction and parallel to the top surface of the top plate. See Nakashima FIG. 10, annotated below, identifying notches/cut outs formed near the side surfaces of the top plate 15. Nakashima FIG. 10 (annotated by Examiner) Regarding claim 6 , Nakashima discloses the component of claim 5 as evidence above and further: 6. The coil component according to claim 5, wherein in the cross section, where a direction from the core toward the top plate is an upper side, a topmost part of an inner surface of the cutout, a topmost part of an inner surface of the recessed portion, a topmost part of the protruding portion, and one or both end parts of the recessed portion, having the cutout, in a direction parallel to the top surface of the top plate, are disposed in this order from the top plate side. See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above, note arrangement of components when the top plate 15 of FIG. 10 is provided on core 10 of FIG. 11 in inductor of FIG. 2. Regarding claim 8 , Takashi discloses the component of claim 1 as evidence above and further: 8. The coil component according to claim 1, wherein the top plate has a top surface on an opposite side to the second facing surface, and a bottom surface on an opposite side to the top surface and having the second facing surface, and the recessed portion of the top plate extends to a region overlapping the core portion in the bottom surface of the top plate when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the top surface of the top plate. See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above, note arrangement of top side and protrusion 48A of the top plate 26 and the recessed portion 43A of the core 23. Further note a portion of the recessed portion 23A overlaps a portion of the bottom surface of the top plate 26 having the protrusion 48A. Regarding claim 12 , Nakashima discloses the component of claim 1 as evidence above and further: 12. The coil component according to claim 1, further comprising: an adhesive bonding the core with the top plate, wherein the adhesive contains magnetic particles. See Nakashima ¶0095 wherein “[a] t least a part of an adhesive 100 for bonding the magnetic plate 15 and the core 10 to each other is present in the grooves G .” Regarding claim 13 , Nakashima discloses the component of claim 2 as evidence above and further: 13. The coil component according to claim 2, wherein the top plate has a top surface on an opposite side to the second facing surface, and in the cross section, where a direction from the core toward the top plate is an upper side, a topmost part of an inner surface of the recessed portion, a topmost part of the protruding portion, and at least one of both end parts of the recessed portion in a direction parallel to the top surface of the top plate are disposed in this order from the top plate side. See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above, note arrangement of components when the top plate 15 of FIG. 10 is provided on core 10 of FIG. 11 in inductor of FIG. 2. Regarding claim 15 , Nakashima discloses the component of claim 2 as evidence above and further: 15. The coil component according to claim 2, wherein the top plate has a top surface on an opposite side to the second facing surface, and a bottom surface on an opposite side to the top surface and having the second facing surface, and the bottom surface of the top plate has a cutout in at least one of both end parts in a direction orthogonal to the axial direction and parallel to the top surface of the top plate. See Nakashima FIG. 10, annotated above, identifying notches/cut outs formed near the side surfaces of the top plate 15. Regarding claim 20 , Nakashima discloses: 20. A coil component comprising: See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above. See further Nakashima ¶0108 wherein “the features of the first to fifth embodiments may be combined variously” and ¶0112 wh e rein “the shape of the upper surface of the flange portion of the core may be any of a convex shape, a flat shape, or a concave shape and the shape of the second planar portion of the magnetic plate as the magnetic plate combined with this core may be any of a convex shape, a flat shape, or a concave shape.” Thus, Nakashim a discloses contemplates the combin a tion of the core 10 shown in FIG. 11 with the top plate 15 shown in FIG. 10 for the inductor assem bl y shown in FIG. 1. This combination is applied in the rejection of this claim. a core having a core portion extending in an axial direction, and a first flange portion and a second flange portion respectively disposed at both ends of the core portion in the axial direction; See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11, core 10 having core flanges 11 and 12. a coil wound around the core portion; and See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11, coils 21 and 22. a top plate which spans between the first flange portion and the second flange portion, See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11, top plate 15. wherein the first flange portion has a first facing surface facing the top plate, the top plate has a second facing surface facing the first flange portion, See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above, note core flange 11 has surface facing top plate 15 and top plate 15 has surface facing core flange 11. in a cross section that is orthogonal to the axial direction and that intersects with the first flange portion, a protruding portion having a convex shape and convex toward the first flange portion when viewed in the axial direction is on the second facing surface, and See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above, note protruding convex top surface of core flange 11. a recessed portion having a concave shape and complementing the convex shape of the protruding portion of the top plate is on the first facing surface. See Nakashima FIGS. 1, 10 and 11 above, note recessed concave surface 152 on top plate 15. V. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. V .A. Obviousness Rejection Applying Nakashima and Hashimoto Claim 16 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima in view of JP2021-145054 to Kenji Hashimoto (hereinafter “ Hashimoto ”). Regarding claim 16 , Nakashima teaches: 16. A manufacturing method for a coil component, the manufacturing method comprising: Note structures of the coil component as discussed above for claims 1 and 20. forming a core having a protruding portion in a first flange portion by forming a core molded body through first molding of a core material and then firing the core molded body; Note structures of the core 10 of Nakashima as shown above in Nakashima FIGS. 1 and 11. Further see Nakashima ¶0066 wherein “[t] he material of the core 10 is preferably, for example, a magnetic material such as a ferrite sintered body or a molded body of magnetic powder containing resin …” forming a top plate having a recessed portion by forming a top plate molded body through second molding of a top plate material and then firing the top plate molded body; Note structures of the top plate 10 of Nakashima as shown above in Nakashima FIGS. 1 and 1 0 above . Further see Nakashima ¶00 80 wherein “ [t] the magnetic plate 15 is formed with a mold, the mold is easily filled with the material of the magnetic plate 15 and the magnetic plate 15 is easily removed from the mold, thereby reducing occurrence of defects in the magnetic plate 15 …” winding a coil around a core portion of the core; and See Nakashima FIG. 1, note coils 41 and 42 wound around the core 10. combining the top plate with the core in which the coil is wound. See Nakashima FIG. 1 wherein the tope plate 15 is mounted to the core after the coils are wound thereon. However, while Nakashima teaches molding the core and the top plate, Nakashima does not explicitly teach using press molding thereof. Nevertheless, Hashimoto teaches a moldi n g method for magnetic cores and components using pressurized molding. See Hashimoto ¶¶0041-50. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use a press molding method as taught in Hashimoto for the molding of the components in Nakashima. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so to control the molding density of the molded material. See Hashimoto ¶¶0052-0053. Regarding claim 17 , Nakashima and Hashimoto teach the method of claim 16 and further: 17. The manufacturing method according to claim 13, wherein the first press molding is to compress the core molded body with an upper punch and a lower punch. Note combination proposed above to use the press molding method Hashimoto for the molding process taught in Nakashima. Thus, s ee Hashimoto FIG. 3 which uses upper and lower punches 35/39 to core molded body 5A. Regarding claim 18 , Nakashima and Hashimoto teach the method of claim 16 and further: 18. The manufacturing method according to claim 16, wherein the second press molding is to compress the top plate molded body with an upper punch and a lower punch. Note combination proposed above to use the press molding method of Hashimoto to mold the top plate of Nakashima. See Hashimoto FIG. 3 which uses upper and lower punches 35/39 to core molded body 5A. Regarding claim 19 , Nakashima and Hashimoto teach the method of claim 16 and further: 19. The manufacturing method according to claim 17, wherein the second press molding is to compress the top plate molded body with an upper punch and a lower punch. Note combination proposed above to use the press molding method of Hashimoto to mold the top plate of Nakashima. See Hashimoto FIG. 3 which uses upper and lower punches 35/39 to core molded body 5A. VI. ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 are objected to for being dependent on a rejected claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all the features of the claims from which they depend. Regarding claims 4 and 14, the prior art of record in this application does not show or teach the “ a distance between the protruding portion and the recessed portion at each of both end parts of each of the regions that are the overlapping parts in a direction parallel to the top surface of the top plate is greater than a distance between the protruding portion and the recessed portion at a center of each of the regions that are the overlapping parts in the direction parallel to the top surface of the top plate ” as recited in the claim and in combination with the other features the claim. Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record in this application does not show or teach the “ viewed in a direction orthogonal to the top surface of the top plate, the cutout overlaps the protruding portion of the first flange portion ” as recited in the claim and in combination with the other features the claim. Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record in this application does not show or teach the “ in the cross section, a radius of curvature of the recessed portion of the top plate is greater than a radius of curvature of the protruding portion of the first flange portion ” as recited in the claim and in combination with the other features the claim. Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record in this application does not show or teach the “ in the cross section, a center of a circle of curvature of the recessed portion of the top plate is located outside the first flange portion ” as recited in the claim and in combination with the other features the claim. Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record in this application does not show or teach the “ in the cross section, a center of a circle of curvature of the protruding portion of the first flange portion is located outside the first flange portion ” as recited in the claim and in combination with the other features the claim. V II. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this application. VIII . CONCLUSION Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 15-20 are rejected. Claims 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 are objected to but contain allowable subject matter. The prior art made of record which is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure is listed on the document titled ‘Notice of Reference Cited’ (“PTO-892”). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiners, all documents listed on the PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2264 . The Examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday . If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, SPE Art Unit 3992, can be reached at (571) 272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-9900. 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. /KENNETH WHITTINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992