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 .
Response to Arguments
The Arguments/Amendment filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below which was necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik et al. (US20220270822) in view of Kato (US20200258689).
With respect to claim 1, Baik teaches a multilayer ceramic capacitor (see FIG. 1, element 100) comprising: a capacitor body (see FIG. 1, element 110) including dielectric layers (see FIG. 3, element 111) and internal electrode layers (see FIG. 3, elements 121 and 122); and an external electrode (see FIG. 3, elements 131 and 132) disposed outside the capacitor body, wherein the dielectric layer includes a plurality of dielectric grains (see FIG. 4, element 11) and grain boundaries (see FIG. 4, element 11b) located between the dielectric grains adjacent to each other (see paragraph 30), the grain boundary includes a barium titanate-based primary component containing barium (Ba) and titanium (Ti) (see paragraph 30), and an inorganic element including silicon (Si) (see paragraph 31).
Baik does not expressly teach that in the grain boundaries, a standard deviation of atom% of the inorganic element to a total amount of components of the grain boundary is 0.20 to 0.80, and the standard deviation is obtained as a square root of an average of the squares of the deviations.
Kato, on the other hand, teaches in the grain boundaries, a standard deviation of atom% of the inorganic element to a total amount of components of the grain boundary is 0.20 to 0.80, and the standard deviation is obtained as a square root of an average of the squares of the deviations (see paragraph 93, noting Si at the grain boundary is 0.5 mol % or more to 10 mol % or less).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Baik and Kato to form the claimed invention in order to reduce the crack (see Kato paragraph 91).
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the grain boundary includes a barium (Ba)-inorganic element composite phase (see Baik paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that in the grain boundary, an atomic ratio of the inorganic element to titanium (Ti) is 0.010 to 0.065 (see Baik paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the inorganic element further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of dysprosium (Dy), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), barium (Ba), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), calcium (Ca), lithium (Li), copper (Cu), terbium (Tb), niobium (Nb), samarium (Sm), gadolinium (Gd), and combinations thereof (see Baik paragraph 42).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the grain boundary further includes a secondary component selected from the group consisting of dysprosium (Dy), terbium (Tb), manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), barium (Ba), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), and combinations thereof (see Baik paragraph 42).
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the secondary component includes the dysprosium (Dy), and in the grain boundary, an atomic ratio of the inorganic element to dysprosium (Dy) of the secondary component is 0.10 to 3.00 (see Baik paragraph 43).
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that at least one of the plurality of dielectric grains comprises a core portion and a shell portion surrounding the core portion (see Baik FIG. 4, elements 11a and 11b, paragraph 53).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the shell portion includes a barium titanate-based primary component containing barium (Ba) and titanium (Ti), and an inorganic element including silicon (Si) (see Baik paragraph 54).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the inorganic element of the shell portion further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of dysprosium (Dy), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), barium (Ba), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), calcium (Ca), lithium (Li), copper (Cu), terbium (Tb), niobium (Nb), samarium (Sm), gadolinium (Gd), and combinations thereof (see Baik paragraph 42).
With respect to claim 11, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the shell portion further includes a secondary component selected from the group consisting of dysprosium (Dy), terbium (Tb), manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), barium (Ba), silicon (Si), aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca), and combinations thereof (see Baik paragraph 42).
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the capacitor body has an active area in which the dielectric layers and the internal electrode layers are alternately disposed (see FIG. 3, elements 111, 121 and 122), and an amplitude of a peak of silicon (Si) in the dielectric layer is 8.6 kcps to 25 kcps with Scanning Electron Microscope-Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) line analysis for the active area (see Baik FIGS. 6A and 6B, paragraph 19).
With respect to claim 13, Baik teaches a method of fabricating a multilayer ceramic capacitor (see FIG. 1, element 100) comprising: preparing dielectric powder in which a surface of a barium titanate-based primary component containing barium (Ba) and titanium (Ti) is coated with inorganic element including silicon (Si) (see paragraph 31); preparing a dielectric green sheet using a dielectric slurry including the dielectric powder and forming a conductive paste layer on a surface of the dielectric green sheet (see paragraph 57); laminating the dielectric green sheets on which the conductive paste layer is formed to prepare a dielectric green sheet laminate (see paragraph 61); firing the dielectric green sheet laminate to prepare a capacitor body including a dielectric layer and an internal electrode layer (see paragraph 61); and forming an external electrode on one surface of the capacitor body (see paragraph 70), wherein the dielectric layer includes a plurality of dielectric grains (see FIG. 4, element 11) and grain boundaries (see FIG. 4, element 11b) located between the adjacent dielectric grains, the grain boundary includes a barium titanate-based primary component containing barium (Ba) and titanium (Ti) (see paragraph 30), and inorganic element including silicon (Si) (see paragraph 31).
Baik does not expressly teach that in the grain boundaries, a standard deviation of atom% of the inorganic element to a total amount of components of the grain boundary is 0.20 to 0.80, and the standard deviation is obtained as a square root of an average of the squares of the deviations.
Kato, on the other hand, teaches in the grain boundaries, a standard deviation of atom% of the inorganic element to a total amount of components of the grain boundary is 0.20 to 0.80, and the standard deviation is obtained as a square root of an average of the squares of the deviations (see paragraph 93, noting Si at the grain boundary is 0.5 mol % or more to 10 mol % or less).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Baik and Kato to form the claimed invention in order to reduce the crack (see Kato paragraph 91).
With respect to claim 19, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the dielectric slurry further includes secondary component powder selected from the group consisting of a dysprosium (Dy)-containing compound, a terbium (Tb)-containing compound, a manganese (Mn)-containing compound, a vanadium (V)-containing compound, a barium (Ba)-containing compound, a silicon (Si)-containing compound, an aluminum (Al)-containing compound, a calcium (Ca)-containing compound, and combinations thereof (see Baik paragraph 42).
With respect to claim 20, the combined teachings of Baik and Kato teach that the secondary component powder is included in an amount of 0.01 parts by mole to 5 parts by mole based on 100 parts by mole of the barium titanate-based primary component powder (see Baik paragraph 43).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik and Kato, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isota et al. (US20220102076).
With respect to claim 3, Baik and Kato teaches the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 1.
Baik and Kato do not expressly teach that the grain boundary further includes nickel (Ni), and in the grain boundary, an atomic ratio of the inorganic element to nickel (Ni) is 1.00 to 2.10.
Isota, on the other hand, teaches the grain boundary further includes nickel (Ni), and in the grain boundary, an atomic ratio of the inorganic element to nickel (Ni) is 1.00 to 2.10 (see paragraph 35).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Baik, Kato and Isota to form the claimed invention in order to improve the insulating properties and reliability of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see Isota paragraph 35).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baik and Kato, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20230080684).
With respect to claim 14, Baik and Kato teaches the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 13.
Baik and Kato do not expressly teach that the preparing of the dielectric powder comprises performing hydrothermal synthesis and grain growth of the barium titanate-based primary component powder; adding an inorganic salt containing silicon (Si) after the grain growth is completed; and performing heat treatment after adding the inorganic salt.
Kim, on the other hand, teaches the preparing of the dielectric powder comprises performing hydrothermal synthesis and grain growth of the barium titanate-based primary component powder; adding an inorganic salt containing silicon (Si) after the grain growth is completed; and performing heat treatment after adding the inorganic salt (see paragraph 132).
Accordingly, it 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 to combine the teachings of Baik, Kato and Kim to form the claimed invention in order to improving reliability of the ceramic electronic component (see Kim paragraph 140).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Baik, Kato and Kim teaches that the inorganic salt further includes at least one selected from the group consisting of dysprosium (Dy), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), barium (Ba), aluminum (Al), vanadium (V), calcium (Ca), lithium (Li), copper (Cu), terbium (Tb), niobium (Nb), samarium (Sm), gadolinium (Gd), and combinations thereof (see Baik paragraph 42).
With respect to claim 16, the combined teachings of Baik, Kato and Kim teach that the inorganic salt includes an alkoxide-based compound (see Kim paragraph 146) .
With respect to claim 17, the combined teachings of Baik, Kato and Kim teach that the inorganic salt is added in an amount of 0.1 parts by mole to 5.0 parts by mole based on 100 parts by mole of the barium titanate-based primary component powder (see Baik paragraph 32) .
With respect to claim 18, the combined teachings of Baik, Kato and Kim teach that the heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 100°C to 300°C (see Kim paragraph 132).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER N LIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 - 5:00 ET.
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.
/ESTHER N LIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848