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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant agues Saito, Wakabayashi, and Yoo do not disclose an oxide containing Cu in particulate form on Cu and glass surfaces of the electrode layer. Specifically, applicant argues Saito disclose a continuous oxide layer and Wakabayashi discloses metal oxides as a compositional component of the electrode material.
The examiner disagrees with applicant. Firstly, Saito does not disclose a continuous oxide layer as argued by applicant. As seen in fig. 1, element 20 is not continuous. Furthermore, as previously noted Saito disclose Cu powder (i.e. particle) is oxidized to form Cu oxide (i.e. Cu oxide particle) and thus the oxide is in particulate form and is on either directly or indirectly Cu and glass surfaces of the electrode layer. Secondly, Wakabayashi clearly discloses metal oxide particles H that are in contact either directly or indirectly with both Cu (F) and glass (G). The fact that the particles are a compositional component have no bearing on the claim as currently presented. The structure disclosed by Wakabayashi reads on the claim language as currently presented. Thirdly, Yoo explicitly discloses an oxide ([0082-0084]) containing Cu that is disposed so as to be in contact with at least a portion of Cu located on a surface of an outer side of the electrode layer and at least a portion of glass (noting that the oxide will be in contact with both the Cu and glass either directly or indirectly; furthermore when the oxide is formed as a surface coating on the Cu particles said oxide will be in contact with the Cu particle and glass adjacent thereto), wherein the oxide including Cu is disposed in a form of particles ([0082-0084]) and is include in the external electrode [0054].
Applicant argues the differences in manufacturing between the current application and the references. The claims are drawn to a product and thus arguments to the manufacturing method are moot.
All claims stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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) 1 & 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saito et al. (US 2016/0086733).
In regards to claim 1, Saito ‘733 discloses
A multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (11 – fig. 1; [0044]) including a dielectric layer (10 – fig. 1; [0044]) and an internal electrode (12 – fig. 1; [0044]) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer therebetween; and
an external electrode (13 – fig. 1; [0044]) disposed on the body,
wherein the external electrode includes an electrode layer (13a – fig. 1; [0045]) disposed on the body and connected to an internal electrode and including Cu and glass ([0048]), and a plating layer (13a – fig. 1; [0045]) disposed on the electrode layer,
at least a portion of Cu and at least a portion of the glass are disposed adjacent to the plating layer (fig. 1; [0048] – noting the paste will have both glass and Cu adjacent to 13b), and
an oxide (20 – fig. 1; [0054]) including Cu is disposed on at least the portion of Cu and the at least the portion of the glass disposed adjacent to the plating layer,
wherein the external electrode includes an oxide (20 – fig. 1; [0054]) containing Cu that is disposed so as to be in contact with at least a portion of Cu located on a surface of a plating layer side of the electrode layer and at least a portion of glass (fig. 2 – noting that the oxide will be in contact with both the Cu and glass either directly or indirectly),
wherein the oxide including Cu is disposed in a form of particles (fig. 1; [0048] & [0073-0079] – Cu powder (i.e. particle) is oxidized to form Cu oxide (i.e. Cu oxide particle)).
In regards to claim 3, Saito ‘733 discloses
The multilayer electronic component according to claim 1, wherein an atom ratio of an oxygen element with respect to a total content of a Cu element in the oxide including Cu is 30 at% or more and 40 at% or less ([0023] & [0054]).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakabayashi et al. (US 2022/0102062).
In regards to claim 1, Wakabayashi ‘062 discloses
A multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (10 – fig. 1; [0033]) including a dielectric layer (fig. 2; [0040]) and an internal electrode (25 – fig. 2; [0033]) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer therebetween; and
an external electrode (22 & 26 – fig. 4; [0049]) disposed on the body,
wherein the external electrode includes an electrode layer (22 – fig. 1; [0045]) disposed on the body and connected to an internal electrode and including Cu and glass ([0061-0066]), and a plating layer (26) disposed on the electrode layer,
at least a portion of Cu and at least a portion of the glass are disposed adjacent to the plating layer (fig. 4; [0054]), and
an oxide (H – fig. 4; [0052]) including Cu is disposed on at least the portion of Cu and the at least the portion of the glass disposed adjacent to the plating layer,
wherein the external electrode includes an oxide (H – fig. 4; [0052] & [0054]) containing Cu that is disposed so as to be in contact with at least a portion of Cu located on a surface of a plating layer side of the electrode layer and at least a portion of glass (H is shown to be in contact either directly or indirectly with both F and G and disclosed to be formed at interface with 26),
wherein the oxide including Cu is disposed in a form of particles (fig. 4; [0052])
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito ‘733 in view of Hur et al. (US 2012/0154977).
In regards to claim 5,
Saito ‘733 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrode layer further includes an oxide including Fe.
Hur ‘977 discloses wherein the electrode layer further includes an oxide including Fe ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glass material which includes Fe as taught by Hur ‘977 as the glass of Saito ‘733 to obtain a capacitor with improved corrosion resistance.
In regards to claim 6,
Saito ‘733 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrode layer further includes Mg.
Hur ‘977 discloses wherein the electrode layer further includes Mg ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glass material which includes Mg as taught by Hur ‘977 as the glass of Saito ‘733 to obtain a capacitor with improved corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2015/0116895) in view of Saito ‘733.
In regards to claim 1,
Yoo ‘895 discloses a multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (10 – fig. 3; [0054]) including a dielectric layer (3 – fig. 4; [0054]) and an internal electrode (21-22 – fig. 4; [0054]) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer therebetween; and
an external electrode (31-32 – fig. 3; [0054]) disposed on the body,
wherein the external electrode includes an electrode layer disposed on the body and connected to an internal electrode and including Cu and glass ([0082-0084]),
at least a portion of Cu and at least a portion of the glass are disposed adjacent to the outer surface ([0082-0084]), and
an oxide including Cu is disposed on at least the portion of Cu and the at least the portion of the glass disposed adjacent to the outer surface ([0082-0084]),
wherein the external electrode includes an oxide ([0082-0084]) containing Cu that is disposed so as to be in contact with at least a portion of Cu located on a surface of an outer side of the electrode layer and at least a portion of glass (noting that the oxide will be in contact with both the Cu and glass either directly or indirectly; furthermore when the oxide is formed as a surface coating on the Cu particles said oxide will be in contact with the Cu particle and glass adjacent thereto),
wherein the oxide including Cu is disposed in a form of particles ([0082-0084]). Yoo ‘895 fails to explicitly disclose a plating layer disposed on the electrode layer.
Saito ‘733 discloses a plating layer disposed on the electrode layer ([0025] & [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plating layer as taught by Saito ‘733 on the electrode layer of Yoo ‘695 to obtain a capacitor with good wettability.
In regards to claim 3,
Yoo ‘695 as modified by Saito ‘733 further discloses wherein an atom ratio of an oxygen element with respect to a total content of a Cu element in the oxide including Cu is 30 at% or more and 40 at% or less ([0084] of Yoo ‘695).
In regards to claim 4,
Yoo ‘695 as modified by Saito ‘733 further discloses wherein an average value of a maximum Feret diameter of particles including the Cu is 100 nm or more and 2000 nm or less ([0047-0049] & [0082-0084] of Yoo ‘695).
Claim(s) 7, 9-10 & 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al. (US 2015/0213953) in view of Yoo ‘895.
In regards to claim 7,
Jun ’953 discloses a multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (110 – fig. 2; [0036]) including a dielectric layer (111 – fig. 2; [0036]) and an internal electrode (121-122 – fig. 2; [0036]) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer; and
an external electrode (130a-130b – fig. 2; [0035]) disposed on the body,
wherein the external electrode includes an electrode layer (131a/131b – fig. 2; [0051]) disposed on the body and connected to the internal electrode and including Cu and glass, and a conductive resin layer (132 – fig. 2; [0047]) disposed on the electrode layer,
at least a portion of Cu and at least a portion of the glass in the electrode layer are disposed adjacent to the conductive resin layer (fig. 1; [0051-0054]). Jun ’953 fails to disclose an oxide including Cu is included in the electrode layer and disposed on the at least the portion of the Cu and the at least the portion of the glass disposed adjacent to the conductive resin layer.
Yoo ‘895 discloses an external electrode (31-32 – fig. 3; [0054]) disposed on the body, wherein the external electrode includes an electrode layer disposed on the body and connected to an internal electrode and including Cu and glass, an oxide including Cu is included in the electrode layer and disposed on the at least the portion of the Cu and the at least the portion of the glass disposed adjacent to the outer surface ([0082-0084]),
wherein the external electrode includes an oxide ([0082-0084] containing Cu that is disposed so as to be in contact with at least a portion of Cu located on a surface of an outer side of the electrode layer and at least a portion of glass (noting that the oxide will be in contact with both the Cu and glass either directly or indirectly; furthermore when the oxide is formed as a surface coating on the Cu particles said oxide will be in contact with the Cu particle and glass adjacent thereto),
wherein the oxide including Cu is disposed in a form of particles ([0082-0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a Cu oxide as taught by Yoo ‘695 in the electrode layer thus obtaining contact with the conductive resin of Jun ’953 to obtain a capacitor with reduced blistering.
In regards to claim 9,
Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 further discloses wherein an atom ratio of an oxygen element with respect to a total content of a Cu element in the oxide including Cu is 30 at% or more and 40 at% or less ([0084] of Yoo ‘695).
In regards to claim 10,
Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 further discloses wherein an average value of a maximum Feret diameter of particles including the Cu is 100 nm or more and 2000 nm or less ([0047-0049] & [0082-0084] of Yoo ‘695).
In regards to claim 13,
Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 further discloses wherein the external electrode further includes a plating layer (133 – fig. 2; [0090] of Jun ‘953) disposed on the conductive resin layer.
In regards to claim 14,
Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 further discloses wherein the conductive resin layer includes a conductive metal and a thermosetting resin ([0060-0068] of Jun ‘953).
In regards to claim 15,
Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 further discloses wherein the conductive metal includes one or more of Cu, Ag, Sn, or alloys thereof, and the thermosetting resin comprises an epoxy resin ([0060-0068] of Jun ‘953).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hur ‘977.
In regards to claim 11,
Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrode layer further includes an oxide including Fe.
Hur ‘977 discloses wherein the electrode layer further includes an oxide including Fe ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glass material which includes Fe as taught by Hur ‘977 as the glass of Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 to obtain a capacitor with improved corrosion resistance.
In regards to claim 12,
Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the electrode layer further includes Mg.
Hur ‘977 discloses wherein the electrode layer further includes Mg ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glass material which includes Mg as taught by Hur ‘977 as the glass of Jun ’953 as modified by Yoo ‘695 to obtain a capacitor with improved corrosion resistance.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848