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 § 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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
The term “reduced pressure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “reduced pressure” is not defined by the claim and although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as it would not be clear what pressure would be required to be considered a “reduced pressure”. Therefore claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-9 are indefinite due to be dependent upon claim 1.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, conducting the method step of “etching the side surface of each of the stack pieces by irradiation with plasma ions” under any pressure will be considered as meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US-20170287642-A1) in view of Chang et al. (WO-2023027955-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ono teaches a method for manufacturing a multilayer ceramic electronic component (Paragraph [0002] a method of producing a multilayer ceramic electronic component), the method comprising:
preparing a stack of a plurality of ceramic sheets and a plurality of conductors alternately stacked on one another (Paragraphs [0052-0056] Figure 7 first (element 101) and second (element 102) ceramic sheets are alternately stacked. Ceramic sheets comprise internal electrodes (elements 112 and 113) that are made of a conductive material);
cutting the stack into stack pieces, each of the stack pieces including a side surface on which the plurality of conductors is exposed (Paragraphs [0058] sheets (elements 101 and 102) are formed into a multilayer sheet (element 104) Paragraphs [0062-0065] multilayer sheet (element 104) is cut such that the electrodes (elements 112 and 113) are exposed on the side surfaces);
etching the side surface of each of the stack pieces (Paragraphs [0066-0071] the side surfaces have a surface treatment performed on them, where the surface treatment can include etching); and
forming a side margin comprising a ceramic dielectric on the side surface of each of the stack pieces after the etching (Paragraphs [0074-0078] side margins are formed on the side surfaces, and are made of ceramics).
Ono fails to teach that the etching is done by irradiation with plasma ions accelerated under a reduced pressure.
Chang teaches methods that can include etching metal or metal containing materials using an ion beam etching process (Paragraphs [0004-0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified method of Ono by using as the etching process, the ion beam etching process taught by Chang.
With this modification all the instant limitations would be met, as outlined above with regards to the 112(b) rejection because Chang teaches an ion beam etching that utilizes plasma and therefore can be considered a plasma etching method and any etching would be conducted under some pressure and therefore meets the claimed limitations. However, examiner further notes that Chang teaches that the etching process is conducted at low pressures, such as 1mTorr or less (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Ono because teaches that the etching method is not limited (Paragraph [0071]). Ono teaches that a goal of the etching process is to remove scratches and any unwanted attached substances from the electrodes (Paragraph [0069]), where the electrodes are made of metal (Paragraph [0055] conductive electrodes are made from nickel) and the ceramic material is a metal containing substance (Paragraph [0034] ceramics can be barium titanate, which contains titanium, a metal). The etching method taught by Chang, is capable of etching both the electrode and ceramic materials and therefore is suitable for use to accomplish the goals of Ono. This modification would be obvious as it can be considered a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As outlined above the combination would have had the predictable result of being suitable for accomplishing the goals of the etching process taught by Ono. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above. Chang further teaches wherein the plasma ions include Ar ions, He ions, Kr ions, Xe ions, N2 ions, or O2 ions (Paragraph [0024] teaches embodiments where argon, xenon, and krypton are used as the process gases).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above. Chang further teaches wherein the reduced pressure is lower than or equal to 0.4 Pa (Paragraph [0026] etching is conducted at 1mTorr or less, where 1mTorr is equal to 0.1333Pa).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above. Chang further teaches wherein the reduced pressure is lower than or equal to 0.2 Pa (Paragraph [0026] etching is conducted at 1mTorr or less, where 1mTorr is equal to 0.1333Pa).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Ono fails to explicitly teach wherein the etching is performed by irradiation with the plasma ions accelerated at a voltage higher than or equal to 200 V and lower than 4000 V.
However, Chang further teaches that a process bias voltage of 10 to 5000V is used to accelerated the ions during the etching process (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a voltage at a level within the disclosed range of 10-5000V, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of higher than or equal to 200 V and lower than 4000 V. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Ono fails to explicitly teach wherein the etching is performed by irradiation with the plasma ions accelerated at a voltage higher than or equal to 3000 V and lower than 4000 V.
However, Chang further teaches that a process bias voltage of 10 to 5000V is used to accelerated the ions during the etching process (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a voltage at a level within the disclosed range of 10-5000V, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of higher than or equal to 3000 V and lower than 4000 V. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Ono fails to explicitly teach wherein the etching is performed by irradiation with the plasma ions for 30 to 180 seconds inclusive.
However, Chang further teaches that the etching process can be conducted for 10 seconds to 10 minutes (Paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an etch duration at a level within the disclosed range of 10 seconds to 10 minutes, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 30 to 180 seconds inclusive. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono in view of Chang, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (TW-202310466-A, English translation printed as corresponding document EP4398700(A) also supplied and used for citations).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as outlined above.
Modified Ono fails to teach wherein the etching is performed by irradiation with the plasma ions in an irradiation direction at an angle with respect to a direction perpendicular to the side surface.
Yang teaches a method that includes etching a surface with an ion beam etching method (Paragraph [0009]). Yang teaches that the ion beam etching in conducted at an incident angle (Paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Ono, by conducting the ion beam etching process at an incident angle as taught by Yang.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement. Chang teaches a known method of ion beam etching. Chang further teaches an apparatus for ion beam etching that is capable of tilting such that the ion beam etching process conducted by such an apparatus could be completed at an incident angle (Paragraph [0021]). While Chang does not explicitly teach that the ion beam etching is conducted at an incident angle, Yang does teach this and teaching of Yang would be applicable to the method outlined by Chang. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ono teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as outlined above.
Yang further teaches wherein the irradiation direction is at an angle of 20 to 70° with respect to the direction perpendicular to the side surface (Paragraph [0084] an example is provided where the incident angle is 45°).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713