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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2024 and 12/13/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I (Figs. 4A and 4B), including Claims 1-10 and 13-19 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 13-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (JP2011109065) in view of Lee et al. (US20220165500).
With respect to claim 1, Abe teaches an electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 100) comprising: a base body (see FIG. 1, element 1) including internal electrodes (see paragraph 22) embedded therein, first (see FIG. 1, element 13a) and second main surfaces (see FIG. 1, element 13b) opposed to each other in a thickness direction (see machine translation paragraph 12), first (see FIG. 1, element 15a) and second (see FIG. 1, element 15b) lateral surfaces opposed to each other in a width direction (see machine translation paragraph 12) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the thickness direction, and first (see FIG. 1, element 11a) and second (see FIG. 1, element 11b) end surfaces opposed to each other in a length direction (see machine translation paragraph 12) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to both the thickness direction and the width direction; and a pair of external electrodes (see FIG. 1, element 3) respectively on the first and second end surfaces of the base body and respectively connected to the internal electrodes; wherein each of the pair of external electrodes includes at least: a Ni plated layer (see FIG. 2, element 22, paragraph 19, noting Ni Plating film 22).
Abe teaches that a Cu6Sn5 portion is provided directly on the Ni plated layer, but fails to teach that the Cu6Sn5 is indirectly on the Ni plated layer via a Cu intervening portion with an island shape or a layered structure, as required by Applicant's species election.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches a Cu6Sn5 portion provided directly on the Ni plated layer or indirectly on the Ni plated layer via a Cu intervening portion with an island shape or a layered structure (see FIG. 5, element 132, paragraph 69, noting layer 132 is Cu.sub.3Sn). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use intermetallic compound layers 132 (Cu3Sn) portion of Lee with the capacitor of Abe for the purpose of improving reliability and electrical connectivity (see paragraph 70).
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 Abe and Lee to form the claimed invention in order to improve reliability and electrical connectivity (see paragraph 70).
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu intervening portion is a single intervening portion including Cu3Sn with an island shape or a layered structure on the Ni plated layer (see Lee FIG. 5, element 132, paragraph 69, noting layer 132 is Cu.sub.3Sn), or a composite intervening portion in which a Cu portion including Cu with an island shape or a layered structure and a Cu3Sn portion including Cu3Sn in the island-shape or the layered structure are sequentially provided on the Ni plated layer.
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu6Sn5 portion is thicker than the Cu3Sn portion (see Lee paragraphs 33 and 84, noting Cu6Sn5 portion has an upper thickness of 0.67 µm and Cu3Sn portion has a lower thickness of 0.5 µm. 0.67 µm > 0.5 µm, as such it meets the claim limitation).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu portion of the composite intervening portion includes a layered structure (see Lee FIG. 5, element 132, paragraph 69, noting layer 132 is Cu.sub.3Sn).
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu6Sn5 portion has a thickness of about 300 nm or more and about 620 nm or less (see Lee paragraph 84).
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the electronic component is a multilayer ceramic capacitor, a multilayer LC filter, a multilayer ceramic inductor or a multilayer ceramic thermistor (see Abe machine translation paragraph 12).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu6Sn5 portion has a thickness of about 400 nm or more and about 620 nm or less (see Lee paragraph 84).
With respect to claim 13, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that a mounting structure (see Abe FIG. 2, element 100) comprising: a circuit board including a land (see Abe machine translation paragraph 15); and the electronic component according to claim 1 mounted on the land of the circuit board; wherein the pair of external electrodes (see Abe FIG. 1, element 3) including at least the Ni plated layer and the Cu6Sn5 portion provided directly on the Ni plated layer or indirectly on the Ni plated layer via the Cu intervening portion with the island shape or the layered structure is joined to the land of the circuit board by a solder (see Lee FIG. 5, element 132, paragraph 69, noting layer 132 is Cu.sub.3Sn).
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu intervening portion is a single intervening portion including Cu3Sn with an island shape or a layered structure on the Ni plated layer (see Lee FIG. 5, element 132, paragraph 69, noting layer 132 is Cu.sub.3Sn), or a composite intervening portion in which a Cu portion including Cu with an island shape or a layered structure and a Cu3Sn portion including Cu3Sn in the island-shape or the layered structure are sequentially provided on the Ni plated layer.
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu6Sn5 portion is thicker than the Cu3Sn portion (see Lee paragraphs 33 and 84, noting Cu6Sn5 portion has an upper thickness of 0.67 µm and Cu3Sn portion has a lower thickness of 0.5 µm. 0.67 µm > 0.5 µm, as such it’s meet the claim limitation).
With respect to claim 17, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu portion of the composite intervening portion includes a layered structure (see Lee FIG. 5, element 132, paragraph 69, noting layer 132 is Cu.sub.3Sn).
With respect to claim 19, the combined teachings of Abe and Lee teach that the Cu6Sn5 portion has a thickness of about 300 nm or more and about 620 nm or less (see Lee paragraph 84).
Claims 4, 6, 9, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe and Lee, as applied to claims 2 and 14 above, and further in view of Hamanaka et al. (US20180166215).
With respect to claim 4, Abe and Lee teaches the electronic component (see Abe FIG. 2, element 100) according to claim 2.
Abe and Lee do not teach the Cu3Sn portion has a thickness of about 120 nm or more and about 460 nm or less.
Hamanaka, on the other hand, teaches the Cu3Sn portion has a thickness of about 120 nm or more and about 460 nm or less (see paragraph 41).
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 Abe, Lee and Hamanaka to form the claimed invention in order to reduce or prevent cracks and improve the electrical characteristics in the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see paragraph 62).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Abe, Lee and Hamanaka teach that the Cu portion of the composite intervening portion includes an island-shape in a dispersed manner (see Hamanaka FIG. 3, element 144).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Abe, Lee and Hamanaka teach that the Cu3Sn portion has a thickness of about 160 nm or more and about 460 nm or less (see paragraph 41).
With respect to claim 16, the combined teachings of Abe, Lee and Hamanaka teach that the Cu3Sn portion has a thickness of about 120 nm or more and about 460 nm or less (see paragraph 41).
With respect to claim 18, the combined teachings of Abe, Lee and Hamanaka teach that the Cu portion of the composite intervening portion includes an island-shape in a dispersed manner (see Hamanaka FIG. 3, element 144).
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