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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 6th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed February 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680).
Regarding Claim 1, Takahara teaches a method for manufacturing a ceramic electronic component (Paragraph 10, Manufacturing method for laminated electronic components), comprising: forming a ceramic laminate by stacking ceramic green sheets on which internal electrode patterns are formed (Paragraph 35, The ceramic green sheets 11 and the ceramic green sheets 12 are stacked and the electrode 112 and 122 are overlapped); the ceramic laminate including first regions in which the internal electrode patterns of adjacent ceramic green sheets overlap (Figure 2-3, Showcases the first region defined by (X1,X2) and (Y1, Y2) as the region where electrodes from Green Sheet 11 and 12 overlap) and second regions in which the internal electrode patterns of adjacent ceramic green sheets do not overlap (Figure 2-3, Showcases the Second region defined lines Y1-4 where the electrodes from both green sheets do not overlap); and cutting the ceramic laminate by irradiating the cutting regions with a laser (Paragraph 41, laser irradiation device 91 cuts region based on position information).
Takahara fails to obtain an image of the upper portion of ceramic laminate, and the imagining helps determine cutting regions based on the image by determining the first and second regions based on the image, and setting the second regions as the cutting regions.
Takano teaches cutting a ceramic layer (Paragraph 1, Method of cutting ceramic capacitor) that irradiates visible light on an upper portion of the ceramic laminate (Figure 3A, Light Source 35 irradiates the surface of workspace 10 with illumination light 34 which reads as visible light); obtains a reflective image based on the visible light reflected from an upper portion of the ceramic laminate (Paragraph 28 and 33, Light Source 35 irradiates the surface of workspace 10 and the reflected light into Imaging Device 30 provides an image of the laminated ceramic).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara to incorporate an imaging device as stated in Takano. The reflected light helps detect the difference in the shape of workpieces and provide a detailed image (Paragraph 28-29, Reflected light and Imaging).
Takahara in view of Takano fails to teach that the imagining helps determine cutting regions based on the image by determining the first and second regions based on the image, and setting the second regions as the cutting regions.
Hirooka teaches a method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) that determines cutting regions based on the image by determining the first and second regions based on the image, and setting the second regions as the cutting regions (Paragraph 31 and Figure 4, the image of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern, therefore the cutting regions are obtained).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano to incorporate that the imaging sets the cutting region as stated in Hirooka. This method permits apparatus to obtain stable and highly accurate image of the internal electrode (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Regarding Claim 2, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka teaches that forming of the ceramic laminate includes alternately stacking first ceramic green sheets on which first internal electrode patterns are formed and second ceramic green sheets on which second internal electrode patterns are formed (Takahara: Paragraph 35, the ceramic green sheets 11 and the ceramic green sheets 12 are stacked in an alternating manner. The electrode 112, 122 are overlapped and offset by half of the electrode length. Figure 2-3, Showcases the different electrode pattern).
Regarding Claim 3, Takahara in view of Hirooka teaches a first regions in which the internal electrode patterns of adjacent ceramic green sheets overlap (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the first region defined by (X1,X2) and (Y1, Y2) as the region where electrodes from Green Sheet 11 and 12 overlap) and second regions in which the internal electrode patterns of adjacent ceramic green sheets do not overlap (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the Second region defined lines Y1-4 where the electrodes from both green sheets do not overlap)
Takahara in view of Hirooka fails to teach determining the first and second regions comprises determining regions having different reflectivity within the image and setting region with a relatively higher reflectivity as a regions and regions with a relatively lower reflectivity as another regions.
Takano teaches cutting a ceramic layer (Paragraph 1, Method of cutting ceramic capacitor) where determining the first and second regions comprises determining regions having different reflectivity within the reflective image and setting regions with a relatively higher reflectivity as a regions and regions with a relatively lower reflectivity as another regions (Paragraph 27-33, Workpiece 10 has internal structures that causes recesses. An Imaging device 30 and light source 35 are able to detect the recessed parts as a black part due to the light being absorbed and the region with no internal structure as the white parts due to scattered light).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Hirooka to incorporate obtaining the image of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate as stated in Takano. The reflected light helps detect the difference in the shape of workpieces and provide a detailed image (Paragraph 28-29, Reflected light and Imaging).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka teaches that when a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction is a second direction, in the cutting of the ceramic laminate by irradiating the cutting regions with the laser, the laser is irradiated along centers of the cutting regions in the second direction (Takahara: Figure 2-3 and Paragraph 34-45, Showcases the X1-4 is perpendicular to the stacking direction which is the column direction. Paragraph 43, Laser cutting along the X1-4 lines).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka teaches that the internal electrode patterns have a stripe shape (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases that electrodes 112 and 122 are stripe shaped).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahara view of Takano teaches that determining of the cutting regions includes a third regions in which the first and second internal electrode patterns do not exist, and setting regions of the ceramic laminate corresponding to the second and third regions as the cutting regions (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the third region defined lines X1-4 where the electrodes from both green sheets do not exits. Paragraph 43, Laser cuts along this region X1-4. Paragraph 45, Laser cuts along this region Y1-4).
Takahara view of Takano fails to teach dividing an images into separate regions
Hirooka teaches a method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) that divides the reflective image into regions (Paragraph 31 and Figure 4, the image of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern, therefore the cutting regions are obtained).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano to incorporate that the imaging divides laminated chip into regions as stated in Hirooka. This method permits apparatus to obtain stable and highly accurate image of the internal electrode (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Claims 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680) and Rijnbeek (US Patent No. 5758398).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka fails to teach the power density of the laser is in a range from 1 x 107 W/cm2 to 1 x 10's W/cm2.
Rijnbeek teaches manufacturing a laminated sheet from ceramic layers (Col 1, Line 5-8, Laminated Sheet) where the power density of the laser is in a range from 1 x 107 W/cm2 to 1 x 10's W/cm2 (The low end of the claimed laser power density range converts to 100 kW/mm2, Col 2 Line 48-54, Rijnbeek Laser power density range is 50-500 kW/mm2).
Rijnbeek teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges power density of the laser does not cover the full range claimed. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the range of the power density of the laser to be range from 1 x 107 W/cm2 to 1 x 10's W/cm2 would allow for High cutting speed. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the power density of the laser is in a range from 1 x 107 W/cm2 to 1 x 10's W/cm2 this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 11, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka fails to teach forming of the ceramic laminate includes compressing the ceramic laminate to depress at least partial regions of the ceramic laminate in a stacking direction of the ceramic green sheets.
Rijnbeek teaches manufacturing a laminated sheet from ceramic layers (Col 1, Line 5-8, Laminated Sheet) where forming of the ceramic laminate includes compressing the ceramic laminate to depress at least partial regions of the ceramic laminate in a stacking direction of the ceramic green sheets (Col 4 Line 22-26, Ceramic stack will be compressed in the stacking direction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka to incorporate compressing the ceramic green sheets as stated in Rijnbeek. Compressing the sheets is a vital part in creating the laminated sheet (Col 4 Line 22-26, Process of manufacturing laminated sheets).
Regarding Claim 12, Takahara in view of Takano and Rijnbeek teaches that the determining of the cutting regions includes a first regions in which the first and second internal electrode patterns overlap each other in the stacking direction (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the first region defined by (X1,X2) and (Y1, Y2) as the region where electrodes from Green Sheet 11 and 12 overlap) and second regions in which the first and second internal electrode patterns do not overlap each other, and setting regions of the ceramic laminate corresponding to the second regions as the cutting regions (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the Second region defined lines Y1-4 where the electrodes from both green sheets do not overlap. Paragraph 45, Laser cuts along this region).
Takahara view of Takano and Rijnbeek fails to teach dividing an images into separate regions
Hirooka teaches a method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) that divides the reflective image into regions (Paragraph 31 and Figure 4, the image of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern, therefore the cutting regions are obtained).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Rijnbeek to incorporate that the imaging divides laminated chip into regions as stated in Hirooka. This method permits apparatus to obtain stable and highly accurate image of the internal electrode (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Regarding Claim 13, Takahara in view of Takano, Hirooka, and Rijnbeek teaches that when a direction perpendicular to the stacking direction is a second direction, in the cutting of the ceramic laminate by irradiating the cutting regions with the laser, the laser is irradiated along centers of the cutting regions in the second direction (Takahara: Figure 2-3 and Paragraph 34-45, Showcases the X1-4 is perpendicular to the stacking direction which is the column direction. Paragraph 43, Laser cutting along the X1-4 lines).
Regarding Claim 14, Takahara in view of Takano, Hirooka, and Rijnbeek teaches that the internal electrode patterns have a stripe shape (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases that electrodes 112 and 122 are stripe shaped).
Regarding Claim 15, Takahara in view of Takano and Rijnbeek teaches that the determining of the cutting regions includes a first regions in which the first and second internal electrode patterns overlap each other in the stacking direction (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the first region defined by (X1,X2) and (Y1, Y2) as the region where electrodes from Green Sheet 11 and 12 overlap), second regions in which the first and second internal electrode patterns do not overlap each other (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the Second region defined lines Y1-4 where the electrodes from both green sheets do not overlap), and third regions in which the first and second internal electrode patterns do not exist, and setting regions of the ceramic laminate corresponding to the second and third regions as the cutting regions (Takahara: Figure 2-3, Showcases the third region defined lines X1-4 where the electrodes from both green sheets do not exits. Paragraph 43, Laser cuts along this region X1-4. Paragraph 45, Laser cuts along this region Y1-4).
Takahara view of Takano and Rijnbeek fails to teach dividing an images into separate regions
Hirooka teaches a method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) that divides the reflective image into regions (Paragraph 31 and Figure 4, the image of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern, therefore the cutting regions are obtained).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Rijnbeek to incorporate that the imaging divides laminated chip into regions as stated in Hirooka. This method permits apparatus to obtain stable and highly accurate image of the internal electrode (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680) and Asai (US Patent No. 20170301470).
Regarding Claim 7, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka fails to teach that the ceramic laminate includes cover regions disposed at outermost portions of the plurality of internal electrode patterns in a stacking direction of the ceramic green sheets, and a thickness of each of the cover regions is 40 µm or less.
Asai teaches a method of producing a ceramic electronic component (Paragraph 2, Method of producing the ceramic electronic component) where the ceramic laminate includes cover regions disposed at outermost portions of the plurality of internal electrode patterns in a stacking direction of the ceramic green sheets, and a thickness of each of the cover regions is 40 µm or less (Figure 4-5, Cover regions W1 and W2 disposed at outermost portion in stacking direction. Paragraph 91, W1 of the cover 17 and a thickness W2 of the side margin 18 is 2 µm or more and 100 µm or less. Therefore, the thickness falls within the range).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka to incorporate cover regions as stated Asai. The thickness is advantageous to provide the ceramic electronic component with a large capacity (Paragraph 91, Advantages of cover region thickness).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680), Rijnbeek (US Patent No. 5758398) and Kaneoka (JP Patent No. 2003164984).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahara in view of Takano, and Hirooka fails to teach the diameter of the cut and that the laser is focused by a focus lens and that the laser is focused to a spot having a diameter in a range from 1 µm to 20 µm.
Rijnbeek teaches manufacturing a laminated sheet from ceramic layers (Col 1, Line 5-8, Laminated Sheet) where the laser is focused by a focusing lens (Rijnbeek Figure 6, focusing lens 617).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka to incorporate a focus lens as stated in Rijnbeek. A focus lens would allow for a high-quality cutting performance (Col 2 Line 41-45, Focus lens Advantage).
Takahara in view of Takano, Hirooka, and Rijnbeek fails to teach the laser is focused to a spot having a diameter in a range from 1 µm to 20 µm.
Kaneoka teaches a laser processing apparatus for cutting metal and nonmetal (Paragraph 1, Laser Apparatus), where the laser is focused to a spot having a diameter in a range from 1 µm to 20 µm (Paragraph 8, the focused laser beam spot diameter is 1.0 mm or less. When converted to µm, its 1000 µm or less which covers the range of the claim).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano, Hirooka, and Rijnbeek to incorporate the laser’s cutting diameter as stated in Kaneoka. A laser beam diameter is important for processing the workpieces to yield desired results (Paragraph 7, Laser cutting characteristics depend on the laser’s diameter).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680), Mori (JP Patent No. 09260184), and Galvagni (US Patent No. 5388024).
Regarding Claim 10, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka fails to teach an angle formed between a cut surface of the ceramic laminate and a stacking direction of the ceramic green sheets is a machining angle and that the matching angle is 30º or less.
Mori teaches cutting a ceramic capacitor (Paragraph 1, ceramic capacitor) where an angle formed between a cut surface of the ceramic laminate and a stacking direction of the ceramic green sheets is a machining angle (Figure 2, Showcases Ceramic Element 1 is cut on both sides where a matching angle is formed between the surface of the ceramic laminate and a stacking direction of the ceramic layers).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka to incorporate angle formed between a cut surface of the ceramic laminate as stated in Mori. The shape achieved by cutting the ceramic laminate on both sides to have matching angles ensures stability when mounting (Paragraph 7-8, Shape of Ceramic Chip).
Furthermore, Takahara in view of Takano, Hirooka and Mori fails to teach that the matching angle is 3º or less.
Galvagni teaches a ceramic chip capacitor (Col 1Line 5-6, chip capacitor) where the matching angles of the cut is 30º (Col 4 Line 19-20, The angle formed is 30º).
Additionally, even though Galvagni doesn’t teach the full range of the angle formed by a cut, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the range the full range of the angle formed by a cut would allow more stability of the stability of the edges of the ceramic capacitor . In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, the applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the method of manufacturing the ceramic laminate would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of angles formed by a cut this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680), Rijnbeek (US Patent No. 5758398) and Asai (US Patent No. 20170301470).
Regarding Claim 16, Takahara in view of Takano, Hirooka, and Rijnbeek fails to teach that the ceramic laminate includes cover regions disposed at outermost portions of the plurality of internal electrode patterns in the stacking direction, and a thickness of each of the cover regions is in a range from 40 µm to 300 µm.
Asai teaches a method of producing a ceramic electronic component (Paragraph 2, Method of producing the ceramic electronic component) where the ceramic laminate includes cover regions disposed at outermost portions of the plurality of internal electrode patterns in the stacking direction, and a thickness of each of the cover regions is in a range from 40 µm to 300 µm (Figure 4-5, Cover regions W1 and W2 disposed at outermost portion in stacking direction. Paragraph 91, W1 of the cover 17 and a thickness W2 of the side margin 18 is 2 µm or more and 100 µm or less).
While Asai may not expressly teach the cover regions having the thickness 40 µm to 300 µm of the instant claim, Asai teaches the thickness of the cover regions is between 2 µm and 100 µm. The courts have held the following: 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the method of manufacturing ceramic would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of cover region thickness this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680) and Seki (JP Patent No. 2013004870).
Regarding Claim 17, Takahara in view of Hirooka fails to teach that the obtaining of the image of the upper portion of the ceramic laminate comprises irradiating a surface of the ceramic laminate using a light source and obtaining the image of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate, and where the light source has a wavelength in a range from 400 nm to 600 nm.
Takano teaches cutting a ceramic layer (Paragraph 1, Method of cutting ceramic capacitor) where obtaining the reflective image of the upper portion of the ceramic laminate comprises irradiating a surface of the ceramic laminate with using a light source and obtaining the reflective image of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate (Paragraph 28 and 33, Light Source 35 irradiates the surface of workspace 10 and the reflected light into Imaging Device 30 provides an image of the laminated ceramic).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Hirooka to incorporate obtaining the image of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate as stated in Takano. The reflected light helps detect the difference in the shape of workpieces and provide a detailed image (Paragraph 28-29, Reflected light and Imaging).
Furthermore, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka fails to teach that the light source has a wavelength in a range from 400 nm to 600 nm.
Seki teaches a manufacturing an electronic component like a ceramic capacitor (Paragraph 1, Manufacturing electronic component) where the light source has a wavelength in a range from 400 nm to 600 nm (Paragraph 54, Light source 203 having a wave length of 405nm irradiates the top portion of the ceramic laminate).
Seki teaches the claimed invention except that light source wavelength does not cover the full 400 nm to 600 nm range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the at range of wavelength the light source operates at is between 400-600 nanometers would allow for emission of an optimal light beam. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that the wavelength of the light between 400-600 nanometers this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 19, Takahara in view of Takano and Seki fails to teach the determining of cutting regions comprises setting cutting regions based on an intensity of the light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate.
Hirooka teaches am method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) where determining cutting regions comprises setting cutting regions based on intensity of the light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate (Paragraph 31 and Figure 4, the image of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern as most light is reflected away and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern as most light is not reflected away, therefore the intensity of light determines the cutting regions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Seki to incorporate that the cutting regions are based on intensity of the light as stated in Hirooka. This method allows to obtain stable and highly accurate image of the internal electrode (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Claims 18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680).
Regarding Claim 18, Takahara fails to teach that the obtaining of the reflective image of the upper portion of the ceramic laminate comprises irradiating a surface of the ceramic laminate with light, the surface being parallel to the internal electrode patterns and where a wavelength of the light is selected such that an intensity of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate is inversely proportional to a number of underlying internal electrode patterns.
Takano teaches cutting a ceramic layer (Paragraph 1, Method of cutting ceramic capacitor) where obtaining the reflective image of the upper portion of the ceramic laminate comprises irradiating a surface of the ceramic laminate with light, the surface being parallel to the internal electrode patterns (Paragraph 28 and 33, Light Source 35 irradiates the surface of workspace 10 and the reflected light into Imaging Device 30 provides an image of the laminated ceramic)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Hirooka to incorporate obtaining the image of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate as stated in Takano. The reflected light helps detect the difference in the shape of workpieces and provide a detailed image (Paragraph 28-29, Reflected light and Imaging).
Takahara in view of Takano fails to teach that an intensity of light reflected from the surface where a wavelength of the light is selected such that intensity of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate is inversely proportional to a number of underlying internal electrode patterns.
Hirooka teaches am method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) where a wavelength of the light is selected such that intensity of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate is inversely proportional to a number of underlying internal electrode patterns (Paragraph 30-31, process of irradiating light on top surface of ceramic includes selecting a wavelength in which light is not reflected back when it contacts an electrode therefore the image where of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern due to low or no light and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern due to high amount of light reflected).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano to incorporate that intensity of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate is inversely proportional to a number of underlying internal electrode patterns as stated in Hirooka. This method allows to obtain an image of the internal electrode and helps determine cutting regions (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Regarding Claim 20, Takahara in view of Takano fails to teach that the determining of the cutting regions comprises measuring brightness of different regions in the reflected image, and setting cutting regions based on the measured brightness.
Hirooka teaches am method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) where determining cutting regions comprises measuring brightness of different regions in the reflected image, and setting cutting regions based on the measured brightness (Paragraph 31 and Figure 4, the image of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern, therefore the brightness determines the cutting regions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano to incorporate that brightness determines cutting regions as stated in Hirooka. This method allows to obtain stable and highly accurate image of the internal electrode (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Regarding Claim 21, Takahara in view of Takano fails to teach a light having a wavelength selected such that intensity of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate is inversely proportional to a number of underlying internal electrode patterns and setting regions having relatively high brightness in the reflected image as the cutting regions.
Hirooka teaches a method of manufacturing a ceramic laminated chip (Paragraph 2, Ceramic Laminated Chip) where the obtaining of the reflected image comprises irradiating a surface of the ceramic laminate (Paragraph 30 and Figure 1, Top portion of the ceramic laminate is irradiated with light) with light having a wavelength selected such that an intensity of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate is inversely proportional to a number of underlying internal electrode patterns (Paragraph 30-31, process of irradiating light on top surface of ceramic includes selecting a wavelength in which light is not reflected back when it contacts an electrode therefore the image where of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern due to low or no light and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern due to high amount of light reflected. Paragraph 31 determines cutting region), and setting regions having relatively high brightness in the reflected image as the cutting regions (Paragraph 31 and Figure 4, the image of the internal electrode is distinguished by a black pattern and the ceramic portion without the internal electrode is shown as a white pattern, therefore the brightness determines the cutting regions).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano to incorporate that the that intensity of light reflected from the surface of the ceramic laminate is inversely proportional to a number of underlying internal electrode patterns as stated in Hirooka. This method allows to obtain an image of the internal electrode and helps determine cutting regions (Paragraph 31, Imaging advantage).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahara (US Patent No. 20050081987) in view of Takano (JP Patent No. 2013063490) and further in view of Hirooka (JP Patent No. 2000021680) and Murakami (US Patent No. 10414001).
Regarding Claim 22, Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka fails to teach a that the laser is generated by a laser generator, and a scanner receives the generated laser, and the scanner serves to irradiate the cutting regions, and the scanner includes a Galvano scanner and/or an acoustic optical modulator (AOD).
Murakami teaches a laser wielding device (Figure 2, Laser Wielding) where the laser is generated by a laser generator (Figure 2, Laser Source 4), and a scanner receives the generated laser (Figure 2, Galvanometer scanner 50 receives laser from Laser Source 4), and the scanner serves to irradiate the cutting regions (Paragraph 2, Galvanometer scanner 50 transmits laser to laser head 5 and onto the workpiece for cutting), and the scanner includes a Galvano scanner and/or an acoustic optical modulator (AOD) (Paragraph 2, Galvanometer scanner 50).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahara in view of Takano and Hirooka to incorporate a scanner as stated in Murakami. A galvanometer scanner can increase reliability by reducing burden on a mechanism unit during scanning of a machining target with a laser beam. (Col 2 Line 46-48, Galvanometer scanner 50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-8, filed February 19, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicants argues that none of the prior art teaches a visible light. However, Takano teaches an illumination light 34 which reads as a visible light.
Applicants argues that Hirooka and Takano cannot be combined as the visible light in Takano would be able to transmit through the workpiece to find internal components. However, Hirooka teaches a transmitted light beam that produces image of internal electrodes (Paragraph 15, Internal Electrodes). The light beam reads as a visible light and is capable of transmitting through the ceramic body. Therefore it can be combined with Takano.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 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 at (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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761