DETAILED ACTION
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claims 1-9, claims 1 and 3 recites the limitation “and including an extremity spaced apart from the end surface” there are multiple end surfaces so it is unclear if this is referring to one of those or a new end surface.
Regarding claims 10-18, claims 10 and 12 recites the limitation “and including an extremity spaced apart from the end surface” there are multiple end surfaces so it is unclear if this is referring to one of those or a new end surface.
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) 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SUGITA (US 2023/0115608).
The applied reference has a common Applicant, Murata Manufacturing, with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 10, SUGITA discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 1-10) comprising: a multilayer body (Fig. 1, 12) including an inner layer portion (Fig. 2, 14b) that includes a plurality of dielectric layers (Fig. 2, 14b) and a plurality of internal electrode layers (Fig. 2, 16a/b) laminated alternately with each other (Fig. 2), the multilayer body including a pair of main surfaces (Fig. 1, 12a/b) opposite to each other in a lamination direction (Fig. 1, X), a pair of end surfaces (Fig. 1, 12e/f) opposite to each other in a length direction (Fig. 1, Z) perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the lamination direction (Fig. 1), and a pair of side surfaces (Fig. 1, 12c/d) opposite to each other in a width direction (Fig. 1, Y) perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to both the lamination direction and the length direction (Fig. 1); and a first external electrode (Fig. 2, 30a) and a second external electrode (Fig. 2, 30b) provided opposite to each other on the end surfaces of the multilayer body (Fig. 2); the internal electrode layers including a first internal electrode layer (Fig. 2, 16a) and a second internal electrode layer (Fig. 2, 16b) that are connected to the first external electrode and the second external electrode (Fig. 2), respectively; wherein when viewed as a section of a central portion of the multilayer ceramic capacitor in the width direction cut parallel or substantially parallel to the side surface (as seen in Fig. 8): in one internal electrode layer included in the plurality of internal electrode layers in a central portion in the lamination direction (Fig. 7, central portion) and including an extremity spaced apart from the end surface (Fig. 2, at least one side is spaced apart), an average length of ten segments of the one internal electrode layer that are horizontally and successively positioned in a central portion in the length direction is defined as a, and any one of five segments of the one internal electrode layer that are horizontally and successively positioned from the extremity has a length greater than about 0.2a (Fig. 7-8 [0064] the coverage in the outer areas is higher than the central therefore this limitation would be true).
Regarding claim 11, SUGITA further discloses that the central portion of the multilayer ceramic capacitor in the width direction is within a range of about 2/5 to about 3/5 of an entire width of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (this taught by the prior art because if you took a value within this range the outermost section would still have a higher coverage than the innermost).
Regarding claim 12, SUGITA further discloses that relative to the one internal electrode layer included in the plurality of internal electrode layers in the central portion in the lamination direction and including the extremity spaced apart from the end surface, a difference in number between the internal electrode layers above the one internal electrode layer and the internal electrode layers below the one internal electrode layer is 0 or more and 2 or less (Fig. 7, this is true when you choose the center internal electrode layer).
Regarding claim 13, SUGITA further discloses that the central portion of the multilayer ceramic capacitor in the length direction is within a range of about 1/4 to about 3/4 of an entire length of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 8, when the center is chosen).
Regarding claim 14, SUGITA further discloses that the multilayer ceramic capacitor is a two terminal capacitor (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, SUGITA further discloses that the multilayer body has a with a rectangular parallel or substantially parallelepiped shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, SUGITA further discloses that the internal electrode layers include Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0072]).
Regarding claim 17, SUGITA further discloses that a thickness of each of the internal electrodes is about 0.3 μm to about 1.5 μm ([0073]).
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “wherein the first internal electrode is a through electrode and the second internal electrode is a ground electrode” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of SUGITA 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUGITA (US 2023/0115608) in view of CHUNG et al (US 2013/0250476).
Regarding claim 1, SUGITA teaches a multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 1-10) comprising: a multilayer body (Fig. 1, 12) including an inner layer portion (Fig. 2, 14b) that includes a plurality of dielectric layers (Fig. 2, 14b) and a plurality of internal electrode layers (Fig. 2, 16a/b) laminated alternately with each other (Fig. 2), the multilayer body including a pair of main surfaces (Fig. 1, 12a/b) opposite to each other in a lamination direction (Fig. 1, X), a pair of end surfaces (Fig. 1, 12e/f) opposite to each other in a length direction (Fig. 1, Z) perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the lamination direction (Fig. 1), and a pair of side surfaces (Fig. 1, 12c/d) opposite to each other in a width direction (Fig. 1, Y) perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to both the lamination direction and the length direction (Fig. 1); and a first external electrode (Fig. 2, 30a) and a second external electrode (Fig. 2, 30b) provided opposite to each other on the end surfaces of the multilayer body (Fig. 2); the internal electrode layers including a first internal electrode layer (Fig. 2, 16a) and a second internal electrode layer (Fig. 2, 16b) that are connected to the first external electrode and the second external electrode (Fig. 2), respectively; wherein when viewed as a section of a central portion of the multilayer ceramic capacitor in the width direction cut parallel or substantially parallel to the side surface (as seen in Fig. 8): in one internal electrode layer included in the plurality of internal electrode layers in a central portion in the lamination direction (Fig. 7, central portion) and including an extremity spaced apart from the end surface (Fig. 2, at least one side is spaced apart), an average length of ten segments of the one internal electrode layer that are horizontally and successively positioned in a central portion in the length direction is defined as a, and any one of five segments of the one internal electrode layer that are horizontally and successively positioned from the extremity has a length greater than about 0.2a (Fig. 7-8 [0064] the coverage in the outer areas is higher than the central therefore this limitation would be true).
However, SUGITA fails to teach that the external electrodes are configured so that there are end surface external electrodes opposite to each other on the end surfaces of the multilayer body; and side surface external electrodes opposite to each other on the side surfaces of the multilayer body.
CHUNG teaches that there are end surface external electrodes (Fig. 1, 21/22) opposite to each other on the end surfaces of the multilayer body (Fig. 1), connected to one of the internal electrodes (Fig. 2, 32); and side surface external electrodes (Fig. 1, 23/24) opposite to each other on the side surfaces of the multilayer body (Fig. 1) connected to another internal electrode (Fig. 2, 33).
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 CHUNG to the invention of SUGITA, in order to allow the capacitor to act as a feed through capacitor (CHUNG [0005])
Regarding claim 2, SUGITA, as modified by CHUNG, further teaches that the central portion of the multilayer ceramic capacitor in the width direction is within a range of about 2/5 to about 3/5 of an entire width of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (this taught by the prior art because if you took a value within this range the outermost section would still have a higher coverage than the innermost).
Regarding claim 3, SUGITA, as modified by CHUNG, further teaches that relative to the one internal electrode layer included in the plurality of internal electrode layers in the central portion in the lamination direction and including the extremity spaced apart from the end surface, a difference in number between the internal electrode layers above the one internal electrode layer and the internal electrode layers below the one internal electrode layer is 0 or more and 2 or less (Fig. 7, this is true when you choose the center internal electrode layer).
Regarding claim 4, SUGITA, as modified by CHUNG, further teaches that the central portion of the multilayer ceramic capacitor in the length direction is within a range of about 1/4 to about 3/4 of an entire length of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 8, when center is chosen).
Regarding claim 5, SUGITA, as modified by CHUNG, further teaches that the multilayer ceramic capacitor is a three terminal capacitor (CHUNG Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, SUGITA, as modified by CHUNG, further teaches that the multilayer body has a with a rectangular parallel or substantially parallelepiped shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, SUGITA, as modified by CHUNG, further teaches that the internal electrode layers include Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0072]).
Regarding claim 8, SUGITA, as modified by CHUNG, further teaches that a thickness of each of the internal electrodes is about 0.3 μm to about 1.5 μm [0073]).
Regarding claim 9, the Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114. The recitation of “wherein the first internal electrode is a through electrode and the second internal electrode is a ground electrode” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of SUGITA who teaches the structure as claimed.
Additional Relevant Prior Art:
Kojima et al (US 2006/0214263) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-8.
Hirata et al (US 2011/0110014) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-8.
KIM et al (US 2013/0002388) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-5.
LIM et al (US 2016/0196917) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-5.
OKUDA (US 2021/0104364) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-8.
NISHIKORI (US 2022/0165496) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-11.
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