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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and its depending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aman et al. (US Publication 2008/0226944).
In re claim 16, Aman discloses a multilayer electronic component, comprising:
a body (10 – Figure 1, ¶50) including a dielectric layer (2 – Figure 1, ¶50) and an internal electrode (3 – Figure 1, ¶50); and
an external electrode (4 – Figure 1, ¶50) disposed outside the body and connected to the internal electrode (Figure 1), wherein the dielectric layer includes a plurality of dielectric crystal grains (¶21), and at least one of the plurality of dielectric crystal grains includes a core-shell structure including an inner core area (21a – Figure 2, Figure 3) and a shell area (21b – Figure 2, Figure 3) covering at least a portion of the core area (Figure 2, Figure 3), and
when, in the core area, an area from the center point of the core area of a ½ point of the core area outward is defined as a first core area (Sample 1 data points from 0 to 125 nm shown in Figure 5), and an area from the ½ point of the core area to the an outer boundary of the core area is defined a second core area (Sample 1 data points from greater than 125 nm to 250 nm shown in Figure 5), an average content of a rare earth element (Figure 3, ¶18) included in the first core area area is greater than 0.00 at% and less than 0.20 at% (Figure 5: Sample 1), an average content of rare earth elements in the second area is higher than the average content of rare earth elements in the first core area (Figure 5: Sample 1).
In re claim 17, Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 16, as explained above. Aman further discloses wherein the rare earth element includes one or more selected from La, Y, Ac, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu (¶18, Figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inomata et al. (US Publication 2023/0081197) in view of Takashi et al. (WO2010024188A1) in view of Aman et al. (US Publication 2008/0226944).
In re claim 1, Inomata discloses a multilayer electronic component, comprising:
a body (10 – Figure 1, Figure 2, ¶30) including a dielectric layer (11 – Figure 2, ¶31) and an internal electrode (12 – Figure 2, ¶31); and
an external electrode (20a, 20b – Figure 2, ¶30) disposed outside the body (10 – Figure 1, Figure 2) and connected to the internal electrode (3 – Figure 1),
wherein the dielectric layer (11 – Figure 2, Figure 4) includes a plurality of dielectric crystal grains (D1 dielectric grains – Figure 4, ¶43), and
90% or more of the plurality of dielectric crystal grains satisfy an average size of 170.0 nm to 190.0 nm (Table 1: Example 1, ¶77-80; Note that the Examiner can further arbitrarily choose crystal grains that cumulatively satisfy the average grain size, since the Applicant has not defined the dielectric layer to consist of a plurality of dielectric grains.).
Inomata does not explicitly disclose a maximum deviation of sizes of the dielectric crystal grains satisfies + 60.0 nm compared to an average size of the dielectric crystal grains.
Takashi discloses narrowing the particle size distribution to increase the dispersibility, and thus improve insulation characteristics and reduce short-circuit failure (¶5, ¶98 – Takashi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the particle size distribution to improve dispersibility, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Inomata does not disclose at least one of the plurality of dielectric crystal grains includes a core-shell structure including an inner core area and a shell area covering at least a portion of the core area.
Aman discloses at least one of the plurality of dielectric crystal grains (20 – Figure 2, ¶66 ¶23) includes a core-shell structure including an inner core area (22a – Figure 2, ¶66) and a shell area (22b – Figure 2, ¶66) covering at least a portion of the core area (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shell-core structure of Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman).
In re claim 2, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein a coefficient of variation (CV), which is a ratio of a standard deviation value of the sizes of the dielectric crystal grains to the average size of the dielectric crystal grain, satisfies less than 30%.
Takashi discloses narrowing the particle size distribution to increase the dispersibility, and thus improve insulation characteristics and reduce short-circuit failure (¶5, ¶98 – Takashi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the particle size distribution to improve dispersibility, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 3, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein the core area includes a rare earth element.
Aman discloses the core area (20a – Figure 3) includes a rare earth element (¶18, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shell-core structure of Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman).
In re claim 4, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein when, in the core area, an area from a center point of the core area to a 1/2 point of the core area outward from the center point is defined as a first core area, and an area from the 1/2 point of the core area to an outer boundary of the core area is defined as a second core area, the first core area includes a rare earth element.
Aman discloses when, in the core area, an area from a center point of the core area (20a – Figure 3) to a 1/2 point of the core area outward from the center point is defined as a first core area (Figure 3, Figure 5), and an area from the 1/2 point of the core area to an outer boundary of the core area is defined as a second core area (Figure 3, Figure 5), the first core area includes a rare earth element (¶18, Figure 3, Figure 5: See Sample 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shell-core structure of Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman).
In re claim 5, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 4, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein an average content of the rare earth element included in the first core area is greater than 0.00 at% and less than 0.20 at%.
Aman discloses wherein an average content of the rare earth element included in the first core area is greater than 0.00 at% and less than 0.20 at% (Figure 3, Figure 5: Sample 5; Note that the concentration is well below 0.20 at% and above 0.0 at% as indicated by Figures 3 and 5.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shell-core structure of Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman).
In re claim 6, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 4, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein an average content of the rare earth element included in an area from the center point of the core area to a 1/2 point of the first core area is greater than 0.00 at% and less than or equal to 0.05 at%.
Aman discloses adjusting the rare earth concentration at the core boundary, and thus the gradient concentration within the core, to achieve a device having improved temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature values (¶76-77, ¶139-141, Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the rare earth concentration at the core boundary, and thus the gradient concentration within the core, as described by Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 7, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 6, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein a content of the rare earth element at the center point of the core area is greater than 0. 00 at% and less than or equal to 0.05 at%.
Aman discloses adjusting the rare earth concentration at the core boundary, and thus the gradient concentration within the core, to achieve a device having improved temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature values (¶76-77, ¶139-141, Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the rare earth concentration at the core boundary, and thus the gradient concentration within the core, as described by Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 8, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 3, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein the shell area includes the rare earth element, the core area includes a first core area in which an average content of the rare earth element satisfies greater than 0.00 at% and less than 0. 20 at% and a second core area covering at least a portion of the first core area, and an average content of the rare earth element included in the second core area is higher than the average content of the rare earth element included in the first core area and lower than an average content of the rare earth element included in the shell area.
Aman discloses wherein the shell area (20b – Figure 3) includes the rare earth element (Figure 3), the core area (20a – Figure 3) includes a first core area in which an average content of the rare earth element satisfies greater than 0.00 at% and less than 0. 20 at% (Figure 3, Figure 5: Sample 1) and a second core area covering at least a portion of the first core area (Figure 3; Note that element 20a can be divided into an outer an inner region.), and an average content of the rare earth element included in the second core area is higher than the average content of the rare earth element included in the first core area and lower than an average content of the rare earth element included in the shell area (Figure 3, Figure 5: Sample 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shell-core structure of Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman).
In re claim 9, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above.
Inomata further discloses the dielectric layer (11 – Figure 2) includes a main component of base material (¶13).
Inomata does not disclose the dielectric layer includes a sub-component including a rare earth element, and an average content of the rare earth element is higher in the shell area than in the core area.
Aman discloses the dielectric layer (2 – Figure 1, ¶50) includes a sub-component including a rare earth element (¶18, Figure 3), and an average content of the rare earth element is higher in the shell (20b – Figure 3) area than in the core area (20a – Figure 3) (Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shell-core structure of Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman).
In re claim 10, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 3, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein the rare earth element includes one or more selected from La, Y, Ac, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu.
Aman discloses wherein the rare earth element includes one or more selected from La, Y, Ac, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, and Lu (¶18, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the shell-core structure of Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inomata et al. (US Publication 2023/0081197) in view of Takashi et al. (WO2010024188A1) and in further view of Aman et al. (US Publication 2008/0226944) and in further view of Choi et al. (US Publication 2020/0194178).
In re claim 11, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein the external electrode includes a first electrode layer that is disposed on the body and includes a first conductive metal and glass, and a second electrode layer that is disposed on the first electrode layer and includes a second conductive metal and a resin.
Choi discloses wherein the external electrode (131, 132 – Figure 3, ¶45) includes a first electrode layer (131a, 132a – Figure 3, ¶45) that is disposed on the body (110 – Figure 3, ¶25) and includes a first conductive metal and glass (¶46), and a second electrode layer (131b, 132b – Figure 3, ¶45) that is disposed on the first electrode layer and includes a second conductive metal and a resin (¶51).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the external electrode structure as described by Choi to achieve a device having desired conductivity and mechanical strength.
In re claim 12, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman and in further view of Choi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 11, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein the external electrode further includes a plating layer disposed on the first and second electrode layers.
Choi discloses wherein the external electrode (131, 132 – Figure 3) further includes a plating layer (131c, 132c – Figure 3, ¶54) disposed on the first and second electrode layers (131a, 132a, 131b, 132b – Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the plating layers of Choi to improve the mounting characteristics of the electronic component.
In re claim 13, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman and in further view of Choi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 12, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein the plating layer includes a first plating layer that is disposed on the first and second electrode layers and includes a first plating metal, and a second plating layer that is disposed on the first plating layer and includes a second plating metal.
Choi discloses wherein the plating layer includes a first plating layer (131c, 132c – Figure 3) that is disposed on the first and second electrode layers (131a, 132a, 131b, 132b – Figure 3) and includes a first plating metal (¶54), and a second plating layer (131d, 132d – Figure 3, ¶54) that is disposed on the first plating layer and includes a second plating metal (Figure 3, ¶54).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the plating layers of Choi to improve the mounting characteristics of the electronic component.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inomata et al. (US Publication 2023/0081197) in view of Takashi et al. (WO2010024188A1) and in further view of Aman et al. (US Publication 2008/0226944) and in further view of Takashima (US Publication 2019/0371528).
In re claim 14, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Inomata does not disclose wherein the dielectric layer includes dielectric layers, and an average thickness of at least one of the dielectric layers is 0.4 µm or less.
Takashima discloses wherein the dielectric layer includes dielectric layers, and an average thickness of at least one of the dielectric layers is 0.4 µm or less (¶35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the dielectric layer thickness as described by Takashima to achieve a device having a desired capacitance.
In re claim 15, Inomata in view of Takashi and in further view Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Inomata further discloses wherein the internal electrode includes internal electrodes (12 – Figure 1).
Inomata does not disclose wherein an average thickness of at least one of the internal electrodes is 0.4 µm or less.
Takashima discloses wherein an average thickness of at least one of the internal electrodes is 0.4 µm or less. (¶35).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the internal electrode layer thickness as described by Takashima to achieve a device having a ESR characteristics.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman et al. (US Publication 2008/0226944) in view of Inomata et al. (US Publication 2023/0081197) and in further view of Takashi et al. (WO2010024188A1).
In re claim 18, Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 16, as explained above. Aman does not disclose wherein 90% or more of the plurality of dielectric crystal grains satisfy an average size of 170.0 nm to 190.0 nm, and a maximum deviation of sizes of the dielectric crystal grains satisfies +60. 0 nm compared to an average size of the dielectric crystal grains.
Inomata discloses wherein the dielectric layer (11 – Figure 2) includes a plurality of dielectric crystal grains, and
90% or more of the plurality of dielectric crystal grains satisfy an average size of 170.0 nm to 190.0 nm (Table 1, Example 1; Note that the Examiner can further arbitrarily choose crystal grains that cumulatively satisfy the average grain size, since the Applicant has not defined the dielectric layer to consist of a plurality of dielectric grains.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the crystal grain size as described by Inomata to suppress the formation of cracks in the dielectric layer (¶43: Inomata).
Aman does not disclose a maximum deviation of sizes of the dielectric crystal grains satisfies + 60.0 nm compared to an average size of the dielectric crystal grains.
Takashi discloses narrowing the particle size distribution to increase the dispersibility, and thus improve insulation characteristics and reduce short-circuit failure (¶5, ¶98 – Takashi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the particle size distribution to improve dispersibility, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 19, Aman in view of Inomata and in further view of Takashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 18, as explained above. Aman does not disclose wherein a coefficient of variation (CV), which is a ratio of a standard deviation value of the sizes of the dielectric crystal grains to the average size of the dielectric crystal grain, satisfies less than 30%.
Takashi discloses narrowing the particle size distribution to increase the dispersibility, and thus improve insulation characteristics and reduce short-circuit failure (¶5, ¶98 – Takashi). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the particle size distribution to improve dispersibility and, thus, improve insulation characteristics and reduce short-circuit failure (¶5, ¶98 – Takashi), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aman et al. (US Publication 2008/0226944).
In re claim 20, Aman discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 16, as explained above. Aman discloses when in area from a center point of the core area (20a – Figure 3) to a 1/2 point of the core area outward from the center point is defined as a first core area (Figure 3, Figure 5).
Aman does not disclose wherein an average content of the rare earth element included in an area from the center point of the core area to a 1/2 point of the first core area is greater than 0.00 at% and less than or equal to 0.05 at%.
Aman discloses adjusting the rare earth concentration at the core boundary, and thus the gradient concentration within the core, to achieve a device having improved temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature values (¶76-77, ¶139-141, Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the rare earth concentration at the core boundary, and thus the gradient concentration within the core, as described by Aman to improve the temperature change rate of capacitance at high temperature and IR life time (¶12 – Aman), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamazaki et al. (US Publication 2010/0188797) Figure 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN RAMASWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-1962. 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, Timothy Dole can be reached at (571) 272-2229. 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.
/ARUN RAMASWAMY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848