DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/6/2025 has been entered.
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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 3/22/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3-22-2023.
Drawings
The drawings filed 7/28/2020 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11-14 , and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al (US 2007/0230088) in view of Herzog (US 2016/0271884).
Fujimura teaches a method of making a multilayer ceramic electronic device such as a capacitor (002-herein understood to read on the claimed “component of an electric machine”), comprising: forming a first lamina of a conductive first material of metal powder (herein the electrode layers are understood to read on the claimed “first material”); depositing a second material on a first surface of the first lamina (abstract-herein the dielectric layer is understood to read on the claimed “second material”); treating the second material to thereby define a first insulative layer (abstract-herein the reoxidation step is understood to read on the claimed treatment), and forming, on the first insulative layer, a second lamina of a conductive third material (herein the external electrode is understood to read on the claimed “third material”). Fujimura teaches the first and second metal build materials are metal powders (e.g. 0037 and 0048) and are deposited as powders in a slurry-herein understood to read on the claimed “depositing a second material as particles” limitation. Said metal particles are subsequently sintered (0013). With regards to the limitation that the “second material is one of electrically conductive of electrically semi-conductive,” Fujimura teaches the deposited dielectric layers are semiconductive after firing in a reducing atmosphere (006) and are, therefore, understood to read on the claimed “”the second material is one of electrically conductive or electrically semi-conductive”. Alternatively, said layer is understood to be electrically conductive or semi-conductive because Fujimura teaches the same second material as applicant claims in claim 9. With regards to the limitation that the second material is treated “to reduce an electrical conductivity of the second material,” the reaction of the second material to re-oxidize the dielectric layer is understood to read on said limitation since the oxidizes of the dielectric layer materials are known to have lower conductivities compared to the precursor materials (e.g. 0095 wherein insufficient reoxidation may lead to a loss of dielectric properties). Since the oxidation treatment will only substantially oxidize the upper layer of the laminate, said treatment is understood to be “applied to the second material without treating the first lamina that is positioned below the second material.” Fujimura further teaches iteratively depositing said layers until the first and second lamina reach a predetermined respective thickness (0030). The layers are deposited on a carrier sheet-herein understood to read on the claimed “build surface” of claim 1.
Fujimura is relied upon as above, but does not teach that the depositing and sintering steps are iteratively repeated. However, Herzog teaches a process of making a multi-layer lamina wherein layers of a build material are individually sintered (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to iteratively repeat the deposition and sintering of individual layers of the lamina taught in Fujimura via laser sintering each layer. The motivation for doing so would have been Herzog teaches such a process is known for individual control of the sintering process of each layer of multilayer lamina.
With regards to claim 4, Fujimura teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the second material further comprises a binder material (0039).
With regards to claim 5, Fujimura teaches the treating step comprises sintering the second material (0081). Alternatively, Fujimura teaches oxidation may be achieved by sintering and Herzog renders obvious the process of individually sintering layers of a multilayer lamina.
With regards to claim 6, Fujimura teaches the second material may comprise a metal nitride and applicant discloses said materials are considered to be electrically conductive materials (0053).
With regards to claim 7, Fujimura teaches the treating step includes at least one of a chemical treatment and a heat treatment (0081-annealing to reoxidize dielectric layer).
With regards to claim 9, Fujimura teaches the second material comprises barium titanate (0037).
With regards to claim 11, Fujimura teaches the step of heat treating the first insulative layer.
With regards to claim 12, Herzog renders obvious the use of laser sintering.
With regards to claim 13, Fujimura teaches the conductive first material may include nickel (0049) which is a magnetic material.
With regards to claim 14, Fujimura teaches the conductive first material may be a different composition from the conductive third material (see inner electrode (0049) and external electrode materials (0091)).
With regards to claim 23, Fujimura teaches under certain annealing conditions the metal of the electrode layer will react with the dielectric base material (0095). Said teaching is understood to read on the claimed second material which “comprises a reactive material for bonding with the first lamina.”
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al (US 2007/0230088) in view of Herzog (US 2016/0271884), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2014/0170830).
Fujimura in view of Herzog is relied upon as above but does not teach the treatment should comprise a plasma surface treatment. However, Fujimura teaches the dielectric layer should be re-oxidized by annealing. Furthermore, Lee teaches reoxidation of a metal layer may be done by treating with oxygen containing plasma or by annealing at low temperature under an oxygen containing gas atmosphere (0043). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to re-oxidize via a plasma treatment rather than annealing. The motivation for doing so would have been Lee teaches said methods are known to be equivalent for re-oxidizing a layer.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al (US 2007/0230088) in view of Herzog (US 2016/0271884), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nagayasu (US2017/0033632).
With regards to claim 21, Fujimura in view of Herzog is relied upon as above, but does not teach the object made by the method may define a core of one of a rotor or a stator of the electric machine. However, Nagayasu teaches electric machines typically comprise a rotor comprising a stack of conductor and insulating layers (0007). Such rotors are used in generators (0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the method of Fujimura in view of Herzog to make a rotor for a generator as disclosed in Nagayasu as said method provides improved methods of building stacks of alternating layers of conductive and insulating layers.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 11-14 , and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al (US 2007/0230088) in view of (a) Herzog (US 2016/0271884) and (b) Fujioka et al (US 2006/0138957).
Fujimura teaches a method of making a multilayer ceramic electronic device such as a capacitor (002-herein understood to read on the claimed “component of an electric machine”), comprising: forming a first lamina of a conductive first material of metal powder (herein the electrode layers are understood to read on the claimed “first material”); depositing a second material on a first surface of the first lamina (abstract-herein the dielectric layer is understood to read on the claimed “second material”); treating the second material to thereby define a first insulative layer (abstract-herein the reoxidation step is understood to read on the claimed treatment), and forming, on the first insulative layer, a second lamina of a conductive third material (herein the external electrode is understood to read on the claimed “third material”). Fujimura teaches the first and second metal build materials are metal powders (e.g. 0037 and 0048). Said metal particles are subsequently sintered (0013). With regards to the limitation that the “second material is one of electrically conductive of electrically semi-conductive,” Fujimura teaches the deposited dielectric layers are semiconductive after firing in a reducing atmosphere (006) and are, therefore, understood to read on the claimed “”the second material is one of electrically conductive or electrically semi-conductive”. Alternatively, said layer is understood to be electrically conductive or semi-conductive because Fujimura teaches the same second material as applicant claims in claim 9. With regards to the limitation that the second material is treated “to reduce an electrical conductivity of the second material,” the reaction of the second material to re-oxidize the dielectric layer is understood to read on said limitation since the oxidizes of the dielectric layer materials are known to have lower conductivities compared to the precursor materials (e.g. 0095 wherein insufficient reoxidation may lead to a loss of dielectric properties). Since the oxidation treatment will only substantially oxidize the upper layer of the laminate, said treatment is understood to be “applied to the second material without treating the first lamina that is positioned below the second material.” Fujimura further teaches iteratively depositing said layers until the first and second lamina reach a predetermined respective thickness (0030). The layers are deposited on a carrier sheet-herein understood to read on the claimed “build surface” of claim 1.
Fujimura teaches the second material is deposited as a green sheet (0038) but does not explicitly teach depositing said layer as a particle. However, Fujioka teaches ceramic layers may be deposited as green sheets or as powders by dry pressing (0045). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the second material as a powder and dry pressing said powder rather than applying a green sheet. The motivation for doing so would have been Fujioka teaches applying powders and dry pressing is a known alternative method in the art of applying such ceramic layers.
Fujimura is relied upon as above, but does not teach that the depositing and sintering steps are iteratively repeated. However, Herzog teaches a process of making a multi-layer lamina wherein layers of a build material are individually sintered (abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to iteratively repeat the deposition and sintering of individual layers of the lamina taught in Fujimura via laser sintering each layer. The motivation for doing so would have been Herzog teaches such a process is known for individual control of the sintering process of each layer of multilayer lamina.
With regards to claim 4, Fujimura teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the second material further comprises a binder material (0039).
With regards to claim 5, Fujimura teaches the treating step comprises sintering the second material (0081). Alternatively, Fujimura teaches oxidation may be achieved by sintering and Herzog renders obvious the process of individually sintering layers of a multilayer lamina.
With regards to claim 6, Fujimura teaches the second material may comprise a metal nitride and applicant discloses said materials are considered to be electrically conductive materials (0053).
With regards to claim 7, Fujimura teaches the treating step includes at least one of a chemical treatment and a heat treatment (0081-annealing to reoxidize dielectric layer).
With regards to claim 9, Fujimura teaches the second material comprises barium titanate (0037).
With regards to claim 11, Fujimura teaches the step of heat treating the first insulative layer.
With regards to claim 12, Herzog renders obvious the use of laser sintering.
With regards to claim 13, Fujimura teaches the conductive first material may include nickel (0049) which is a magnetic material.
With regards to claim 14, Fujimura teaches the conductive first material may be a different composition from the conductive third material (see inner electrode (0049) and external electrode materials (0091)).
With regards to claim 23, Fujimura teaches under certain annealing conditions the metal of the electrode layer will react with the dielectric base material (0095). Said teaching is understood to read on the claimed second material which “comprises a reactive material for bonding with the first lamina.”
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al (US 2007/0230088) in view of Herzog (US 2016/0271884) and (b) Fujioka et al (US 2006/0138957), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2014/0170830).
Fujimura in view of Herzog is relied upon as above but does not teach the treatment should comprise a plasma surface treatment. However, Fujimura teaches the dielectric layer should be re-oxidized by annealing. Furthermore, Lee teaches reoxidation of a metal layer may be done by treating with oxygen containing plasma or by annealing at low temperature under an oxygen containing gas atmosphere (0043). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to re-oxidize via a plasma treatment rather than annealing. The motivation for doing so would have been Lee teaches said methods are known to be equivalent for re-oxidizing a layer.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al (US 2007/0230088) in view of Herzog (US 2016/0271884) and (b) Fujioka et al (US 2006/0138957), as applied to claims above, and further in view of Nagayasu (US2017/0033632).
With regards to claim 21, Fujimura in view of Herzog is relied upon as above, but does not teach the object made by the method may define a core of one of a rotor or a stator of the electric machine. However, Nagayasu teaches electric machines typically comprise a rotor comprising a stack of conductor and insulating layers (0007). Such rotors are used in generators (0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the method of Fujimura in view of Herzog to make a rotor for a generator as disclosed in Nagayasu as said method provides improved methods of building stacks of alternating layers of conductive and insulating layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 11-14 Are Patentable over Fujimura et al. in view of Herzog
With regards to the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Fujimura et al (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0230088, hereinafter "Fujimura") in view of Herzog (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0271884, hereinafter "Herzog"), applicant respectfully submits the cited references, either alone or in combination, fail to show or suggest the limitation “ depositing a second material on a first surface of the first lamina, wherein the second material is one of electrically conductive or electrically semi-conductive and wherein the second material is in the form of a powder…” Specifically, Fujimura discloses ceramic green sheets ( the second material) may comprise "ceramic powder, a solvent, a dispersant, a plasticizer, a binder, and other ingredients are mixed” together. In particular, Applicant respectfully submits that the method where "the internal electrode layer paste is printed on the green sheet" (Fujimura paragraph [0061]), is not the same as "depositing a second material on a first surface of the first lamina" of amended claim 1, where the Office Action relates the first material of the first lamina to the electrode layers and the dielectric layer (formed from ceramic green sheets) to the second material. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as the second material is understood to be deposited on the first material when said layers are stacked.
Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that a ceramic powder used to form a "thin ceramic green sheet" (paragraph [0038] of Fujimura) does not teach or suggest at least "depositing a
second material on a first surface of the first lamina wherein the second material is in
the form of a powder" of amended claim 1 (emphasis added). The examiner respectfully disagrees; as noted by applicant, the second material may comprise "ceramic powder, a solvent, a dispersant, a plasticizer, a binder, and other ingredients are mixed” together. Thus, applicant seems to acknowledge the green sheet comprises powder; thus, it is unclear why applicant disagrees “the second material is in the form of a powder.
Furthermore, in rejecting claim 1, the Office Action, on page 4, alleges that "Fujimura teaches the deposited dielectric layers are semiconductive after firing in a reducing atmosphere (006) and are, therefore, understood to read on the claimed 'the second material is one of electrically conductive or electrically semiconductive'." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Fujimura, in paragraph [0006], states "if firing a green chip in a reducing atmosphere, the dielectric layers are reduced to be converted
into a semiconductor, and the dielectric property of the dielectric layer is liable to be lost." Applicant notes that the prior to the firing in a reducing atmosphere, the dielectric layers are noted as having a "dielectric property" and are not an "electrically conductive or electrically semi-conductive" second material as disclosed in amended claim 1. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive; initially, the examiner notes Fujimura teaches the ceramic powder may comprise barium titanate, which is one of applicant’s claimed “second materials” in claim 9. Since the preferred second material of Fujimura is compositionally identical to applicant’s preferred second material, it is understood to possess the same electrical properties and read on the claimed second material. Furthermore, the claim does not require the second material to be “electrically conductive or electrically semi-conductive” prior to deposition. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim 10 Is Patentable over Fujimura in view of Herzog in view of Lee et al.
With regards to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Fujimura in view of Herzog in view of Lee et al (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0170830, hereinafter "Lee"), Applicant submits that the addition of Lee fails to cure the deficiencies of Fujimura and Herzog with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
Claims 21 and 22 Are Patentable over Fujimura et al. in view of Herzog in view of Nagayasu
With regards to the rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Fujimura in view of Herzog and Nagayasu (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0033632, hereinafter "Nagayasu"), Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 21 and 22be withdrawn for at least the reason that claims 21 and 22 depend from claim 1. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 11-14 Are Patentable over Fujimura et al. in view of Herzog and Fujioka
With regards to the rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11-14, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Fujimura in view of Herzog and Fujioka et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0138957, hereinafter "Fujioka"), Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 11- 14 be withdrawn for at least the following reasons. Said argument is noted but is not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
Furthermore, applicant disagrees that Fujioka teaches ceramic layers may be deposited as green sheets or as powders by dry pressing (0045)." The examiner notes the cited paragraph states the ceramic dielectric 5 may comprise “ A flat plate formed by powder dry pressing…” Thus, it is unclear why applicant disagrees with the examiner’s position of record. Applicant further argues Fujioka does not teach, disclose, or suggest "wherein the second material is one of electrically conductive or electrically semi- conductive" (emphasis added). Said argument is noted but is not persuasive as Fujioka was never relied upon for said teaching.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached on (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights