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 of Species 1 (Figures 1-3, claims 1-3, 7-13, 15 and 16) in the reply filed on 07/20/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
1. Claims 1, 11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965) in view of Hong et al. (US 6466401).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshioka et al. (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses an element body (see figure 1) having a principal surface (see figure 3); a plurality of inductor wires (21,22) extending parallel to the principal surface within the element body (see figure 3); a plurality of columnar wires (31,32) connected to ends of the inductor wires and extending in a direction intersecting the principal surface (see figure 3); and a plurality of outer electrodes (41,42) connected to the columnar wires and exposed from the principal surface (see figure 3), wherein each inductor wire has a wire body (see figures 1-3), a first end pad connected to a first end of the wire body and having a large wire width relative to the wire body (see figure 1-3), and a second end pad connected to a second end of the wire body and having a large wire width relative to the wire body (see figure 1-3 and para 0114-0118), the plurality of inductor wires include a first inductor wire extending parallel to the principal surface and a second inductor wire extending in a same plane as the first inductor wire (see figure 1-2).
Yoshioka et al. does not expressly disclose a teaching wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the first inductor wire is different from at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the second inductor wire.
Hong et al. (figures 6-7) discloses a teaching wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad (20b or 90b) of the first inductor wire is different from at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad (40b or 70b) of the second inductor wire.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the first inductor wire is different from at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the second inductor wire as taught by Hong et al to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to give the user the capability of easily identifying the first inductor from the second inductor thereby lowering the risk of wrong connections that can cause a short circuit or damage to the inducive device.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshioka et al. (para 0164) discloses wherein the plurality of columnar wires are exposed from the element body at the principal surface, and a minimum distance from the principal surface to each inductor wire is larger than or equal to 0.04 mm.(see para 0164 disclosing ranges that will meet the claimed limitations such if the layer 11 was 40µm =.04mm)
Regarding claim 13, Hong et al. (figures 6-7) discloses wherein when viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the first inductor wire and the second inductor wire extend spirally, and the first inductor wire and the second inductor wire extend spirally in an identical direction.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshioka et al. (para 0162-0166) discloses wherein a maximum dimension, including the element body and the plurality of outer electrodes, in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface is smaller than or equal to 0.2 mm.
(see para 0164 disclosing ranges that will meet the claimed limitations)
2. Claims 1-3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965) in view of Kireev.(US 20110248811).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshioka et al. (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses an element body (see figure 1) having a principal surface (see figure 3); a plurality of inductor wires (21,22) extending parallel to the principal surface within the element body (see figure 3); a plurality of columnar wires (31,32) connected to ends of the inductor wires and extending in a direction intersecting the principal surface (see figure 3); and a plurality of outer electrodes (41,42) connected to the columnar wires and exposed from the principal surface (see figure 3), wherein each inductor wire has a wire body (see figures 1-3), a first end pad connected to a first end of the wire body and having a large wire width relative to the wire body (see figure 1-3), and a second end pad connected to a second end of the wire body and having a large wire width relative to the wire body (see figure 1-3 and para 0114-0118), the plurality of inductor wires include a first inductor wire extending parallel to the principal surface and a second inductor wire extending in a same plane as the first inductor wire (see figure 1-2).
Yoshioka et al. does not expressly disclose a teaching wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the first inductor wire is different from at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the second inductor wire.
Kireev (figures 1-4) discloses a teaching wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad (125) of the first inductor wire is different from at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad (130) of the second inductor wire.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the first inductor wire is different from at least one selected from a size and a shape of the second end pad of the second inductor wire as taught by Kireev to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to give the user the capability of easily identifying the first inductor from the second inductor thereby lowering the risk of wrong connections that can cause a short circuit or damage to the inducive device.
Regarding claim 2, Kireev (figures 1-4) discloses wherein when the first inductor (205) wire is viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, a size and a shape of the first end pad are identical to the size and the shape of the second end pad.
Regarding claim 3, Kireev (figures 1-4) discloses wherein when viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the first inductor wire and the second inductor wire extend spirally, and a number of turns in the first inductor wire is different from a number of turns in the second inductor wire.
Regarding claim 15, Kireev (figures 1-4) discloses wherein when viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the first inductor wire and the second inductor wire extend spirally, and an inner diameter of the first inductor wire is different from an inner diameter of the second inductor wire.
3. Claims 2, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965) in view of Hong et al. (US 6466401) in further view of Yamauchi et al. (US 20210104353).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshioka et al. (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly discloses wherein when the first inductor wire is viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, a size and a shape of the first end pad are identical to the size and the shape of the second end pad.
Yamauchi et al. (para 0049/0052 and figures 2a/19a) discloses a teaching wherein when the first inductor wire is viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, a size and a shape of the first end pad are identical to the size and the shape of the second end pad.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein when the first inductor wire is viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, a size and a shape of the first end pad are identical to the size and the shape of the second end pad as taught by Yamauchi et al. to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to ensures balanced electrical resistance, symmetrical thermal dissipation, and uniform mechanical stress distribution during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 12, Yoshioka et al. (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses all the limitations as noted above but does not expressly discloses wherein the plurality of inductor wires include three or more inductor wires.
Yamauchi et al. (figures 2a/19a) discloses a teaching wherein the plurality of inductor wires include three or more inductor wires.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the plurality of inductor wires include three or more inductor wires as taught by Yamauchi et al. to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to allow for improved current sharing, reduced current ripple, and higher efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshioka et al. (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses wherein when viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the first inductor wire and the second inductor wire extend spirally but does not expressly disclose an inner diameter of the first inductor wire is different from an inner diameter of the second inductor wire.
Yamauchi et al. (figures 19a) discloses disclose an inner diameter of the first inductor wire is different from an inner diameter of the second inductor wire.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein an inner diameter of the first inductor wire is different from an inner diameter of the second inductor wire as taught by Yamauchi et al. to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to optimize electrical resistance and help balance high-frequency AC resistance.
4. Claims 3 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965) in view of Hong et al. (US 6466401) in further view of Debhailis et al. (US 7,259,639).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshioka et al. (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses but does not expressly disclose wherein when viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the first inductor wire and the second inductor wire extend spirally.
Yoshioka et al does not expressly disclose a number of turns in the first inductor wire is different from a number of turns in the second inductor wire.
Debhailis et al. (figures 1a-1b) discloses a teaching wherein a number of turns in the first inductor wire is different from a number of turns in the second inductor wire.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein a number of turns in the first inductor wire is different from a number of turns in the second inductor wire as taught by Debhailis et al. to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to allow the inductive device the capability to step voltage up or down, scale impedance levels, and isolate electrical circuits while transferring energy efficiently through mutual magnetic induction.
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965) in view of Kireev.(US 20110248811) in further view of Shikama et al. (US 6950006).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshioka et al. (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses all the limitations as noted above but dos not expressly discloses wherein the plurality of inductor wires include three or more inductor wires.
Kireev (figure 1) discloses a teaching wherein the plurality of inductor wires include three or more inductor wires.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant claimed invention to design wherein the plurality of inductor wires include three or more inductor wires as taught by Shikama et al to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to allow for improved current sharing, reduced current ripple, and higher efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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