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 claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below which was necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
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.
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, and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US20160126013) in view of Itamochi (US20200006002).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches a multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 100), comprising: a body (see FIG. 1, element 110), including a dielectric layer (see FIG. 2, element 111), and first and second internal electrodes (see FIG. 4, element 123 and element 124) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer interposed therebetween in a first direction (see FIG. 2, T direction), the body having first and second surfaces opposing each other in a first direction (see FIG. 1, element 1 and element 2), third and fourth surfaces (see FIG. 1, element 3 and element 4) connected to the first and second surfaces and opposing each other in a second direction (see FIG. 1, L direction), and fifth and sixth surfaces (see FIG. 1, element 5 and element 6) connected to the first to fourth surfaces and opposing each other in a third direction (see FIG. 1, W direction); a first external electrode disposed on the third surface (see FIG. 1, element 131); and a second external electrode disposed on the fourth surface (see FIG. 1, element 132), wherein the first internal electrode includes a first main portion having one end portion in contact with the third surface and the other end portion disposed to be spaced apart from the fourth surface (see FIG. 4, element 123), and a first protrusion protruding toward the fifth and sixth surfaces between the one end portion and the other end portion of the first main portion (see FIG. 4, element 123a), and the second internal electrode includes a second main portion having one end portion in contact with the fourth surface and the other end portion disposed to be spaced apart from the third surface (see FIG. 4, element 124), and a second protrusion protruding toward the fifth and sixth surfaces between the one end portion and the other end portion of the second main portion (see FIG. 4, element 124a), wherein, an average size of the body in the second direction is La (see FIG. 1, L direction) and an average size of the first and second protrusions in the second direction is Lb (see FIG. 4, noting
elements E3 and E4, which represent recess portion of the body respectively. By subtracting element E3 from E4, the size of the first and second protrusions in the L direction would be of an average size).
Park does not expressly teach that Lb/La satisfies 0.05 or more and 0.4 or less, a corner of the first protrusion has a rounded shape, where the corner of the first protrusion is disposed at a region where a first edge of the first protrusion connecting to the first main portion meets a second edge of the first protrusion connecting side surfaces of the first protrusion.
However, Park does teach that the size of element E3 and E4, and by extension, the length of the protrusion, Lb, results in a reduction of acoustic noise of the capacitor (see paragraph 13). Accordingly, the sizing of E3, E4, and Lb are considered result-oriented variables in Park. As such, it can be considered that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize the sizes of E3, E4, and Lb through routine experimentation, resulting in the range recited in claim 1. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), citing In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Itamochi, on the other hand, teaches a corner of the first protrusion has a rounded shape, where the corner of the first protrusion is disposed at a region where a first edge of the first protrusion connecting to the first main portion meets a second edge of the first protrusion connecting side surfaces of the first protrusion (see FIG. 5, element 18a, noting corner is rounded). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the internal electrode rounded corner of Itamochi with the corners of the first protrusion of Park for the purpose of reducing creeping discharge and heat generation (see Itamochi paragraph 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the ratio of Lb/La as taught by Park to be between 0.05 to 0.4 as taught by Park in order to reduce the acoustic noise of the capacitor (see Park paragraph 13) and use the internal electrode rounded corner of Itamochi with the capacitor of Park for the purpose of reducing creeping discharge and heat generation (see Itamochi paragraph 10).
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Park and Itamochi teach that wherein the first and second protrusions are disposed to be spaced apart from the fifth and sixth surfaces (see Park FIG. 4, element 123a and element 124a).
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of Park and Itamochi teach that wherein the first and second protrusions are disposed to be spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces (see Park FIG. 4, element 123a and element 124a).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Park and Itamochi teach that a corner of the second protrusion has protrusion has a rounded shape, where the corner of the second protrusion is disposed at a region where a third edge of the second protrusion connecting to the second main portion meets a fourth edge of the second protrusion connecting side surfaces of the second protrusion (see FIG. 5, element 18a, noting corner is rounded). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the internal electrode rounded corner of Itamochi with the corners of the second protrusion of Park for the purpose of reducing creeping discharge and heat generation (see Itamochi paragraph 10).
Claims 6-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park and Itamochi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US20110205684).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Park and Itamochi teach that the multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 1, wherein the body comprises a capacitance formation portion in which the dielectric layer and the first and second internal electrodes are alternately disposed in the first direction (see FIG. 2, element 111, element 123 and element 124, T direction), and a cover portion disposed on one surface and the other surface of the capacitance formation portion in the first direction (see FIG. 2, element 112 and element 113, T direction).
Park and Itamochi do not teach, wherein the cover portion includes a plurality of dummy electrodes disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the third direction.
Yamamoto on the other hand, teaches wherein the cover portion includes a plurality of dummy electrodes (see FIG. 4, element 13) disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the third direction (see FIG. 6, W direction).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Park, Itamochi and Yamamoto to form the claimed invention in order to prevent moisture entering the body during plating process (see paragraph 12 and 65).
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Park and Itamochi teach that the multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 6.
Park and Itamochi do not teach, wherein the dummy electrodes do not overlap the first and second main portions in the first direction.
Yamamoto on the other hand, teaches wherein the dummy electrodes (see FIG. 6, element 13) do not overlap the first and second main portions in the first direction (see FIG. 7, elements 12b and 12c. In combination, FIGS. 6 and 7 show dummy electrodes 13 being disposed only over elements 12b and 12c, but not overlapping area 12a).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Park, Itamochi and Yamamoto to form the claimed invention in order to prevent moisture entering the body during plating process (see paragraph 12 and 65).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Park and Itamochi teach that the multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 6.
Park and Itamochi do not teach, wherein the dummy electrodes are disposed to be spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces.
Yamamoto on the other hand, teaches wherein the dummy electrodes (see FIG. 6, element 13) are disposed to be spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces (see FIG. 6, element 10e and element 10f).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Park, Itamochi and Yamamoto to form the claimed invention in order to prevent moisture entering the body during plating process (see paragraph 12 and 65).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Park and Itamochi and Yamamoto teach that corners of the dummy electrodes have a rounded shape (see Itamochi FIG. 5, element 18a, noting corner is rounded). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the internal electrode rounded corner of Itamochi with the corners of the dummy electrodes of Park for the purpose of reducing creeping discharge and heat generation (see Itamochi paragraph 10).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, Itamochi and Yamamoto, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Uenishi et al. (US20200066450).
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Park, Itamochi and Yamamoto teach that the multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 6.
Park, Itamochi and Yamamoto do not teach, wherein the dummy electrodes are disposed to be spaced apart from the fifth and sixth surfaces.
Uenishi on the other hand, teaches wherein the dummy electrodes are disposed to be spaced apart from the fifth and sixth surfaces (see FIG. 3B, element 14b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combined teachings of Park, Itamochi and Yamamoto, as taught by Uenishi, in order to suppress insulation resistance degradation (see paragraph 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 2, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, the limitations of claim 2, wherein, an average size of the body in the third direction is Wa,
and an average size of the first and second protrusions in the third direction is Wb, Wb/Wa satisfies 0.4 or more and 0.6 or less, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
Claims 11 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 11, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, the limitations of claim 11, the third direction, and an average size of the first and second internal electrodes in the third direction is substantially the same in the second direction, when taken in conjunction with the rest limitations of claim 11. Claims 12-14 are allowed by virtue of their respective dependencies.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 15, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, the limitations of claim 15, dummy electrodes are spaced apart from the surfaces opposing each other in the width direction of the body, when taken in conjunction with the rest limitations of claim 15. Claims 16-20 are allowed by virtue of their respective dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER N LIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 ET.
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.
/ESTHER N LIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848