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
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yugawa (WO 2020004271 A1) in view of Imafuji et al. (US 20150305153 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yugawa teaches an electronic component comprising:
A base material having an insulating film including an upper surface constituting a main surface [¶0008]; and
An electrode provided on the main surface of the base material, the electrode [10] including a body portion above the upper surface, a conduction portion extending from the body portion toward the base material [9] and penetrating the insulating film [3, Fig. 4] through a through-hole in the insulating film, and a diffusion prevention layer [11] covering the body portion, [Fig. 4, ¶0017, Fig. 4 shows the through-hole in the insulating film].
Yugawa doesn’t teach the diffusion prevention layer having a second portion directly covering the main surface in a peripheral region.
Imafuji et al. teaches the diffusion prevention layer has a first portion directly covering a surface of the body portion and a second portion directly covering the upper surface in a peripheral region of the body portion and extending parallel to the upper surface to enlarge a bonding surface between the diffusion prevention layer and the insulating film, the second portion entirely and directly covering the upper surface [Fig. 7B, ¶¶0076-0077].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the electronic component as taught by Yugawa and the diffusion prevention layer as taught by Imafuji et al. because it would help with the connectivity of the electronic component mounted on a substrate as described by Imafuji et al. (¶¶0004-0005).
Regarding claim 2, Yugawa in view of Imafuji et al. teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein a dimension of the diffusion prevention layer [11a] in a portion covering the upper surface is greater than a dimension of a thinnest portion of the diffusion prevention layer [11] in a portion covering the body portion [Fig. 4, ¶0023, the vertical portion being between 3-5 μm and the horizontal being between 1-8 μm can have the horizontal 8 μm while the vertical is 3 μm for example, Yugawa].
Regarding claim 3, Yugawa in view of Imafuji et al. teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the electrodes are on the upper surface [¶0016, Yugawa], and
tl<L<D/2, where D is a distance between the electrodes adjacent to each other [¶¶0017 and 0019, diameter was from 10-150 μm and the body was placed 1.5 to 15 μm inside the outer peripheral edge, would be possible to have t1 be less than L and L less than D/2 if there were the maximum distance of the ranges disclosed, Yugawa], t1 is a dimension of the diffusion prevention layer covering the body portion, and L is a dimension of the diffusion prevention layer covering the upper surface [¶0019, Yugawa].
Regarding claim 4, Yugawa in view of Imafuji et al. teaches the electronic component according to claim 3, wherein the insulating film [3] has a uniform thickness in regions where the electrodes are formed [¶0019, Yugawa].
Regarding claim 5, Yugawa in view of Imafuji et al. teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the insulating film [3] is made of an oxide or a nitride containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Si, Al, Zr, Mg, Ta, Ti, and Y, or a resin [¶0013, contains insulating particle of silica and alumina, Yugawa].
Regarding claim 6, Yugawa in view of Imafuji et al. teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the body portion has a raised portion raised from a surface of the body portion opposite to a surface on a side corresponding to the base material and formed in an annular region corresponding to an edge of the through-hole [¶¶0024 and 0031, Fig. 4, Yugawa].
Regarding claim 7, Yugawa in view of Imafuji et al. teaches the electronic component according to claim 1, wherein the diffusion prevention layer is a single layer or a multi-layer [¶0011, Fig. 4, Yugawa].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection includes a new secondary reference.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered. The applicant mentions the fourth conductive layer 12 is between the overhanging section 11a that is said to correspond to the claimed second portion. There are portions in Yugawa that teaches the connection between the diffusion prevention layer and the main surface as it mentions the surface roughness of the main surface where the overhanging part (second portion of the diffusion layer) is located, which could give indication that they are directly connected (¶0042).
With this in mind, rejection has been updated and has been changed to a 103 which combines Yugawa and Imafuji et al. to reject the claimed electronic component.
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 SUE A PURVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1236. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830 to 1630.
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.
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.
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights