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
The amendments to claims 13-14 traverses the 112 rejections which are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “with the electrically conductive bonding agent….”
There is no antecedent basis for “the electrically conductive bonding agent.”
In order to expedite prosecution, claim 4 is construed as “[[the]] electrically conductive bonding agent.”
All claims that depend from claim 4 are objected because they depend from an objected parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Kato” (JP2008130954. Examiner’s note: the citations for Kato refer to the English translation of Kato).
Regarding claim 1, Kato anticipates 1. An electric element assembly mounted on a circuit board, the electric element assembly comprising: an electrical element comprising a ceramic body and a pair of external electrodes disposed at opposite sides of the ceramic body to face each other (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top, page 13, top; multilayer capacitor 1 comprises external electrodes 51, 52 disposed at opposite sides and face each other);
and a pair of metal frames coupled to each of the external electrodes (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; conductive legs 4 are coupled to each of the external electrodes 51, 52),
wherein each metal frame includes one or more openings (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; conductive legs 4 are metal frames which each includes an opening),
each opening configured to face its corresponding external electrode (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle, page 13, top; each opening faces its corresponding external electrodes 51, 52),
and one or more flanges each integrally extending inward from a lower edge of its corresponding opening (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 11, middle; the locking piece 22 is a flange that integrally extends inward from a lower edge of each opening),
wherein the external electrodes of the electrical element are placed on two opposite flanges (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top; the external electrodes 51, 52 are placed on two opposite locking pieces 22),
and securely bonded to the flanges by an electrically conductive bonding agent applied between a lower surface of the external electrodes and an upper surface of the flanges (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top, page 13, top; the external electrodes 51, 52 are securely bonded to the respective locking pieces 22 by the welding means 53 applied between a lower surface of the respective external electrode 51, 52 and an upper surface of the respective locking piece 22).
Regarding claim 11, Kato anticipates 11. A metal frame for supporting electrical elements, comprising a vertical portion and a horizontal portion provided by bending a lower end of the vertical portion (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; conductive legs 4 are metal frames for supporting electrical elements, comprising a vertical portion and a horizontal portion provided by bending a lower end of the vertical portion),
and configured to couple to an external electrode of an electric element at the vertical portion (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; conductive legs 4 couple to an external electrode 51, 52 of an multilayer capacitor 1 at the vertical portion),
the metal frame further comprising: a flange configured to support the external electrode on the flange (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 11, middle; the locking piece 22 is a flange to support the external electrodes 51, 52);
and an opening defined in a lower portion of the flange (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; conductive legs 4 are metal frames which each includes an opening),
wherein the flange is provided to integrally extend from an upper edge of the opening in a direction to support the external electrode (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 11, middle; the locking piece 22 is a flange that integrally extends inward from a lower edge of each opening in a direction to support the external electrodes 51, 52) ,
and the external electrode is seated on an upper surface of the flange and bonded to the flange by an electrically conductive bonding agent (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top, page 13, top; the external electrodes 51, 52 are securely bonded to the respective locking pieces 22 by the welding means 53 applied between a lower surface of the respective external electrode 51, 52 and an upper surface of the respective locking piece 22),
wherein the opening is formed across the vertical and horizontal portions of the metal frame (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; the opening is formed across the vertical and horizontal portions of the conductive legs 4).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4, 6 -8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of “Takahashi” (JPH1145821A). Examiner’s note: the citations for Takahashi refers to the English translation of Takahashi).
Regarding claim 2, Kato discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kato does not disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Takahashi discloses 2. The electric element assembly of claim 1, wherein the electrically conductive bonding agent is any one of solder, metal powder and epoxy, or metal powder and glass (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; the external electrodes 1b, 1c are bonded to the flange by the solder 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kato’s welding means with Takahashi’s solder, since Takahashi teaches that solder is an appropriate element for joining metal terminals to the electrodes of a ceramic capacitor, at page 3, middle.
Regarding claim 4, Kato discloses the electric element assembly comprising: an electrical element comprising a ceramic body and a pair of external electrodes disposed at opposite sides of the ceramic body to face each other (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top, page 13, top; multilayer capacitor 1 comprises external electrodes 51, 52 disposed at opposite sides and face each other);
and a pair of metal frames coupled to each of the external electrodes (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; conductive legs 4 are coupled to each of the external electrodes 51, 52),
wherein each metal frame includes one or more openings (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle; conductive legs 4 are metal frames which each includes an opening),
each opening configured to face its corresponding external electrode (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, middle, page 13, top; each opening faces its corresponding external electrodes 51, 52),
and one or more flanges each integrally extending inward from a lower edge of its corresponding opening (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 11, middle; the locking piece 22 is a flange that integrally extends inward from a lower edge of each opening),
wherein the external electrodes of the electrical element are placed on two opposite flanges (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top; the external electrodes 51, 52 are placed on two opposite locking pieces 22),
wherein an end surface portion of the external electrode is securely bonded to a metal frame portion with [[the]] electrically conductive bonding agent (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top, page 13, top; the external electrodes 51, 52 are securely bonded to the respective locking pieces 22 by the welding means 53 applied between a lower surface of the respective external electrode 51, 52 and an upper surface of the respective locking piece 22. Examiner’s note: see the “Claim Objections” above for an explanation of the Examiner’s construction of this limitation.).
Kato does not disclose An electric element assembly mounted on a circuit board, the electrically conductive bonding agent filled to the openings of the metal frame, wherein each of the openings and a metal frame portion adjacent to the openings are individually covered with the electrically conductive bonding agent.
Takahashi discloses An electric element assembly mounted on a circuit board, the electrically conductive bonding agent filled to the openings of the metal frame, wherein each of the openings and a metal frame portion adjacent to the openings are individually covered with the electrically conductive bonding agent (Fig. 8B, page 2, top; the metal terminal 20b has openings near the bottom, and the solder W mounts the metal terminal 20b to the circuit board P, and the solder W fills the openings in the metal terminal 20b and covers a portion of the metal terminal 20b adjacent to the opening. See Takahashi, annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kato’s assembly with Takahashi’s assembly in order to prevent the effects of thermal stresses at the time of soldering and thermal stresses due to temperature variations on use, as suggested by Takahashi at Abstract.
Regarding claim 6, Kato in view of Takahashi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 4, above.
Kato does not disclose the limitations of claim 6.
` Takahashi discloses 6. The electric element assembly of claim 4, wherein an end surface of the external electrode is in contact with an inner surface of the metal frame (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; an end surface of the external electrodes 1b, 1c is in contact with an inner surface of the metal terminal 11),
wherein a gap is defined between the end surface of the external electrode and the inner surface of the metal frame (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; a gap is defined by the solder 12 between the end surface of the external electrode and the inner surface of the metal frame).
Regarding claim 7, Kato in view of Takahashi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 6, above.
Kato does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Takahashi discloses 7. The electric element assembly of claim 6, wherein the electrically conductive bonding agent is a liquid electrically conductive bonding agent which is bonded after flowing into a gap between a lower surface of the external electrode and a top surface of the flange and the gap between the end surface of the external electrode and the inner surface of the metal frame (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; the solder 12 is a liquid electrically conductive bonding agent which is bonded after flowing into a gap between a lower surface of the external electrodes 1b, 1c and a top surface of the protruding pieces 113a and 115a and the gap between the end surface of the external electrodes 1b, 1c and the inner surface of the metal terminal 11).
Regarding claim 8, Kato in view of Takahashi discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 4, above.
Kato does not disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Takahashi discloses 8. The electric element assembly of claim 4, wherein a pair of flanges are provided by integrally extending inward from opposing edges of the opening (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; the protruding pieces 113a and 115a are provided by integrally extending inward from opposing edges of the opening),
and a protrusion is disposed on a surface of at least one of the pair of flanges facing the external electrode (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; the protruding pieces 113a and 115a face the external electrodes 1b, 1c).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato.
Regarding claim 3, Kato discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Kato discloses 3. The electric element assembly of claim 1, wherein the external electrode is not inserted into the opening (Figs. 14 and 16-19, page 12, top, page 13, top; the external electrodes 51, 52 are not inserted in the opening).
Kato does not disclose a length of the flange is longer than that of the external electrode.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kato’s assembly by changing the length of either the flange or the external electrode so that the length of the flange is longer than that of the external electrode, as this would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Changing the size of a component is understood to require an ordinary level of experimentation by a person having ordinary skill in the art. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Takahashi and “Ando” (US 2019/0304692).
Regarding claim 13, Kato discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 11, above.
Kato does not disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Takahashi discloses 13. The metal frame for supporting electrical elements of claim 11, wherein another opening is defined at an upper side of the flange (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; another opening is defined at an upper side of the flange).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kato’s assembly with Takahashi’s assembly in order to prevent the effects of thermal stresses at the time of soldering and thermal stresses due to temperature variations on use, as suggested by Takahashi at Abstract.
Takahashi does not disclose through which opening an end surface of the external electrode of the electric element is exposed.
Ando discloses through which opening an end surface of the external electrode of the electric element is exposed (Figs. 7, 12-13, [0154]; an end surface of the external electrodes 22 are exposed through the openings of the arm portions 31b and 33b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Kato’s assembly, as modified by Takahashi, with Ando’s configuration as Ando provides for an alternate arrangement for the orientation of the flange with respect to the opening.
Regarding claim 14, Kato in view of Takahashi and Ando discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 13, above.
Kato does not disclose the limitations of claim 14.
Takahashi discloses 14. The metal frame for supporting electrical elements of claim 13, wherein the other opening is closed at all edges or opened through the upper side of the flange (Figs. 1-2, 4A, page 2 top, page 3 middle, page 4 top; the other opening through the upper side of the flange).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847