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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the content does not appear to be directed to the claimed invention, e.g. process, as recited in the steps of at least Claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 through 4, 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication 2017/0213649 to Kato et al (hereinafter “Kato”) in view of U.S. Publication 2018/0282874 to Twomey et al (hereinafter “Twomey”).
Claim 1: Kato discloses a method for manufacturing a multilayer ceramic electronic component (e.g. Fig. 4), the method comprising:
cutting a multilayer base including a plurality of dielectric ceramic bodies (e.g. 101, 102, 103, etc.) and internal electrode layers (e.g. 112, 113, etc.) alternately stacked on one another (e.g. Figs. 8A, 8B, ¶ [0088]+); and
causing dry ice microparticles (e.g. with 300d, Fig. 18B) to hit a cut surface including the internal electrode layers exposed and removing foreign matter on the cut surface (e.g. ¶¶ [0181], [0182]).
Claim 4: Kato discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the dry ice microparticles are ejected from a dry ice nozzle (e.g. 300d, Fig. 18B),
Claim 6: Kato discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the dry ice nozzle ejects dry ice microparticles onto the cut surface while moving horizontally (e.g. Fig. 18B, see W1 or W2).
Claim 9: Kato discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the dry ice nozzle ejects dry ice microparticles in a [vertical] direction at an acute angle with respect to a [horizontal] direction in which the dry ice nozzle is movable (e.g. Fig. 18B).
Claim 10: Kato discloses the method according to any one of claim 6, wherein the dry ice nozzle is movable in a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the [end surfaces of the] internal electrode layers (e.g. 112, 113, etc.) exposed on the cut surface (e.g. Fig. 15A).
Kato does not mention a mean grain size of the dry ice microparticles [in Claim 1]. Kato also does not teach that the dry ice microparticles are caused to hit the cut surface being heated [in Claim 2], with dry air [in Claim 3], and a distance between a tip of the dry ice nozzle and the cut surface [in part of Claim 4].
It is noted that the ceramic electronic component being manufactured in Kato can be a capacitor (e.g. ¶¶ [0004], [0054]).
Twomey is analogous to Kato in that Twomey discloses a process of manufacturing an art-recognized equivalent ceramic electronic component (e.g. capacitor, ¶ [0097]). Twomey uses a dry ice nozzle (e.g. 2, Fig. 2a) to cause dry ice microparticles to hit a cut surface for removal of material (e.g. ¶ [0002]). Some of the properties as part of Twomey’s manufacturing process include the dry ice microparticles having a mean grain size of 150 µm to hit the cut surface (e.g. ¶ [0021]) where a distance between a tip of the dry ice nozzle and the cut surface can be 10 mm (e.g. ¶ [0053]). Other properties include causing the dry ice microparticles to hit the cut surface being heated (e.g. localized heating with kinetic energy, ¶ [0060]), and with dry air (e.g. ¶ [0100]).
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 manufacturing process of Kato by causing the dry ice microparticles to hit the cut surface utilizing many of the properties taught by Twomey, to produce an art-recognized equivalent capacitor.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Twomey, as applied to Claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Japanese Patent Publication JP 2009-28633 (hereinafter “JP’633”)1.
Kato, as modified by Twomey, discloses the claimed manufacturing process as relied upon above in Claims 1 and 4. The modified Kato process does not teach a suction port [in Claim 5], or that the dry ice nozzle moves vertically [in Claim 7].
JP’633 discloses an analogous process of using a dry ice nozzle (e.g. 25, Fig. 3a) to cause dry ice microparticles to hit a cut surface for removal of material. JP’633 includes a suction port (e.g. 26) that is located adjacent to the dry ice nozzle to move in synchronization with the dry ice nozzle to recover and dissolve contaminants (e.g. ¶ [0054]). Moreover, the dry ice nozzle ejects dry ice microparticles onto the cut surface while moving vertically to accurately position the dry ice nozzle over the cut surface (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 modified the dry ice nozzle of Kato by including a suction port and allowing the nozzle to move vertically, as taught by JP’633, to provide the benefits of recovering and dissolving contaminants as well as to accurately position the dry ice nozzle over the cut surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 8, neither Kato, Twomey, nor JP’633, disclose an ionizer that specifically feeds antistatic ions to the cut surface.
Regarding Claim 11, JP’633 does teach that the dry ice nozzle itself is rotatable by at least 180 degrees (e.g. 13, Fig. 5). However, neither JP’633, Kato, nor Twomey teach specifically that the cut surface itself is rotatable by 180 degrees about a rotation axis perpendicular to the cut surface.
Moreover, it would not be obvious to modify Kato in view of Twomey, or JP’633, by adding any of the above features because to do so would destroy the overall structure and manufacturing process of Kato.
Therefore, Claims 8 and 11 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 2011-110619, discloses a process of removing material using dry ice microparticles (e.g. Fig. 1, see SOLUTION).
b) Non-Patent Literature to Satoh et al, entitled "Effective cleaning of Si by the dry ice blasting for future dry process technology", a process of removing material using dry ice microparticles (e.g. Fig. 1, 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’633 was made from a Machine Translation in English, a copy of which is provided by the examiner and attached herein.
Prosecution Insights