DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicants election of the invention of Species A, Claims 1 through 8, in the reply filed on April 24, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9 through 20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 April 24, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 through 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, it is unclear if the latter recitations of “a side margin portion” (first occurrence on line 11, second occurrence on lines 13-14) are referring to an earlier recitation of “a side margin portion” (lines 7-8). For purposes of examination, each of these recitations will be treated as the very same side margin portion.
In Claim 6, it is unclear if the latter recitation of “a side margin portion” (line 5) is referring to an earlier recitation of “a side margin portion” (lines 7-8 of Claim 1).
In Claim 8, it is unclear if the latter recitation of “a side margin portion” (line 3) is referring to an earlier recitation of “a side margin portion” (lines 7-8 of Claim 1).
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, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2019-16688 (hereinafter “JP’688”)1 in view of the teachings of Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2020-43250 (hereinafter “JP’250)2 and U.S. Publication 2020/0291273 to Kwon et al (hereinafter “Kwon”).
Claim 1: JP’688 discloses a method of manufacturing a multilayer electronic component, the method comprising:
cutting a stack, in which a plurality of internal electrode patterns (e.g. 32) and a plurality of ceramic green sheets (e.g. 31) are alternately stacked in a stacking direction, in the stacking direction to obtain a plurality of unit chips (e.g. 19, ¶¶ [0048], [0049]); and
attaching a portion of a ceramic green sheet (e.g. 42b) for a side margin portion (e.g. at 20) to one of the plurality of unit chips in a direction, different from the stacking direction (e.g. Figs. 9a, 9b),
wherein the attaching includes attaching the portion of the ceramic green sheet for the side margin portion to the one chip by compression between a first elastic body (e.g. 43) on which the ceramic green sheet for the side margin portion is disposed and the one unit chip (e.g. ¶¶ [0085], [0086]); and
the first elastic body includes a first elastic layer (e.g. 43) having a first elastic modulus and a second elastic layer (e.g. 42a) having a second elastic modulus, different from the first elastic modulus [because each is formed of different materials], and the second elastic layer being disposed between the one unit chip and the first elastic layer (e.g. Fig. 9b).
JP’688 does not teach that the portion of the ceramic green sheet is attached to more than one unit chip (i.e. plurality of unit chips) and does not mention an actual value of elastic modulus for the first elastic body.
JP’250 discloses manufacturing an art-recognized equivalent multilayer electronic component (e.g. Fig. 9) that includes obtaining a plurality of unit chips (e.g. 116, Fig. 11a); and
attaching a portion of a ceramic green sheet (e.g. 117s) for a side margin portion (e.g. S) to the plurality of unit chips simultaneously, in a direction, different from a stacking direction (e.g. Figs. 11b, 12);
wherein the attaching includes attaching the portion of the ceramic green sheet for the side margin portion to the plurality of unit chips by compression between a first elastic body (e.g. E1) on which the ceramic green sheet for the side margin portion is disposed and the plurality of unit chips (e.g. ¶ [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of JP’688 by attaching the portion of the ceramic green sheet to a side margin portion of a plurality of unit chips simultaneously, as opposed to just one unit chip, as taught by JP’250, to save overall manufacturing time and materials by manufacturing chips simultaneously, as opposed to each one individually, one at a time.
The first elastic body of JP’688 includes the first elastic layer (e.g. 43) that can comprise of rubber, which inherently has an elastic modulus (e.g. ¶ [0085]).
Kwon teaches that an elastic body of rubber used in various types of electronic devices or circuits (e.g. ¶¶ [0002], [0003]) has an elastic modulus of 1 MPa to 1000 MPa (e.g. ¶ [0055]), which overlaps the claimed range between 50 MPa to 1000 MPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first elastic body of JP’688 would have an elastic modulus with a value between 50 MPa to 1000 MPa, as the material of rubber would have such an elastic modulus as taught by the properties of Kwon.
Regarding Claim 2, in the modified method of JP’688, JP’688 teaches that the first elastic layer is made of natural rubber as mentioned previously. The second elastic layer (e.g. 42a) of JP’688 can be made of a resin (e.g. ¶ [0085]). Again, Kwon teaches that resins and rubber can each have an elastic modulus of 1 MPa to 1000 MPa (e.g. ¶ [0055]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first and second elastic modulus of JP’688 would exceed 50 MPa, based on the materials of the first and second elastic layers and the teachings of Kwon regarding the values of elastic modulus for these materials.
Regarding Claim 5, as mentioned previously, the first elastic layer of JP’688 is natural rubber and that the second elastic layer can be a resin. Kwon teaches that a kwon substitute for resin is silicone or silicone rubber (e.g. ¶ [0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the silicone of Kwon for the resin of JP’688 to achieve the same elastic modulus for the second elastic layer.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’688 in view of JP’250 and Kwon, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0186017 to Maeda (hereinafter “Maeda”).
JP’688, as modified by JP’250 and Kwon, disclose the claimed manufacturing method as relied upon above in Claim 1. JP’688 further discloses that a thickness of the first elastic layer (e.g. 43) is greater than a thickness of the second elastic layer (e.g. 42a, see Fig. 9a). Kwon teaches that the first elastic modulus can be up 1000 MPa.
Maeda suggest one example (e.g. Example 11, ¶ [0090]) where an elastic modulus of resin can be greater than 1000 MPa, e.g. 1010 MPa, see Table 1) to achieve high mechanical strength (e.g. ¶ [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second elastic modulus JP’688 by substituting the resin composition of Maeda for the resin composition of JP’688, to form the multilayer electronic component with high mechanical strength. In such a substitution, it would have been obvious then that the second elastic modulus (e.g. 1010 MPa) would be higher than the first elastic modulus (e.g. 1000 MPa).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art does not teach that the first elastic layer includes a non-woven fabric.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art does not teach any roughness of each of the first and second elastic layers.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, the prior art does not teach that a second elastic body that includes a third and fourth elastic layer.
Accordingly, Claims 4 and 6 through 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Japanese Patent Publication, JP 2020-64938 discloses a method of manufacturing a multilayer component that includes a ceramic green sheet (e.g. 117, Fig. 10) attached to a side margin portion of a unit chip (e.g. 116, see SOLUTION).
b) Non-Patent Literature IEEE Publication to Franz et al, entitled "Material characteristics of the LTCC base material CeramTape GC", discloses how ceramic layers can be elastic (see entire document).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to A. DEXTER TUGBANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4570. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am to 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/A. DEXTER TUGBANG/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3729
1 The interpretation of JP’688 was taken from a Machine Translation, a copy of which is attached herein.
2 The interpretation of JP’250 was taken from a Machine Translation, a copy of which is attached herein.
Prosecution Insights