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, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papavasiliou et al (US 2017/0194418).
Regarding claim 1, Papavasiliou discloses a capacitor (Fig. 1-7), comprising: a structure body comprising a first surface (Fig. 1, top of the bottom base) and a second surface (Fig. 1, bottom of the bottom base) positioned in opposite directions (Fig. 1), wherein a plurality of openings (Fig. 1, at 18/20) are positioned on the first surface (Fig. 1); a first internal electrode (Fig. 1, 14) disposed on a region where the plurality of openings are positioned (Fig. 1); a dielectric layer (Fig. 1, 16) disposed on a partial region of the first internal electrode (Fig. 1); a second internal electrode (Fig. 1, 12) disposed on the dielectric layer (Fig. 1); a first external electrode (Fig. 1, 30) disposed on the first surface (Fig. 1), and connected to the first internal electrode (Fig. 1); and a second external electrode (fig. 1, 28) disposed on the first surface (Fig. 1), and connected to the second internal electrode (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Papavasiliou further discloses that: the plurality of openings comprises a first opening and a second opening (Fig. 1, 18/20); and the first external electrode faces a region where the first opening is positioned in a direction in which the first surface and the second surface are spaced apart (Fig 1, the bottom of 30 faces the bottom base which as a hole is considered a region that the openings are formed in, as the term region is not further defined to describe how large of a region it is).
Regarding claim 4, Papavasiliou further discloses that: the plurality of openings comprises a first opening and a second opening (Fig. 1, 20/18); and the first external electrode is connected to the first internal electrode of a region positioned adjacent to the first opening (Fig. 1, 30 is considered to be adjacent the first opening 20).
Regarding claim 5, Papavasiliou further discloses that the first external electrode is connected to the first internal electrode by directly contacting (Fig. 1, 14 directly contacts 30).
Regarding claim 7, Papavasiliou further discloses that: the plurality of openings comprises a first opening and a second opening (Fig. 1, 18/20); and the second external electrode faces a region where the second opening is positioned (Fig. 1), in a direction in which the first surface and the second surface are spaced apart (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Papavasiliou further discloses that: the plurality of openings comprises a first opening and a second opening (Fig. 1, 18/20); and the second external electrode is connected to the second internal electrode of a region positioned adjacent to the second opening (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Papavasiliou further discloses that the second external electrode is connected to the second internal electrode by directly contacting (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Papavasiliou further discloses that the first external electrode and the second external electrode are provided in a plural quantity, respectively (Fig. 6, multiple of each external electrode).
Regarding claim 12, Papavasiliou further discloses that the dielectric layer includes one of Al2O3, ZrO2, and HfO2 ([0031]) or a combination thereof, or ZAZ which is a ZrO2 - Al2O3 - ZrO2 composite layer.
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, 6, 10, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papavasiliou et al (US 2017/0194418) in view of SHIOGA et al (US 2008/0068780).
Regarding claim 2, Papavasiliou fails to teach the claim limitations.
SHIOGA teaches that the structure body includes anodizing aluminum oxide ([0102-0103]).
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 SHIOGA to the invention of Papavasiliou, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Papavasiliou fails to teach the claim limitations.
SHIOGA teaches that the first external electrode (Fig. 4, 21) comprises: a first sub-electrode portion (Fig. 4, 18) contacting the first internal electrode (Fig. 4, 21); and a first main electrode portion positioned on the first sub-electrode portion (Fig. 4).
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 SHIOGA to the invention of Papavasiliou, in order to construct the devices using known specifications and designs in the art to meet user needs based on known design possibilities.
Regarding claim 10, Papavasiliou fails to teach the claim limitations.
SHIOGA teaches that the second external electrode (Fig. 4, 20) comprises: a second sub-electrode portion (Fig. 4, 18) contacting the second internal electrode (Fig. 4, 20); and a second main electrode portion positioned on the second sub-electrode portion (Fig. 4).
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 SHIOGA to the invention of Papavasiliou, in order to construct the devices using known specifications and designs in the art to meet user needs based on known design possibilities.
Regarding claim 13, Papavasiliou fails to teach the claim limitations.
SHIOGA teaches that the first external electrode covers one or more of the plurality of openings in which the second internal electrode is not disposed (Fig. 4, 21 is above only one internal electrode 12), and the second external electrode covers one or more of the plurality of openings in which the second internal electrode is disposed (Fig. 4, 20 is above both 12 and 14).
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 SHIOGA to the invention of Papavasiliou, in order to construct the devices using known specifications and designs in the art to meet user needs based on known design possibilities.
Regarding claim 14, Papavasiliou teaches a capacitor (Fig. 1-7), comprising: a structure body (Fig. 1, bottom base), comprising first surface and a second surface (fig. 1, top and bottom surface of base) positioned in opposite directions (Fig. 1), wherein a plurality of openings (Fig. 1, 18/20) are positioned on the first surface (Fig. 1); a first internal electrode (Fig. 1, 14) disposed on the first surface in a region between the plurality of openings (Fig. 1), and on the plurality of openings (Fig. 1); a dielectric layer (Fig. 1, 16) disposed on a partial region of the first internal electrode (Fig. 1); a second internal electrode (Fig. 1, 12) disposed on the dielectric layer (Fig. 1); a first external electrode (Fig. 1, 30) connected to the first internal electrode (Fig. 1), and disposed in a direction to which the first surface of the structure body faces (Fig. 1, up and down); and a second external electrode (Fig. 1, 28) connected to the second internal electrode (Fig. 1), and disposed in the direction to which the first surface of the structure body faces (Fig. 1).
However, Papavasiliou fails to teach that the a structure body is of anodizing aluminum oxide
SHIOGA teaches that the structure body includes anodizing aluminum oxide ([0102-0103]).
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 SHIOGA to the invention of Papavasiliou, 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.
Regarding claim 16, Papavasiliou, as modified by SHIOGA, further teaches a filling portion (Fig. 1, 22) disposed on the first internal electrode disposed in a first opening of the plurality of openings (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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 15, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, alone or in combination, the limitation of “wherein: the opening comprises first openings and a second opening; the dielectric layer and the second internal electrode do not exist in a region where the first openings are adjacent to each other; and the first external electrode is connected to the first internal electrode of a region positioned adjacent to the first openings” in combination with the other claim limitations.
Additional Relevant Prior Art:
Harada et al (US 2019/0122820) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-11.
Kagawa et al (US 2021/0020738) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-27.
Oukassi et al (US 2021/0074477) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-5.
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 2847