Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/616,235

ELECTRONIC COMPONENT AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ELECTRONIC COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 26, 2024
Examiner
MCFADDEN, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
2848
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
701 granted / 815 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
840
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 815 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7-12 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MATSUMOTO et al (US 2024/0212938). Regarding claim 1, MATSUMOTO discloses an electronic component (Fig. 1-5) comprising: an element body (Fig. 1, 10) including a stack (Fig. 4, 14) and a side margin (Fig. 4, 16), the stack having a rectangular or substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape (Fig. 1) and including main surfaces (Fig. 1, top and bottom) opposing each other in a thickness direction (Fig. 1, Z), side surfaces (Fig. 1, front and back in Y direction) opposing each other in a width direction (Fig. 1, Y) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the thickness direction (Fig. 1), and end surfaces (Fig. 1, left end and right end) opposing each other in a length direction (Fig. 1, X) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the thickness direction and the width direction (Fig. 1), the stack including internal electrode layers (Fig. 2, 12) and a dielectric layer (Fig. 2, 11) stacked in the thickness direction, the side margin covering each of side surfaces of the stack in the width direction (Fig. 4); and an external electrode (Fig. 2, 20a) covering one of the end surfaces of the element body in the length direction and electrically connected to at least one of the internal electrode layers (Fig. 2); wherein the stack includes a first portion (Fig. 4, 142) located at an end in the width direction of the stack in a portion sandwiched between the internal electrode layers in the thickness direction (Fig. 4), and a second portion (Fig. 4, 141) located at a center in the width direction of the stack in the portion sandwiched between the internal electrode layers in the thickness direction (Fig. 4); and an average particle size of dielectric grains included in the first portion is larger than an average particle size of dielectric grains included in the second portion (Fig. 4, and [0046]). Regarding claim 2, MATSUMOTO further discloses that the stack further includes a third portion (Fig. 4, 16) located at an end in the width direction in the portion sandwiched between the dielectric layers in the thickness direction (Fig. 16); and at least a portion of the end in the width direction of the internal electrode layers is covered with the dielectric grains included in the third portion (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 4, MATSUMOTO further discloses that an entire or substantially an entire end of the internal electrode layers is covered with the dielectric grains included in the third portion (Fig. 4). Regarding claim 6, MATSUMOTO further discloses that the average particle size of the dielectric grains included in the first portion is about 200 nm or more and about 1000 nm or less ([0053-0054]). Regarding claim 13, MATSUMOTO further discloses an additional external electrode (Fig. 2, 20b) covering another one of the end surfaces of the element body in the length direction, the external electrode and the additional external electrode not being in contact with one another (Fig. 2). Regarding claim 14, MATSUMOTO further discloses that the dielectric later includes an intermediate dielectric layer (Fig. 2, 11), an upper dielectric layer (Fig. 2, 13 on top), and a lower dielectric layer (Fig. 2, 13 on bottom). Regarding claim 16, MATSUMOTO further discloses that the dielectric later includes 100 or more to 600 or fewer total dielectric layers and the internal electrode layers include 100 or more and 600 or fewer total electrode layers ([0065]). 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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO et al (US 2024/0212938) in view of INOMATA et al (US 2023/0081197). Regarding claim 3, MATSUMOTO fails to teach the claim limitations. INOMATA teaches that an average particle size of the dielectric grains included in the third portion (Fig. 4, D2) is larger than the average particle size of the dielectric grains included in the second portion (Fig. 4, D1). 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 INOMATA to the invention of MATSUMOTO, in order to suppress the appearance of cracks in the capacitor (INOMATA [0012]). Regarding claim 5, MATSUMOTO fails to teach the claim limitations. INOMATA teaches that an average particle size of the dielectric grains included in the third portion is larger than a thickness of the internal electrode layers (when D2 is greater than 300nm [0016] and internal electrodes are 300 nm [0017]). 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 INOMATA to the invention of MATSUMOTO, in order to suppress the appearance of cracks in the capacitor (INOMATA [0012]). Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO et al (US 2024/0212938) in view of AHN et al (US 2012/0327556). Regarding claim 15, MATSUMOTO fails to teach the claim limitations. AHN teaches that a thickness of the intermediate dielectric layer is about 0.3 μm or more and about 0.45 μm or less ([0043]); and a thickness of each of the upper dielectric layer and the lower dielectric layer is about 10 μm or more and about 30 μm or less ([0069]). 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 AHN to the invention of MATSUMOTO, in order to reduce acoustic noise of the capacitor (AHN [0010]). Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO et al (US 2024/0212938) in view of JEON et al (US 2014/0233148). Regarding claim 17, MATSUMOTO fails to teach the claim limitations. JEON teaches that one end of each of the internal electrode layers, which is not in contact with the external electrode, is separated from the end surface of the element body by a gap in the length direction of about 5 μm or more and about 30 μm or less (10-60 μm [0143]). 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 JEON to the invention of MATSUMOTO, in order to increase the reliability of the capacitor (JEON [0013]). Regarding claim 18, MATSUMOTO fails to teach the claim limitations. JEON teaches that internal electrode layers include a projected area normal to the thickness direction which is about 80% or more and about 95% or less of a projected area of the dielectric layer normal to the thickness direction (up to 90%-98% body is 600 μm long [0139] margin is 10-60 μm long [0143] so internal electrode is 540-590 μm long or 90-98% the dielectric layer). 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 JEON to the invention of MATSUMOTO, in order to increase the reliability of the capacitor (JEON [0013]). Additional Relevant Prior Art: LEE et al (US 2015/0348712) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-4. UCHIDA (US 2020/0312569) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-5. HASHIMOTO (US 2020/0312570) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-4. TANIGUCHI (US 2021/0012968) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-4. LEE et al (US 2022/0130612) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-7. NAM et al (US 2022/0208455) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-9. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 26, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592346
MONOLITHIC MULTILAYERED CERAMIC CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590195
POLYPROPYLENE FILM, POLYPROPYLENE FILM INTEGRATED WITH METAL LAYER, AND FILM CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592339
MULTILAYER CERAMIC CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586727
MULTILAYERED CAPACITOR AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586718
MULTILAYER CERAMIC ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 815 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month