Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 01, 2026
Application No. 18/489,712

INDUCTOR COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 18, 2023
Priority
Dec 14, 2022 — JP 2022-199536
Examiner
HINSON, RONALD
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allowance Rate
586 granted / 793 resolved
+13.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
818
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.2%
+17.2% vs TC avg
§102
23.0%
-17.0% vs TC avg
§112
15.3%
-24.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 793 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Applicants’ election of species 1 (figures 1-3, claims 1 and 14-15) in the reply filed on 08/10/26 is acknowledged. Because applicants 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 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Tanabe (US 20190096569). Regarding claim 1, Tanabe (figures 1-4/14-15 and para 0039-0065/0127-0128) discloses an element body (see figures 3/14); a coil (40/310) inside the element body and spirally wound along a coil axial direction (see figures 3/14); a first outer electrode (20) electrically connected to one end portion of the coil and exposed on a surface of the element body (see para 0043-0050); and a second outer electrode (30) electrically connected to another end portion of the coil and exposed on the surface of the element body(see para 0043-0050), wherein the element body includes an insulator (60), the coil includes a plurality of electrically connected coil wires laminated in the coil axial direction, the plurality of coil wires include a first coil wire electrically connected to the first outer electrode with one or a plurality of first extended wires interposed therebetween(see para 0056-0060), and a dimension of each of the one or the plurality of first extended wires in the coil axial direction is smaller than a dimension of the first coil wire in the coil axial direction. (see figures 3/14) Regarding claim 14, Tanabe (figure 14) discloses wherein the first coil wire and the first extended wire are connected at a corner portion corresponding to a portion where the first extended wire begins to extend obliquely from a linear portion of the first coil wire when viewed in the coil axial direction. Regarding claim 15, Tanabe (figures 3/14) discloses wherein the surface of the element body includes a bottom surface parallel to the coil axial direction and a top surface facing the bottom surface in a height direction orthogonal to the coil axial direction, and the first outer electrode and the second outer electrode are exposed and separated from each other at least on the bottom surface of the element body. 2 Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20180012696). Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. (figures 5-7and para 0051-0067) discloses an element body (see figure 5); a coil (321/322) inside the element body and spirally wound along a coil axial direction (see figure 5 ); a first outer electrode (331) electrically connected to one end portion of the coil and exposed on a surface of the element body (see para 0065); and a second outer electrode (332) electrically connected to another end portion of the coil and exposed on the surface of the element body(see para 0065), wherein the element body includes an insulator (see para 0058), the coil includes a plurality of electrically connected coil wires laminated in the coil axial direction, the plurality of coil wires include a first coil wire electrically connected to the first outer electrode with one or a plurality of first extended wires interposed therebetween(see figure 5), and a dimension of each of the one or the plurality of first extended wires in the coil axial direction is smaller than a dimension of the first coil wire in the coil axial direction. (see figure 5) Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. (figures 5) discloses wherein the surface of the element body includes a bottom surface parallel to the coil axial direction and a top surface facing the bottom surface in a height direction orthogonal to the coil axial direction, and the first outer electrode and the second outer electrode are exposed and separated from each other at least on the bottom surface of the element body. 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 Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20180012696) in view of Tanabe (US 20190096569). Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. (figures 5-7and para 0051-0067) discloses the first coil wire and the first extended wire are connected at a corner portion but does not expressly disclose the first extended wire begins to extend obliquely from a linear portion of the first coil wire when viewed in the coil axial direction. Tanabe (figure 14) discloses a teaching the first extended wire begins to extend obliquely from a linear portion of the first coil wire when viewed in the coil axial direction. 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 first extended wire begins to extend obliquely from a linear portion of the first coil wire when viewed in the coil axial direction as taught by Tanabe to the inductive device of 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12749614
ELECTRICAL ELEMENT, CIRCUIT BOARD, AND SWITCHING POWER SUPPLY
3y 9m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12744152
WINDING ASSEMBLY AND MAGNETIC ASSEMBLY
5y 5m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12744147
COIL DEVICE
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12731726
COIL COMPONENT
4y 3m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12718979
COIL COMPONENT
4y 0m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+13.9%)
3y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 793 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month