DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejections made in a previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the quartz" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 19 does not appear to further limit claim 1 if “the quartz” refers to the amount of quartz-containing filler.
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto et al. (US 2018/0319129) in view of Izumi et al. (US 2011/0117360).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Sakamoto discloses a multilayer body with a multilayer structure having a surface layer portion and an inner layer portion, see abstract. Each of the surface layer portion and the inner layer portion contains glass and quartz, which corresponds to a glass ceramic material, see abstract. The glass contained in each of the surface layer portion and inner layer portion contains SiO2, B2O3, and M2O, where M is an alkali metal, see abstract.
The reference fails to disclose that the layers contain a metal oxide selected from the group consisting of MnO, NiO, CuO and ZnO.
Izumi discloses a method of manufacturing a sintered ceramic body mixing a ceramic, a glass material and an additive mixture, see abstract. The reference further discloses the additive oxide includes CuO in order to allow for a lower-temperature sintering [0017]. Additionally, the reference discloses controlling the amount of additive oxide in order to effectively lower the sintering temperature while also preventing a decrease of the mechanical strength [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention for the layer portions of Sakamoto to include CuO as an additive in order to promote lower the sintering temperature while at the same time preventing a decrease in mechanical strength. While the references do not specifically disclose the claimed amount relative to the total claimed amount, wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto discloses M2O is one or more of Li2O, K2O and Na2O [0035].
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the reference discloses the SiO2 content is preferably 55% by weight or more and 95% by weight of less, which overlaps the claimed range [0034]; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges.
Regarding claim 5, the reference discloses the B2O3 content is preferably 5% by weight or more and 40% by weight or less, which overlaps the claimed range [0037-0038]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses the M2O content is preferably 0.1% by weight or more and 10% by weight or less, which overlaps the claimed range [0037-0038]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the reference discloses the SiO2 content is preferably 55% by weight or more and 95% by weight of less and the B2O3 content is preferably 5% by weight or more and 40% by weight or less [0034, 0037 & 0038]; see MPEP 2144.05 I regarding overlapping ranges.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the reference discloses the glass may contain Al2O3 in an amount of preferably 0.1% by weight or more and 5% by weight or less, which overlaps the claimed range [0037-0038]; see MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 11, the reference discloses that the thermal expansion coefficient of the quartz is higher than that of the glass [0012].
Regarding claim 12, the reference discloses quartz as the only filler, see abstract and [0047].
Regarding claim 13, the reference discloses the layer portions can includes Al2O3 or ZrO2 [0048].
Regarding claim 14, the reference discloses the glass and quartz contents as within the claimed ranges, see Table 2 and [0043-0045]. Note that a specific example in the prior art which is within the claimed range anticipates the range; see MPEP 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 15, the reference discloses a multilayer body, which corresponds to a laminate, comprising a stack of multiple glass ceramic layers made of the claimed sintered glass ceramic material, see above discussion, abstract, Figs. 1 and 2 and [0011 & 0029].
Regarding claim 16, the reference discloses the multilayer ceramic substrate has conductor films between glass ceramic layers and on the surface of a glass ceramic layer, see Figs. 1 and 2 and [0029-0031].
Regarding claim 17, Sakamoto in view of Izumi discloses CuO as the metal oxide in the glass ceramic layer, see above discussion. Additionally, Sakamoto discloses the conductor film as copper [0030].
Regarding claim 18, Sakamoto discloses an electronic component including the multilayer body [0016 & 0017].
Regarding claims 20 and 21, the reference discloses specific examples with the amount of glass within the claimed range and with the material excluding CaO, see Tables 1 and 2. Note that a specific example within the claimed range anticipates the claimed range; see MPEP 2131.03 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of a new combination of prior art.
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 LAURA A AUER whose telephone number is (571)270-5669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 4 pm EST.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571)272-8519. 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.
/LAURA A AUER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights