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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 are amended. Claims 2 and 5-6 are as previously presented. Claims 3-4 and 7-10 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-2 and 5-6 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on April 03, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-9, filed on 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding the ceramic layer thickness and percentage of ceramic particles in an electrode layer and previously presented prior art.
Applicant’s argument regarding the combination of Umemori into Nobori is not persuasive. While it is true that Umemori does not disclose modifying the surface roughness of an electrode embedded in a ceramic structure, Umemori does disclose modifying surface roughness of an electrode in order to allow for better adherence to a thin film. The electrode embedded in a ceramic structure feature is instead disclosed by Nobori. Umemori is only used to show that altering surface roughness of an electrode allows for a benefit in better adherence between an electrode and substrate. As a result, it is the Examiner’s position that the combination of Umemori and Nobori discloses the feature of modifying the surface roughness of an electrode embedded in a ceramic structure.
Regarding the prior art to claim 7, it is the Examiner’s position that Ishii actually does not need to be used as claim 7 does not disclose any embedded capacitive sensor. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 7 are persuasive regarding how the capacitive sensor is combined into modified Nobori.
The Examiner recommends adding into claim 1 the limitation, “An electrode embedded ceramic structure that is a capacitive sensor that utilizes changes in capacitance, comprising: a first ceramic layer”, which would bring the claim more into alignment with that of the allowed Japanese patent (JP 7335348 B2).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2019-183511, filed on 10/04/2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobori et al. (KR 20180086395 A, hereinafter Nobori) in view of Umemori (WO 2013121645 A1) and Oya et al. (JP 2013096888 A, hereinafter Oya) and Shintani (JP 2016212010 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nobori discloses an electrode embedded ceramic structure (Page 7, Para. 3, “The first and second ceramic lower bodies were superimposed with the electrostatic electrode sandwiched therebetween”), comprising:
a first ceramic layer (Page 12, Para. 2, “12: second ceramic honeycomb body”);
an electrode layer formed on a surface of the first ceramic layer (Page 5, Para. 1, “electrostatic electrode paste 14 is printed on the second ceramic substrate 12.”); and
a second ceramic layer covering the first ceramic layer and the electrode layer (Page 12, Para. 2, “11: first ceramic honeycomb body”, where Fig. 1b shows that the second layer 11 covers the electrode layer 14 and the first layer 12), the second ceramic layer being thinner than the first ceramic layer (Fig. 1b, where the thickness of the layer 11 is smaller than that of layer 12),
wherein the electrode layer contains ceramic particles (Page 4, Para. 4 from end, “The paste for the electrostatic electrode and the paste for the heater electrode are not particularly limited, but may include, for example, a conductive material, a ceramic powder, a binder and a solvent.”).
Nobori does not disclose:
wherein a cross section of the first ceramic layer, the electrode layer, and the second ceramic layer in a thickness direction, L1, L2, and L3 satisfy Equation (1) below, where L1 denotes a length of a surface of the electrode layer along an interface between the electrode layer and the first ceramic layer, L2 denotes a length of a surface of the electrode layer along an interface between the electrode layer and the second ceramic layer, and L3 denotes a linear length of the electrode layer in a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction: (L1 + L2) / L3 ≥ 2.2;
a percentage of the ceramic particles in the electrode layer is higher than or equal to 4%,
wherein a thickness of the second ceramic layer ranges from 1 μm to 10 μm.
However, Umemori discloses, in the similar field of electrodes connected to substrates (Page 16, Para. 4 from end, “inorganic layer 14 is continuously formed on the support Zo, the film is gradually deposited on the gas supply surface of the shower electrode 80”), where the surface roughness of an electrode can be increased at the surface that engages with a substrate (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “the surface of the electrode facing the substrate is roughened by blasting or lapping, so that the surface roughness Ra of the facing surface is 0.5 to 40 μm. It is described that it is a degree. In this CCP-CVD apparatus, peeling of the deposited film is prevented by roughening the facing surface.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface of the electrode that touch the ceramic layers, L1 and L2, in Nobori to have a surface roughness value as taught by Umemori; where the surface roughness can increase the length along the interface between the electrode layer and ceramic layers and make it longer than the linear length L3, where it is the Examiner’s position that the surface roughness value represents the average of the vertical deviations from the mean line of the profile, where the interface length can be increased depending on the peak frequency.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to have an electrode with rough interface surfaces in order to prevent peeling, as stated by Umemori, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “the surface of the electrode facing the substrate is roughened by blasting or lapping, so that the surface roughness Ra of the facing surface is 0.5 to 40 μm. It is described that it is a degree. In this CCP-CVD apparatus, peeling of the deposited film is prevented by roughening the facing surface.”.
Regarding applicant’s claimed equation values, it has been held that mere changes in size are obvious modifications to make. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is the Examiner’s position that adjusting the peak frequency for the surface roughness would be a mere matter of adjusting the size of the surface interface length, where the end result of preventing peeling is still maintained as the surface roughness value can be maintained while the peak frequency is adjusted depending on a user’s design choices.
Oya discloses, in the similar field of electrode layers (Abstract, “electrode paste for screen printing with which a porous electrode having a thickness equal to or smaller than 10 μm can be manufactured easily and stably by screen printing”), where the electrode layer similar to Nobori is created through conductive material and ceramic powder, where that ceramic powder percentage is higher than 4% (Page 5, Para. 3, “In addition, the compounding amount (internal vol%) of the ceramic particles is a ratio with respect to the total amount of the Pt particles (electrode metal material) and the ceramic particles. When the compounding amount is 33 vol%, the Pt particles are 67 vol% and the ceramic particles are 33 vol%. The blending amount of the binder (outside wt%) is the blending ratio of the binder to the solid content.”, where the ceramic particle percentage is 33%). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ceramic powder and conductive material percentages in modified Nobori to include the values as taught by Oya.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to achieve an electrode layer that has enough viscosity to not disconnect the electrode when having thickness be reduced, as stated by Oya, Page 5, Para. 4 from end, “As is apparent from Table 1, in the case of each example in which Pt particles having an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 5 μm were used as the electrode metal material and the solid content was 25 to 70 wt%, the electrode was 10 μm or less without disconnecting the electrode. Thickness could be achieved.”.
Shintani discloses, in the similar field of embedded electrodes in ceramic (Page 2, Para. 3 from end, “The insulating thin film 20 is made of an insulating material such as ceramics”, and Abstract, “detection electrode for sensor capable of securing necessary insulation in any situation”), where the thickness of the top ceramic layer that covers the electrode is between 1 μm to 10 μm (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “The thickness of the insulating thin film 20 is preferably 50 μm or less, and more preferably 20 μm or less. This is because when the film thickness is larger than 50 μm, the sensitivity of the detection electrode main body 18 may be lowered.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the second ceramic layer thickness in modified Nobori to be in the range as taught by Shintani.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to have a lower thickness for the covering of the electrode so that greater sensitivity for detection is possible in an electrode used for detecting changes in capacitance, as stated by Shintani, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “This is because when the film thickness is larger than 50 μm, the sensitivity of the detection electrode main body 18 may be lowered.”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nobori teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the length L1 is larger than the length L2 (Teaching from Umemori, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “the surface of the electrode facing the substrate is roughened by blasting or lapping, so that the surface roughness Ra of the facing surface is 0.5 to 40 μm. It is described that it is a degree. In this CCP-CVD apparatus, peeling of the deposited film is prevented by roughening the facing surface.”, where the surface of the electrode facing a substrate can have a roughness that ranges from 0.5 to 40 μm, where a user can choose to have two surfaces facing the two substrates in Nobori to have different surface roughness values; it is the Examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try selecting different surface roughness values, as there are a limited amount of roughness values to choose from and where all the values still achieve the same end result of preventing peeling. As a result, a user could choose different surface roughness values that create different lengths for L1 and L2 as a mere matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nobori teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Nobori does not disclose:
wherein the electrode embedded ceramic structure is a capacitive sensor using change in capacitance.
However, Shintani discloses where the embedded electrode can be a capacitive sensor that detects changes in capacitance (Page 2, Para. 5-6 from end, “The front end surface in the longitudinal direction of the detection electrode body 18 is a circular sensing surface 18a having a diameter of 14 mm that senses a change in the capacitance of the capacitor Cx (the diameter and shape of the sensing surface 18a are limited to this example). Not.) An insulating thin film 20 is formed on the sensing surface 18a.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode in modified Nobori to include the ability to detect changes in capacitance as taught by Shintani.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use the embedded electrode within security alarms, where the ceramic layering on top of the electrode prevents short circuiting, as stated by Shintani, Page 1, last Para., “It is used for various purposes such as security alarm sensors that detect the proximity of small animals. Such an electric sensor has various sensing methods such as capacitance measurement and conductivity measurement. In any of them, various sensing is performed using a sensor detection electrode made of a conductive metal. Yes. The surface of the sensor detection electrode is coated with an insulating resin such as Teflon (registered trademark of DuPont) in order to prevent problems such as short circuit of the electrode due to the electrical characteristics of the measurement object.”.
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobori et al. (KR 20180086395 A, hereinafter Nobori) in view of Umemori (WO 2013121645 A1) and Oya et al. (JP 2013096888 A, hereinafter Oya) and Shintani (JP 2016212010 A) in further view of Nakajima (JP 2010060759 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nobori teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Nobori does not disclose:
wherein the electrode embedded ceramic structure is a surface potential sensor using change in surface potential of the second ceramic layer.
However, Nakajima discloses, in the similar field of embedded electrodes (Page 5, Para. 6, “The thin film electrode layer 32 is formed as a thin film on the inner surface of the folded region of the substrate film layer 31 with the detection electrode portion 32a along the folded line as a thin film pattern.”; and Fig. 4e, where the electrode 32a is shown to be embedded between layers 32b and 31), where the embedded electrode can be used as a surface potential sensor to detect a change in surface potential (Page 6, last Para., “When the detection electrode unit 32 a faces the photosensitive drum 1 at a certain distance, a voltage signal corresponding to a change in the surface potential of the photosensitive drum 1 is extracted from the detection electrode unit 32.”, where this change in surface potential must pass through the top most layer that covers the electrode, which is construed as the second layer). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ceramic layers and embedded electrode in modified Nobori to include the ability for the electrode to detect changes in surface potential in the top most layer or the second ceramic layer as taught by Nakajima.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to determine, in the electrostatic image creation process, areas where moisture adsorption is high through the detection of surface potential, which can allow a user to heat those areas so that defects in image flow can be reduced, as stated by Nakajima, Page 3, Para. 2, “a potential distribution of a predetermined electrostatic image is measured using a detection unit during non-image formation to identify an area where the moisture adsorption amount is large. Then, the rotation of the photoconductor and the heating of the heating means are controlled so that the region where the moisture adsorption amount is large is preferentially heated, so that the total moisture adsorption amount of the entire photosensitive drum can be efficiently reduced.”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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 GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
06/12/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights