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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument
The Amendment filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments to
the claim 1 rejection is persuasive and have overcome the claim rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on 10/01/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 have been considered but are moot in light of the reconsideration of the previously cited prior art, effectively resulting in a new grounds of rejection set forth below.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20220157531) in view of Tanaka et al. (US20120162858).
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches a ceramic electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 100) characterized by comprising a multilayer chip (see FIG. 1, element 110) constituted by alternately stacked multiple dielectric layers (see FIG. 4, element 111) whose primary component is ceramic (see paragraph 39, noting the dielectric layer 111 may include a ceramic material barium titanate), and multiple internal electrode layers (see FIG. 4, elements 121 and 122) whose primary component is metal (see paragraph 41, noting internal electrode layer have Ni as a main component), wherein: at least one of the multiple internal electrode layers has, at its interface with an adjoining dielectric layer (see FIG. 4, elements 111, 121 and 122).
Lee does not expressly teach that a segregation layer containing at least one additive metal element different from a primary component metal of the internal electrode layers, wherein a concentration of the at least one additive metal element in the segregation layer is higher than that in the multiple internal electrode layers, wherein the at least one additive metal element does not include Mg; and Si and the at least one additive metal element are present at least at a grain boundary between two dielectric grains directly adjacent to each other among dielectric grains constituting the adjoining dielectric layer, wherein a ratio of a highest atomic concentration of the at least one additive metal element in total to a highest atomic concentration of Si within the grain boundary is 1.3 or higher.
Tanaka, on the other hand, teaches a segregation layer containing at least one additive metal element different from a primary component metal of the internal electrode layers (see paragraph 19), wherein a concentration of the at least one additive metal element in the segregation layer is higher than that in the multiple internal electrode layers (paragraphs 27 in combination with 59-60, noting that paragraph 27 indicates that the amount of R metals is larger than the amount of Mg and Si and paragraphs 59 to 60 noting that the amount of Mg is upwards of 1.8%; further the reference does not indicate that R metals exists in the internal electrodes, as such one can presume the amount of R metals existing in the internal electrodes approaches 0 wt %), wherein the at least one additive metal element does not include Mg (the Office notes that the claim language does not mean that Mg is not found within the segregation layers and grain boundaries, but merely means that the additive that satisfies the claim language is not Mg; the Office further notes that the claim language does not require that the metal additive be within the internal electrodes, but merely indicates that the metal additive is found in the segregation layer and grain boundaries -- the R additive to the ceramic (see paragraph [0019]) satisfies this limitation); and Si and the at least one additive metal element are present at least at a grain boundary (see FIG. 2, element 22) between two dielectric grains (see FIG. 2, element 20) directly adjacent to each other among dielectric grains constituting the adjoining dielectric layer (see FIG. 2, paragraphs 19 and 59, noting that at least R and Si are controlled to be included in the grain boundary 22), wherein a ratio of a highest atomic concentration of the at least one additive metal element in total to a highest atomic concentration of Si within the grain boundary is 1.3 or higher (see paragraph 19, noting where content amount of Mg is as high as 1.8 wt % and content amount of Si is as low as 0.4 wt %, 1.8/0.4=4.5, see also paragraph 27, noting that the amount of R is higher than the amount of Mg meaning that the ratio of R to Si is higher than 4.5).
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 Lee and Tanaka to form the claimed invention in order to improve the dielectric characteristics and obtain the temperature characteristic of the capacitance (see paragraph 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, Si and the at least one additive metal element are present at least at a grain boundary between two dielectric grains directly adjacent to each other among dielectric grains constituting the adjoining dielectric layer, wherein a ratio of a highest atomic concentration of the at least one additive metal element in total to a highest atomic concentration of Si within the grain boundary is 1.3 or higher, wherein the at least one additive metal element, which is present in the segregation layer and the grain boundary, is the at least one additive metal element contained in the at least one of the multiple internal electrode layers and diffused to the segregation layer and the grain boundary, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-11 are allowed by virtue of their dependency from claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 14, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, a segregation layer containing the at least one additive metal element different from the primary component metal of the internal electrode layers, wherein a concentration of the at least one additive metal element in the segregation layer is higher than that in the multiple internal electrode layers, wherein the at least one additive metal element is one or more selected from As, Au, Co, Cr, Fe, Re, Se, Te, W, and Mo; and Si and the at least one additive metal element are present at least at a grain boundary between two dielectric grains directly adjacent to each other among dielectric grains constituting the adjoining dielectric layer, wherein a ratio of a highest atomic concentration of the at least one additive metal element in total to a highest atomic concentration of Si within the grain boundary is 1.3 or higher, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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