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 and claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 0724/26 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 § 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoshioka et al. (US 20190074125).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2 and para 0063-0117) disclose an element body (10) having a principal surface (see figure 2); an inductor wire extending parallel to the principal surface within the element body(see figure 2); and a plurality of columnar wires (31/32) connected to an end of the inductor wire and extending in a direction intersecting the principal surface (see figure 2), wherein the plurality of columnar wires are exposed from the element body at the principal surface (see figure 2), and a minimum distance from the principal surface to the inductor wire is larger than or equal to 0.04 mm.(see para 0113 disclosing wherein the magnetic layer 11 discloses a range thickness that meets the claimed limitations wherein principal surface to the inductor wire is larger than or equal to 0.04 mm; such as if the thickness is 84µm= .084mm)
Regarding claim 2, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2 and para 0063-0117) disclose wherein when the principal surface is defined as a first principal surface and a surface of the element body opposite the first principal surface is defined as a second principal surface (see figure 2), the minimum distance from the first principal surface to the inductor wire is larger than or equal to twice a minimum distance from the second principal surface to the inductor wire. see para 0113 disclosing wherein the magnetic layer 11 discloses a range thickness that meets the claimed limitations wherein principal surface to the inductor wire is larger than or equal to 0.04 mm; such as if the thickness is 84µm= .084mm, and the magnetic layer 12 can have a thickness is 40µm= .04mm)
Regarding claim 3, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2) disclose wherein when viewed transparently from a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the inductor wire extends spirally in a single plane that is parallel to the principal surface.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshioka et al (para 0108/0116) discloses an outer electrode connected to the columnar wires and exposed from the principal surface, wherein a maximum dimension, in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, of a portion of the outer electrode provided on the principal surface is smaller than or equal to 1/2 of a maximum dimension of the inductor wire in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshioka et al (para 0108) discloses wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the inductor wire extends spirally, and a minimum distance between wire segments of the same inductor wire is larger than or equal to 1/3 of a minimum wire width of the inductor wire.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2 and para 0113) disclose wherein a maximum dimension of each columnar wire in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface is larger than or equal to 1.5 times a maximum dimension of the inductor wire in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshioka et al (figures 1) discloses wherein when the element body is viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the principal surface is quadrilateral, the plurality of columnar wires include a first-end columnar wire connected to a first end of the inductor wire and a second-end columnar wire connected to a second end of the inductor wire, and when the element body is viewed transparently in the direction orthogonal to the principal surface, a line segment connecting a geometric center of a surface of the first-end columnar wire exposed from the principal surface and a geometric center of a surface of the second-end columnar wire exposed from the principal surface is not parallel to any of sides of the principal surface.(see figure 1)
Regarding claim 8, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2) disclose a plurality of outer electrodes connected to the columnar wires and exposed from the principal surface, when viewed from a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the plurality of outer electrodes have an identical shape and an identical area.
Regarding claim 9, Yoshioka et al (para 0017) disclose wherein a maximum dimension of the element body in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface is smaller than or equal to 0.15 mm.
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.
2 Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20190074125) in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965)
Regarding claim 10, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2 and para 0063-0117) discloses all of the limitations as noted above but does not expressly discloses wherein the inductor wire includes 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, and the plurality of columnar wires include a plurality of first columnar wires connected to an end of the first inductor wire and a plurality of second columnar wires connected to an end of the second inductor wire
Yoshioka et al.5965 (figures 1-9a and para 0111-0250) discloses a teaching wherein the inductor wire includes 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, and the plurality of columnar wires include a plurality of first columnar wires connected to an end of the first inductor wire and a plurality of second columnar wires connected to an end 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 the inductor wire includes 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, and the plurality of columnar wires include a plurality of first columnar wires connected to an end of the first inductor wire and a plurality of second columnar wires connected to an end of the second inductor wire as taught by Yoshioka et al.5965 to the inductive device Yoshioka et al so as to so as to allow for improved current sharing, reduced current ripple, and higher efficiency.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshioka et al.5965 (figures 1-9a and para 0163) discloses wherein when viewed transparently in a direction orthogonal to the principal surface, the inductor wires all extend spirally, and the inductor wires each have 1.5 turns or more.
3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20190074125) in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965) in further view of Hong et al. (US 6466401).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2 and para 0063-0117) discloses all of the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein each inductor wire has a wire body, a first end pad connected to a first end of the wire body and having a large wire width relative to the wire body, 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, and 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.
4. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al. (US 20190074125) in view of Yoshioka et al. (US 20180075965) in further view of Kireev (US 20110248811).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshioka et al (figures 1-2 and para 0063-0117) discloses all of the limitations as noted above but does not expressly disclose wherein each inductor wire has a wire body, a first end pad connected to a first end of the wire body and having a large wire width relative to the wire body, 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, and 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 1-3) 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 (135) 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13-14 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