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 § 102
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, 4-5, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 6349026).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 1-3) comprising: an element body (Fig. 1, 3) having a multilayer body (Fig. 1, 3) in which dielectric layers (Fig. 1, 7) formed of a dielectric ceramic and internal electrodes (Fig. 1, 5/6) containing a metal as a main component are stacked (Fig. 1), and a protective portion (Fig. 1, 7 above top 5/6) that covers a surface of the multilayer body (Fig. 1); and an external electrode (Fig. 1, 2) that is disposed on a surface of the element body and is electrically connected to the internal electrodes (Fig. 1), the external electrode having a conductor portion (Fig. 2, 21) formed of a metal containing copper ([Col 5, lines 48-56]) as a main component element and a ceramic portion (Fig. 2, 22) formed of a ceramic material ([Col 6, lines 25-52]), wherein a bending ceramic portion that is disposed to penetrate between a surface in contact with the element body in the conductor portion and a surface opposed to the surface and in which a path of the penetration bends is included in the ceramic portion (Fig. 2, 22 at corner has at least some bend in it).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura further discloses that the metal in the internal electrodes contains copper as a main component element ([Col 5, lines 26-35]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura further discloses that the ceramic portion contains components common to those of the dielectric layers ([Col 6, lines 25-52]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura further discloses that the dielectric layers contain barium titanate as a main component ([Col 5, lines 17-25]).
Regarding claim 8, the language, term, or phrase “A manufacturing method of the multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, the manufacturing method comprising: preparing powder of a dielectric ceramic composition; mixing the powder of the dielectric ceramic composition with a binder and shaping a mixture into a sheet shape to obtain a green sheet; forming an internal electrode pattern containing a metal on the green sheet; obtaining a green multilayer body through executing pressure bonding after stacking a predetermined number of the green sheets on which the internal electrode pattern is formed and disposing green sheets for a cover layer at both end portions in a layer-stacking direction; dicing the green multilayer body to obtain a before-firing element body; removing the binder from the before-firing element body; causing paste for an external electrode containing metal particles containing copper as a main component element and ceramic particles having composition similar to composition of the dielectric ceramic composition to adhere to a surface of the before-firing element body resulting from the removal of the binder; and firing the before-firing element body to which the paste for the external electrode adheres to obtain a sintered body", is directed towards the process of making the multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "A manufacturing method of the multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, the manufacturing method comprising: preparing powder of a dielectric ceramic composition; mixing the powder of the dielectric ceramic composition with a binder and shaping a mixture into a sheet shape to obtain a green sheet; forming an internal electrode pattern containing a metal on the green sheet; obtaining a green multilayer body through executing pressure bonding after stacking a predetermined number of the green sheets on which the internal electrode pattern is formed and disposing green sheets for a cover layer at both end portions in a layer-stacking direction; dicing the green multilayer body to obtain a before-firing element body; removing the binder from the before-firing element body; causing paste for an external electrode containing metal particles containing copper as a main component element and ceramic particles having composition similar to composition of the dielectric ceramic composition to adhere to a surface of the before-firing element body resulting from the removal of the binder; and firing the before-firing element body to which the paste for the external electrode adheres to obtain a sintered body" only requires the multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, which does not distinguish the invention from Nakamura, who teaches the structure as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 6349026) in view of LEE et al (US 2015/0318111).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura fails to teach the claim limitations.
LEE teaches that a tortuosity of the path that penetrates the conductor portion regarding the bending ceramic portion is equal to or higher than 1.1 (Fig. 3, path of large 30c in center is greater than 1.1x the straight line distance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of LEE to the invention of Nakamura, in order to reduce contact resistance between the internal and external electrodes (LEE [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura fails to teach the claim limitations.
LEE teaches that a tortuosity of the path that penetrates the conductor portion regarding the bending ceramic portion is equal to or higher than 1.1 and equal to or lower than 7.0 (Fig. 3, path of large 30c in center is greater than 1.1x but less than 7x the straight line distance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of LEE to the invention of Nakamura, in order to reduce contact resistance between the internal and external electrodes (LEE [0006]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 6349026) in view of SAKATSUME et al (US 2017/0345570).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura fails to teach the claim limitations.
SAKATSUME teaches that the dielectric layers contain calcium zirconate as a main component ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of SAKATSUME to the invention of Nakamura, in order to construct the devices using known materials in the art to meet user needs based on known material properties and availability of those materials. The use of conventional materials/components to perform their known function is obvious. MPEP 2144.06.
Additional Relevant Prior Art:
Yokoyama et al (US 2002/0046861) teaches relevant art in Fig. 4.
ONISHI et al (US 2015/0016018) teaches relevant art in Fig. 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MCFADDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5649. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 8am-9pm PST.
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.
/MICHAEL P MCFADDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848