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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 12/30/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim (s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al. (JP 2007-123468 A) hereinafter Miyamoto.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
1040
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto discloses an electronic component comprising: a base (20;Fig.8) body having an outer surface (see top surface of 20), and the outer surface having a recess (24;Fig.8) that is a site recessed with respect to a periphery of the outer surface (top surface of 20); and a glass film (23) that covers at least a portion of the outer surface of the base body having the recess ( see 23 covering 24;Fig.8), wherein a part of the glass film that covers the recess is recessed with respect to the periphery of the outer surface of the glass film, and a ratio of a minimum value of a thickness of the glass film covering the recess to a maximum value of the thickness is 0.05 to 0.8 ( thicker part of 23 that is within 24 is around 5 times the thinnest part of 23 within 24; see thickest part and thinnest part in Reproduced Fig.8).
Regarding claim 4, Miyamoto discloses wherein the glass film covers an entirety of the outer surface of the base body (see 23 covering the top surface of 20; Fig.8).
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 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 of this title, 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.
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 (s) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yonezawa et al. (US 2021/0166846 A1) hereinafter Yonezawa.
Regarding claim 2, Miyamoto fails to specifically disclose wherein the glass film contains, as an additive, one or more elements selected from alkali metals and alkaline earth metals.
Yonezawa discloses a glass film (20; Fig.1) contains, as an additive, one or more elements selected from alkali metals and alkaline earth metals ([0044]-[0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Yonezawa with the glass film of Miyamoto in order to provide a catalyst to speed up the process of adhering the protective layer to a body substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Miyamoto fails to specifically disclose wherein a ratio of the additive to Si contained in the glass film is 0.5 atm% to 90 atm%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a ratio of the additive to Si contained in the glass film is 0.5 atm% to 90 atm % to provide excellent insulation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ233.
Regarding claim 5, Miyamoto discloses wherein a material of the glass film contains silicon dioxide ( 23 is made of Silicone dioxide).
Miyamoto fails to specifically disclose a multicomponent oxide containing an alkaline earth metal and Si.
Yonezawa discloses a multicomponent oxide containing an alkaline earth metal and Si ([0044]-[0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the material of Yonezawa with the glass film of Miyamoto in order to provide a catalyst to speed up the process of adhering the protective layer to a body substrate.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure.
Manley (US 3305821) discloses a glass sealed resistor.
Davis (US 3069294 A) discloses a glass enamel coated resistor.
Ohkubo et al. (US 12020854 B2) discloses an electronic component.
The above references are considered of particular relevance to the claimed invention but cannot be considered to teach the limitations or combined to being obvious to a person skilled in the art to disclose the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETE LEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5921. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (2nd & 4th Friday Off). 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PETE T LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Prosecution Insights