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 .
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 1-4, 6, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikuma (US20210272753) in view of O’Brien et al. (US7864505) and Kim et al. (US20180286591).
With respect to claim 1, Chikuma teaches a multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 3, element 10) comprising: a body (see FIG. 3, element 12) including a dielectric layer (see FIG. 3, element 14) and an internal electrode (see FIG. 3, elements 16a and 16b) disposed alternately with the dielectric layer in a first direction (see FIG. 3, X direction), the body having first (see FIG. 1, element 12a) and second surfaces (see FIG. 1, element 12b) opposing each other in the first direction, third (see FIG. 1, element 12e) and fourth surfaces (see FIG. 1, element 12f) connected to the first and second surfaces and opposing each other in a second direction (see FIG. 1, Z direction), and fifth (see FIG. 1, element 12d) and sixth surfaces (see FIG. 1, element 12c) connected to the first to fourth surfaces and opposing each other in a third direction (see FIG. 1, Y direction); an external electrode (see FIG. 1, elements 22a and 22b) disposed on one of the third and fourth surfaces; and a protective layer (see FIG. 1, element 40).
Chikuma does not expressly teach that a plurality of oxides having a wired form and disposed on at least a portion of an external surface of the body, and wherein the protective layer is disposed on at least two surfaces, among the first, second, fifth, and sixth surfaces.
O’Brien, on the other hand, teaches a plurality of oxides having a wired form and disposed on at least a portion of an external surface of the body (see FIG. 1, element 18, col. 3:62-67 and col. 4:1-12, noting alumina) but fails to teach the protective layer is disposed on at least two surfaces, among the first, second, fifth, and sixth surfaces. Accordingly, based on the teachings of O’Brien, the inclusion of a glass fiber fabric provides a reasonable expectation of success, i.e., increasing dielectric constant or dielectric strength of the dielectric layer (see paragraph col. 4:9-12), and as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to at least try modifying the protective layer of Chikuma in order to improve the reliability of the protective layer. See MPEP 2143.
Kim, on the other hand, teaches the protective layer is disposed on at least two surfaces, among the first, second, fifth, and sixth surfaces (see FIG. 3, element 113). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use the protective layer of Kim with the capacitor of Chikuma and O’Brien to improve moisture resistance reliability of the multilayer capacitor (see paragraph 37).
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 Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim in order to improve moisture resistance reliability of the multilayer capacitor (see Kim paragraph 37).
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach that the protective layer is disposed on the first (see Chikuma FIG. 1, element 40) and second surfaces, among the first, second, fifth and sixth surfaces. See paragraph 48, noting even though the protective layer is shown at the first surface, there is no reason why it could not be at the second surface to improved stress against mechanical strength. While the reference doesn’t teach the protective layer on second surface, it has been found to be well within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a part that where the mirror duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach that the protective layer (see Chikuma FIG. 1, element 40) is disposed on the fifth and sixth surfaces, among the first, second, fifth, and sixth surfaces. See paragraph 48, noting even though the protective layer is shown at the first surface, there is no reason why it could not be at the fifth and sixth surfaces to improved stress against mechanical strength. While the reference doesn’t teach the protective layer on the fifth and sixth surfaces, it has been found to be well within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a part that where the mirror duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach that the protective layer is disposed on the first (see Chikuma FIG. 1, element 40), second, fifth and sixth surfaces. See paragraph 48, noting even though the protective layer is shown at the first surface, there is no reason why it could not be at the second, fifth and sixth surfaces to improved stress against mechanical strength. While the reference doesn’t teach the protective layer on the second, fifth and sixth surfaces, it has been found to be well within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a part that where the mirror duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach that at least some of the plurality of oxides are connected to each other to form at least one of a two-dimensional structure and a three-dimensional structure (see O’Brien paragraph 10, noting fabric).
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach that an additional protective layer including at least one of a silane-based compound and a fluorine-based resin and disposed on the protective layer (see Chikuma paragraph 49, noting silicone resin and a fluorine resin).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach that the external electrode includes a connection portion disposed on the one of the third and fourth surfaces and connected to the internal electrode, and a band portion disposed to extend from the one of third and fourth surfaces to at least one of the first, second, fifth, and sixth surfaces, and the protective layer is disposed between the band portion and the body (see FIG. 1, elements 22a, 22b and 40).
Claim 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US20220199328).
With respect to claim 13, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach the multilayer electronic component (see Chikuma FIG. 3, element 10) of claim 12.
Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim do not explicitly teach that a contact angle between the additional protective layer and water is 155 degrees or more.
Choi, on the other hand, teaches that a contact angle between the additional protective layer and water is 155 degrees or more (see Choi paragraph 105).
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 Chikuma, O’Brien, Kim and Choi in order to improve moisture resistance reliability (see Choi paragraph 105).
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim teach the multilayer electronic component (see Chikuma FIG. 3, element 10) of claim 1.
Chikuma, O’Brien and Kim does not explicitly teach that a contact angle between the protective layer and water is 150 degrees or more.
Choi, on the other hand, teaches that a contact angle between the protective layer and water is 150 degrees or more (see Choi paragraph 105).
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 Chikuma, O’Brien, Kim and Choi in order to improve moisture resistance reliability (see Choi paragraph 105).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-32 are allowed.
Claims 5 and 7-11 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 5, first ends of at least some of the plurality of oxides
are in contact with the body, 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 wired form includes at least one of a columnar form in which a wire is filled, a tubular form in which the wire is hollow, and a branched form having the wire and a sub-wire branched from the wire, 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 8, the wired form has an average length of 1 nm or more and 10000 nm or less, or has an average diameter of 1 nm or more and 300 nm or less, 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, a ratio of an average diameter to an average length of the wired form is 1/3 or less, 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 10, an average angle between the plurality of oxides and the portion of the external surface of the body on which the protective layer is disposed is 45 degrees or more and 135 degrees or less, 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 11, the plurality of oxides include an oxide including at least one of Ti, Ba, Zn, Mg, Si, Sn, and In, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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