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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the inductor has electrical characteristics with respect to an alternating current applied thereto, the electrical characteristics being fitted using a following equation having two parameters a and b: ACR/L = a x Iopb, where ACR is an alternating-current resistance value (unit: mΩ) with respect to the alternating current of 1 MHz, L is self-inductance (unit: µH), Iop is a ripple current amplitude (unit: A) of the alternating current applied, and the parameter b is dimensionless, and wherein the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100” contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 does not recite the lower limit value of the parameter a, the range of the parameter b, and does not recite the range of Iop, and the invention according to claim 1 also includes, for example, an inductor in which the parameter a is substantially zero and the resistance to alternating current ACR is substantially zero. On the other hand, the detailed description of the invention describes only an example in which the parameter a is larger than 80 and 100 or less (see Table 3 and Fig. 3). In addition, b is also shown in the examples in the range of 0.13 to 0.26 (see Table 3). Therefore, the invention according to claim 1 of the present application is not described in the detailed description of the invention. Therefore, the inventions according to claim 1 and claims 2-11 depending on claim 1 are not described in the detailed description of the invention.
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 1-11 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 1 recites “the inductor has electrical characteristics with respect to an alternating current applied thereto, the electrical characteristics being fitted using a following equation having two parameters a and b: ACR/L = a x Iopb, where ACR is an alternating-current resistance value (unit: mΩ) with respect to the alternating current of 1 MHz, L is self-inductance (unit: µH), Iop is a ripple current amplitude (unit: A) of the alternating current applied, and the parameter b is dimensionless, and wherein the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100” is indefinite and unclear. In the recitation of claim 1, the lower limit value of the parameter a is unknown, does not recite the range of the parameter b, and does not recite the range of Iop. In addition, the fitting method and its accuracy are not specified, and the parameters a and b can change depending on the fitting method and accuracy; therefore, the scope of the invention according to claim 1 is unclear. Alternatively, it is also unclear how much the ripple current amplitude is changed when an alternating current is applied to obtain electrical characteristics, and the parameters a and b can also be changed depending on the range in which the ripple current amplitude is changed; therefore, the scope of the invention according to claim 1 is unclear. Therefore, the inventions according to claim 1 and claims 2-11 depending on claim 1 are not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0233690] in view of Wang et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0327640].
Regarding Claim 1 (see 112 rejections above), Kojima et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 4) comprising:
connecting terminals (23a, 23b);
a conductor (22c) electrically connected to the connecting terminals (see Fig. 4), the conductor being configured to generate an inductive magnetic field by energization (see Fig. 4, element 22 configured to generate an inductive magnetic field by energization, Paragraph [0075]); and
a core (21) including a metal powder (Paragraphs [0031]-[0033], [0043]), in which the conductor is at least partially embedded (see Fig. 4, Paragraph [0077]),
wherein the inductor (20) has electrical characteristics with respect to an alternating current applied thereto (Paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0035], [0075]), the electrical characteristics being fitted using a following equation having two parameters a and b (see 112 rejections above):
ACR/L = a x Iopb,
where ACR is an alternating-current resistance value (unit: mΩ) with respect to the alternating current of 1 MHz (Paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0035], [0075], based on the 1 MHz as taught, an alternating-current resistance will be present), L is self-inductance (unit: µH) (element 20 will inherently have a self-inductance), Iop is a ripple current amplitude (unit: A) of the alternating current applied (Paragraph [0005]), and the parameter b is dimensionless (see 112 rejections above, since parameter b is not given a value or range then parameter b can be chosen to be any value).
Kojima et al. does not explicitly disclose the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100.
Wang et al. shows an inductive component (Table 1) teaching and suggesting the inductor (see Table 1) has electrical characteristics with respect to an alternating current applied thereto (see Table 1), the electrical characteristics being fitted using a following equation having two parameters a and b (see 112 rejections above): ACR/L = a x Iopb, where ACR is an alternating-current resistance value (unit: mΩ) with respect to the alternating current of 1 MHz (see Table 1, 63.77 mΩ, 29.27 mΩ, 37.7 mΩ or 48.23 mΩ), L is self-inductance (unit: µH) (see Tabe 1, 1.01 µH, 1.01 µH, 0.99 µH, 1.08 µH), Iop is a ripple current amplitude (unit: A) of the alternating current applied (ripple current is taught by Kojima et al. and Iop will be a positive value), and the parameter b is dimensionless (see 112 rejections above, since parameter b is not given a value or range then parameter b can be chosen to be any value such as 0), and the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100 (when parameter b is 0, ACR/L = a x Iop0 which is ACR/L = a, therefore, 63.77/1.01 = 63.13 mΩµH-1A-b, 29.27/1.01 = 28.98 mΩµH-1A-b, 37.7/0.99 = 38.08 mΩµH-1A-b, 48.23/1.08 = 44.65 mΩµH-1A-b therefore, parameter a is equal to or smaller than 100 mΩµH-1A-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 inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100 as taught by Wang et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency and reduce loss (Paragraph [0025]).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b, 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 to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. shows the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 95 (when parameter b is 0, ACR/L = a x Iop0 which is ACR/L = a, therefore, 63.77/1.01 = 63.13 mΩµH-1A-b, 29.27/1.01 = 28.98 mΩµH-1A-b, 37.7/0.99 = 38.08 mΩµH-1A-b, 48.23/1.08 = 44.65 mΩµH-1A-b therefore, parameter a is equal to or smaller than 95 mΩµH-1A-b).
Regarding Claim 3, Kojima et al. shows wherein the metal powder (Paragraph [0051]) has a composition containing:
equal to or greater than 30 mass% and equal to or smaller than 70 mass% of Ni (Paragraph [0051]); and
a balance of Fe and impurities (Paragraph [0051]),
and wherein the metal powder includes first particles containing a crystalline phase material (Paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kojima et al. shows the metal powder includes second particles containing an amorphous phase material (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kojima et al. shows the second particles have a composition containing P (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kojima et al. shows the second particles (Paragraphs [0016], [0044]-[0045]) have the composition containing:
P: 5.0 atm% ≤x≤13.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
C: 2.2 atm% ≤y≤ 13.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Ni: 0 to 10.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
B: 0 to 9.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Si: 0 to 7.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Cr: 0 to 6.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Sn: 0 to 3.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]); and
a balance of Fe and impurities (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045], impurities will inevitably be presented, see also Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kojima et al. shows the second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm (Table 1, Amorphous No. 1 having a medium diameter of 5 µm, see Table 4, medium diameter of D1 being 5.5 µm).
Regarding Claim 9, Kojima et al. shows the metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm (Table 1, Fe-50% Ni No. 1 having a medium diameter of 4.42 µm, see Table 4, medium diameter of D2 being 4.16 µm).
Regarding Claim 10, Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. does not explicitly disclose the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30, 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 to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, Kojima et al. shows an electronic/electric device comprising (see claim 16):
a substrate (see claim 16); and
the inductor according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),
wherein the inductor (20) is connected to the substrate via the connecting terminals thereof (see claim 16).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Ohkubo et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0154720].
Regarding Claim 4, Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less.
Ohkubo et al. shows a coil device (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less (Paragraphs [0015], [0020], Table 1).
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 first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less as taught by Ohkubo et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed (Paragraphs [0009], [0018]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less, 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 to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9, Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Ohkubo et al. shows a coil device (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm (Paragraphs [0015], [0020], Table 1).
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 metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm as taught by Ohkubo et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed (Paragraphs [0009], [0018]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm, 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 to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Tonoyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0135380].
Regarding Claim 8, Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Tonoyama et al. shows (Figs. 1-4B) the second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm (Table 2, Amorphous powder 2 is 3.0 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 second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm as taught by Tonoyama et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. to achieve a coil component having excellent permeability, core loss, DC superimposition property, and withstand voltage (Paragraph [0005]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm, 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 to achieve excellent permeability, core loss, DC superimposition property, and withstand voltage. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding Claim 10, Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. does not explicitly disclose the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30.
However, AAPA shows the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30 (Table 3, Comparative Example where parameter is 0.18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30 as taught by AAPA for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency (Table 3).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30, 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 to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0090780].
Regarding Claim 11, Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Matsui et al. shows an electronic/electric device comprising (see Fig. 1): a substrate (2); and the inductor according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), wherein the inductor (1) is connected to the substrate (2) via the connecting terminals (21, 22) thereof (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]).
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 electronic/electric device comprising: a substrate; the inductor is connected to the substrate via the connecting terminals thereof as taught by Matsui et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. to facilitate electrical connection to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics (Paragraph [0030]).
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0233690] in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding Claim 1 (see 112 rejections above), Kojima et al. shows an inductor (Fig. 4) comprising:
connecting terminals (23a, 23b);
a conductor (22c) electrically connected to the connecting terminals (see Fig. 4), the conductor being configured to generate an inductive magnetic field by energization (see Fig. 4, element 22 configured to generate an inductive magnetic field by energization, Paragraph [0075]); and
a core (21) including a metal powder (Paragraphs [0031]-[0033], [0043]), in which the conductor is at least partially embedded (see Fig. 4, Paragraph [0077]),
wherein the inductor (20) has electrical characteristics with respect to an alternating current applied thereto (Paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0035], [0075]), the electrical characteristics being fitted using a following equation having two parameters a and b (see 112 rejections above):
ACR/L = a x Iopb,
where ACR is an alternating-current resistance value (unit: mΩ) with respect to the alternating current of 1 MHz (Paragraphs [0021]-[0022], [0035], [0075], based on the 1 MHz as taught, an alternating-current resistance will be present), L is self-inductance (unit: µH) (element 20 will inherently have a self-inductance), Iop is a ripple current amplitude (unit: A) of the alternating current applied (Paragraph [0005]), and the parameter b is dimensionless (see 112 rejections above, since parameter b is not given a value or range then parameter b can be chosen to be any value).
Kojima et al. does not explicitly disclose the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100.
AAPA shows an inductive component (Table 3, Comparative Example) teaching and suggesting the inductor (see Table 3) has electrical characteristics with respect to an alternating current applied thereto (see Table 3), the electrical characteristics being fitted using a following equation having two parameters a and b (see 112 rejections above): ACR/L = a x Iopb, where ACR is an alternating-current resistance value (unit: mΩ) with respect to the alternating current of 1 MHz (see Table 3, 58.6 mΩ, 62.2 mΩ, 46.1 mΩ or 40.4 mΩ), L is self-inductance (unit: µH) (see Tabe 3, 0.726 µH, 0.738 µH, 0.675 µH, 0.646 µH), Iop is a ripple current amplitude (unit: A) of the alternating current applied (0.1 A), and the parameter b is dimensionless (see 112 rejections above, since parameter b is not given a value or range according to the claim limitations then parameter b can be chosen to be any value such as 0), and the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100 (when parameter b is 0, ACR/L = a x Iop0 which is ACR/L = a, therefore, 58.6/0.726 = 80.7 mΩµH-1A-b, 62.2/0.738 = 84.2 mΩµH-1A-b, 46.1/0.675 = 68.2 mΩµH-1A-b, 40.4/0.646 = 62.6 mΩµH-1A-b therefore, parameter a is equal to or smaller than 100 mΩµH-1A-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 inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 100 as taught by AAPA for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency (Table 3).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the inductor has such electrical characteristics that the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b, 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 to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. shows the parameter a in units of mΩµH-1A-b is equal to or smaller than 95 (when parameter b is 0, ACR/L = a x Iop0 which is ACR/L = a, therefore, 58.6/0.726 = 80.7 mΩµH-1A-b, 62.2/0.738 = 84.2 mΩµH-1A-b, 46.1/0.675 = 68.2 mΩµH-1A-b, 40.4/0.646 = 62.6 mΩµH-1A-b therefore, parameter a is equal to or smaller than 95 mΩµH-1A-b).
Regarding Claim 3, Kojima et al. shows wherein the metal powder (Paragraph [0051]) has a composition containing:
equal to or greater than 30 mass% and equal to or smaller than 70 mass% of Ni (Paragraph [0051]); and
a balance of Fe and impurities (Paragraph [0051]),
and wherein the metal powder includes first particles containing a crystalline phase material (Paragraphs [0050]-[0051]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kojima et al. shows the metal powder includes second particles containing an amorphous phase material (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kojima et al. shows the second particles have a composition containing P (Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kojima et al. shows the second particles (Paragraphs [0016], [0044]-[0045]) have the composition containing:
P: 5.0 atm% ≤x≤13.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
C: 2.2 atm% ≤y≤ 13.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Ni: 0 to 10.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
B: 0 to 9.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Si: 0 to 7.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Cr: 0 to 6.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]);
Sn: 0 to 3.0 atm% (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]); and
a balance of Fe and impurities (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045], impurities will inevitably be presented, see also Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kojima et al. shows the second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm (Table 1, Amorphous No. 1 having a medium diameter of 5 µm, see Table 4, medium diameter of D1 being 5.5 µm).
Regarding Claim 9, Kojima et al. shows the metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm (Table 1, Fe-50% Ni No. 1 having a medium diameter of 4.42 µm, see Table 4, medium diameter of D2 being 4.16 µm).
Regarding Claim 10, However, AAPA shows the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30 (Table 3, Comparative Example where parameter is 0.18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30 as taught by AAPA for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of Wang et al. to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency (Table 3).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the parameter b is equal to or greater than 0.10 and equal to or smaller than 0.30, 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 to achieve desirable operating characteristics and efficiency. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, Kojima et al. shows an electronic/electric device comprising (see claim 16):
a substrate (see claim 16); and
the inductor according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above),
wherein the inductor (20) is connected to the substrate via the connecting terminals thereof (see claim 16).
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. in view of AAPA as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Ohkubo et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0154720].
Regarding Claim 4, Kojima et al. in view of AAPA shows the claimed invention as applied above but does not show the first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less.
Ohkubo et al. shows a coil device (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less (Paragraphs [0015], [0020], Table 1).
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 first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less as taught by Ohkubo et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of AAPA to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed (Paragraphs [0009], [0018]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first particles have a median diameter D50-1 of 0.02 µm or more and 1.3 µm or less, 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 to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9, Kojima et al. in view of AAPA shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Ohkubo et al. shows a coil device (Figs. 1-4) teaching and suggesting the metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm (Paragraphs [0015], [0020], Table 1).
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 metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm as taught by Ohkubo et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of AAPA to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed (Paragraphs [0009], [0018]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the metal powder has a median diameter D50 equal to or smaller than 6.0 µm, 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 to achieve excellent initial magnetic permeability, core loss and withstand voltage can be formed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. in view of AAPA as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Tonoyama et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0135380].
Regarding Claim 8, Kojima et al. in view of AAPA shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Tonoyama et al. shows (Figs. 1-4B) the second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm (Table 2, Amorphous powder 2 is 3.0 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 second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm as taught by Tonoyama et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of AAPA to achieve a coil component having excellent permeability, core loss, DC superimposition property, and withstand voltage (Paragraph [0005]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second particles have a median diameter D50-2 equal to or greater than 3.0 µm and equal to or smaller than 15.0 µm, 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 to achieve excellent permeability, core loss, DC superimposition property, and withstand voltage. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima et al. in view of AAPA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsui et al. [U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0090780].
Regarding Claim 11, Kojima et al. in view of AAPA shows the claimed invention as applied above.
In addition, Matsui et al. shows an electronic/electric device comprising (see Fig. 1): a substrate (2); and the inductor according to Claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above), wherein the inductor (1) is connected to the substrate (2) via the connecting terminals (21, 22) thereof (see Fig. 1, Paragraph [0030]).
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 electronic/electric device comprising: a substrate; the inductor is connected to the substrate via the connecting terminals thereof as taught by Matsui et al. for the inductor as disclosed by Kojima et al. in view of AAPA to facilitate electrical connection to an external circuit to achieve desirable operating characteristics (Paragraph [0030]).
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