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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 14 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below which was necessitated by applicant's amendments.
Further, the Office notes, in response to Applicant's argument under section 2, that Lee clearly teaches the use of a ceramic protective layer. Paragraph [0054] of Lee states that, in a second exemplary embodiment, the protective layer 40a is formed of at least Al2O3. As such, the combination of Ogawa and Lee has been maintained as part of the new grounds of rejection.
Finally, the Office notes, in response to Applicant's argument under section 3, that the claims are not specific regarding which surfaces can be defined as the main, side, and end surfaces, and as such, again, the combination of Ogawa and Lee has been maintained as part of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US20110309718) in view of Lee et al. (US20220208456) and Okada et al. (US20100155118).
With respect to claim 1, Ogawa teaches a ceramic electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 1) comprising: a ceramic substrate (see FIG. 1, element 2) including a first surface (see FIG. 1, noting bottom surface), a second surface (see FIG. 1, noting first surface) opposite to the first surface, and a side surface (see FIG. 1, elements 7 and 8) interconnecting the first surface and the second surface; a first base electrode being on the first surface (see FIG. 2-2, element 13, noting bottom portion of element 13); a side electrode connected to the first base electrode and being on the side surface (see FIG. 2-2, element 13, noting side surface portion of element 13); and a ceramic protective layer (see FIG. 2-2, element 4) covering at least a portion of an outline of an external electrode (see FIG. 2-2, element 13, noting there is nothing in the claim that indicates that the first base electrode and the side electrode cannot be incorporated as part of the same electrode), wherein the first base electrode and the side electrode serve as the external electrode (see FIG. 2-2, element 13, noting there nothing in the claim that indicates that the first base electrode and the side electrode cannot be incorporated as part of the same electrode), the ceramic electronic component includes internal electrodes (see FIG. 2-2, elements 5 and 6).
Ogawa does not expressly teach that the ceramic protective layer crosses over at least a part of the outline of the external electrode and is formed on the first surface and on the first base electrode, and vias connecting the internal electrodes inside the ceramic substrate.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches the ceramic protective layer (see FIG. 3, element 140, paragraph 54, noting Al.sub.2O.sub.3) crosses over at least a part of the outline of the external electrode (see FIG. 3, element 131) and is formed on the first surface and on the first base electrode (see FIG. 3, element 131a). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use the ceramic protective layer of Lee with the capacitor of Ogawa to improve moisture resistance reliability through moisture penetration prevention, ion migration suppression, and a bonding strength of the multilayer ceramic electronic component (see paragraph 24).
Lee does not expressly teach that vias connecting the internal electrodes inside the ceramic substrate.
Okada, on the other hand, teaches vias connecting the internal electrodes inside the ceramic substrate (see FIG. 1, element 12B, paragraph 32). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to use the via conductor of Okada with the capacitor of Okada and Lee for a way to improve the bonding strength between an internal conductor and/or a surface electrode and an external electrode (see paragraph 8).
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 Ogawa, Lee and Okada to form the claimed invention in order to improve the bonding strength between an internal conductor and/or a surface electrode and an external electrode (see Okada paragraph 8).
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Ogawa, Lee and Okada teach that a second base electrode (see FIG. 2-2, element 13, noting top portion of element 13) being on the second surface, wherein the side electrode interconnects the first base electrode and the second base electrode, and the first base electrode, the side electrode, and the second base electrode serve as the external electrode (see Ogawa FIG. 2-2, element 13, noting there nothing in the claim that indicates that the first base electrode and the side electrode cannot be incorporated as part of the same electrode).
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Ogawa, Lee and Okada teach that when the first surface is viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the ceramic protective layer covers a portion of an outline of the first base electrode (see Lee FIG. 3, element 140, paragraph 54, noting Al.sub.2O.sub.3).
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Ogawa, Lee and Okada teach that when the first surface is viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the ceramic protective layer covers a portion of an outline of the first base electrode (see Lee FIG. 3, element 140, paragraph 54, noting Al.sub.2O.sub.3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24 are allowed.
Claims 4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13,17 and 20 are 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 4, when the side surface is viewed from a direction perpendicular to the side surface, the ceramic protective layer covers a portion of an outline of the side electrode, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 6, the ceramic substrate includes a first ridgeline defined by the first surface and the side surface, when the first surface is viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the ceramic protective layer covers a portion of an outline of the first base electrode, and a first end of the side electrode covers both the first base electrode and the ceramic protective layer across the first ridgeline, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 7, the ceramic substrate includes a first ridgeline defined by the first surface and the side surface, when the first surface is viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the first base electrode has a rectangular shape in a plan view, and an outline of the first base electrode is defined by a first line segment, a second line segment, a third line segment, and a fourth line segment, the first line segment is parallel to the third line segment, the first line segment interconnects the second line segment and the fourth line segment, and the third line segment interconnects the second line segment and the fourth line segment, and the first line segment overlaps with the first ridgeline, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 9, the ceramic protective layer covers the second line segment, the third line segment, and the fourth line segment, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 7.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 11, the first base electrode includes multiple first base electrodes along the first ridgeline, and the ceramic protective layer covers the second line segment, the third line segment, and the fourth line segment of the first base electrode at least at each end among the multiple first base electrodes along the first
ridgeline, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 7.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 13, a surface of the first base electrode is flush with the first surface, and the side electrode is connected to the surface of the first base electrode, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 17, the ceramic substrate includes a first ridgeline defined by the first surface and the side surface, a first end of the side electrode is also on the first base electrode across the first ridgeline, and the first end of the side electrode on the first surface is inside an outline of the first base electrode, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 2.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 20, the ceramic substrate includes a first ridgeline defined by the first surface and the side surface, when the first surface is viewed from a direction perpendicular to the first surface, the ceramic protective layer covers a portion of an outline of the first base electrode, and a first end of the side electrode covers both the first base electrode and the ceramic protective layer across the first ridgeline, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1 and intervening claim 2.
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 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights