DETAILED ACTION
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 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK (Mussel-Inspired Ceramic Layer for Enhancement of Mechanical Properties 2021).
Regarding claim 1, PARK discloses a multilayer electronic component (Fig. 1.1.2), comprising: a body (Fig. 1.1.2. body) including a capacitance formation portion (Fig. 1.1.2. between top internal electrode and bottom internal electrode) including a dielectric layer (Fig. 1.1.3. ceramic layer) and internal electrodes (Fig. 1.1.3. internal electrode) alternately disposed in a first direction (Fig. 1.1.2. up and down), and a cover portion (Fig. 1.1.2. above top internal electrode and below bottom internal electrode) disposed on both surfaces of the capacitance formation portion opposing each other in a first direction (Fig. 1.1.2.); and an external electrode (Fig. 1.1.2. outer electrode) disposed on the body and connected to the internal electrodes (Fig. 1.1.2.), wherein the cover portion includes polydopamine (Page 3; 1.2.2 polydopamine used in all ceramic layers).
Regarding claim 6, PARK further discloses that, in the cover portion, a N1s peak and a C1s peak are detected when analyzed using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) (this is considered an inherent trait of a ceramic layer with polydopamine as the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claims that lead to this result and it is therefore taught by PARK).
Regarding claim 7, PARK further discloses that, during Raman analysis of the cover portion, a first peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1360cm-1 to 1380cm-1, and a second peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1610cm-1 to 1630cm-1 (this is considered an inherent trait of a ceramic layer with polydopamine as the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claims that lead to this result and it is therefore taught by PARK).
Regarding claim 8, PARK further discloses that a ratio of maximum intensity of the first peak to maximum intensity of the second peak is 0.01 or more and 1.50 or less (this is considered an inherent trait of a ceramic layer with polydopamine as the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claims that lead to this result and it is therefore taught by PARK).
Regarding claim 9, PARK further discloses that a full width at half maximum of the first peak is 80cm-1 or more and 90cm-1 or less, and a full width at half maximum of the second peak is 100cm-1 or more and 110cm-1 or less (this is considered an inherent trait of a ceramic layer with polydopamine as the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claims that lead to this result and it is therefore taught by PARK).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK (Mussel-Inspired Ceramic Layer for Enhancement of Mechanical Properties 2021) in view of KATO (US 2019/0362897).
Regarding claim 5, PARK fails to tech the claim limitations.
KATO teaches that the cover portion includes a plurality of dielectric grains and grain boundaries disposed between adjacent dielectric grains ([0058]), and wherein an average size of the plurality of dielectric grains included in the cover portion is 170 nm or more and 200 nm or less ([0058]).
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 KATO to the invention of PARK, in order to increase the reliability of the capacitor (KATO [0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 10-17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein at least a portion of the polydopamine included in the cover portion is nitrogen-doped carbonized polydopamine” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein a nitrogen content (at%) of a total content (at%) of elements included in the cover portion is greater than 0 at% and less than or equal to 3 at%” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein the cover portion includes a plurality of dielectric grains and grain boundaries disposed between adjacent dielectric grains, and wherein the polydopamine included in the cover portion is disposed at at least one of the grain boundaries” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein the dielectric layer is free of the polydopamine” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein the dielectric layer includes the polydopamine, a content of the polydopamine included in the dielectric layer is less than a content of the polydopamine included in the cover portion” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein, during analysis using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), a N1s peak is detected in the cover portion, and the N1s peak is not detected in the dielectric layer” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein, during Raman analysis, a first peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1360cm-1 to 1380cm-1 in the cover portion, a second peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1610cm-1 to 1630cm-1, and no peak is detected in at least one of a Raman shift of 1360cm-1 to 1380cm-1 and a Raman shift of 1610cm-1 to 1630cm-1 in the dielectric layer” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein during Raman analysis, in the cover portion, a first peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1360cm-1 to 1380cm-1, a second peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1610cm-1 to 1630cm-1, and in the dielectric layer, a third peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1360cm-1 to 1380cm-1, and a fourth peak is detected at a Raman shift of 1610cm-1 to 1630cm-1, and wherein intensity of the third peak is lower than intensity of the first peak, and intensity of the fourth peak is lower than intensity of the second peak” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Regarding claims 15-17, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein at least a portion of the polydopamine included in the cover portion is nitrogen-doped carbonized polydopamine, wherein a nitrogen content (at%) of a total content (at%) of elements included in the cover portion is greater than 0 at% and less than or equal to 3 at%, wherein the cover portion includes a plurality of dielectric grains and grain boundaries disposed between adjacent dielectric grains, and wherein an average size of the plurality of dielectric grains included in the cover portion is 170 nm or more and 200 nm or less” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Additional Relevant Prior Art:
KIM et al (KR 20230032725) teaches relevant art in [0014].
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