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 . 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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/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.
In regards to claim 2,
Claim 2 recites “wherein, in the lamination direction, a dimension of the first via conductor and a dimension of the second via conductor are the same or substantially the same as the dimension of the capacitor body” which is contradictory to claim 1 which requires “recess portions are provided at a surface of the capacitor body at positions where the first via conductor and the second via conductor are provided when seen in the lamination direction, the recess portions being open and recessed inward in the lamination direction”. Specifically, for the recess to be open and recess inward the via conductors cannot have a dimension equal to the thickness of the laminate. As claim 2 contradicts claim 1 from which it depends, claim 2 will not be treated on the merits.
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, 13, & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vandermark et al. (US 3,195,027).
In regards to claim 1, Vandermark ‘027 discloses
A multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a capacitor body (11 – fig. 1-3; C4:L3-15) including dielectric layers (12 – fig. 2-3; C4:L3-15), first inner electrodes (13a – fig. 2-3; C4:L3-15), and second inner electrodes (13b – fig. 2-3; C4:L3-15) that are laminated;
a first via conductor (18 or 18a – fig. 2-3; C4:L22-62) inside the capacitor body and electrically connected to the first inner electrodes; and
a second via conductor (18 or 18a – fig. 2-3; C4:L22-62) inside the capacitor body and electrically connected to the second inner electrodes; wherein
in a lamination direction in which the dielectric layers, the first inner electrodes, and the second inner electrodes are laminated, a dimension of the multilayer ceramic capacitor is the same or substantially the same as a dimension of the capacitor body (fig. 2-3); and
recess portions are provided at a surface of the capacitor body at positions where the first via conductor and the second via conductor are provided when seen in the lamination direction, the recess portions being open and recessed inward in the lamination direction (fig. 2-3 – recess formed at top of 18a and in middle of 18).
In regards to claim 3, Vandermark ‘027 discloses
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein, in the lamination direction, a dimension of the first via conductor and a dimension of the second via conductor are smaller than the dimension of the capacitor body (fig. 2-3).
In regards to claim 13, Vandermark ‘027 discloses
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein a total numbers of the first and second inner electrodes is 10 layers or more and 150 layers or less (fig. 2-3).
In regards to claim 15, Vandermark ‘027 discloses
The multilayer ceramic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein each of the first via conductor and the second via conductor has a columnar shape (fig. 1-3).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandermark ‘027 in view of Tsuru et al. (US 2020/0303125).
In regards to claim 8,
Vandermark ‘027 fails to discloses wherein each of the dielectric layers includes BaTiO3, CaTiO3, SrTiO3, SrZrO3, or CaZrO3 as a main component.
Tsuru ‘125 discloses wherein each of the dielectric layers includes BaTiO3, CaTiO3, SrTiO3, SrZrO3, or CaZrO3 as a main component ([0042-0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the dielectric of Tsuru '125 as the dielectric of Vandermark ‘027to obtain a capacitor which can be formed with low temperature firing and has a large capacitance. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 9,
Vandermark ‘027 as modified by Tsuru ‘125 further discloses wherein each of the dielectric layers includes at least one of Mn compounds, Fe compounds, Cr compounds, Co compounds, or Ni compounds, as an accessory component ([0042-0045] of Tsuru ‘125).
In regards to claim 10,
Vandermark ‘027 fails to discloses wherein the capacitor body has a dimension in a longitudinal direction of about 0.3 mm or more and about 3.0 mm or less, a dimension in a lateral direction of about 0.3 mm or more and about 3.0 mm or less, and the dimension in the lamination direction of about 50 µm or more and about 200 µm or less.
Tsuru ‘125 discloses wherein the capacitor body has a dimension in a longitudinal direction of about 0.3 mm or more and about 3.0 mm or less, a dimension in a lateral direction of about 0.3 mm or more and about 3.0 mm or less, and the dimension in the lamination direction of about 50 µm or more and about 200 µm or less ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the capacitor of Vandermark ‘027 to have dimensions as taught by Tsuru '125 to obtain a capacitor which is small in size allowing for use in smaller electronic components. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 11,
Vandermark ‘027 fails to discloses wherein each of the first inner electrodes and the second inner electrodes includes Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au or an alloy including at least one of Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au as a main component.
Tsuru ‘125 discloses wherein each of the first inner electrodes and the second inner electrodes includes Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au or an alloy including at least one of Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au as a main component ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the internal electrode material of Tsuru '125 as the internal electrode material of Vandermark ‘027 to obtain an internal electrodes with good conductivity and based on the materials available. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 12,
Vandermark ‘027 fails to discloses wherein each of the first inner electrodes and the second inner electrodes has a thickness of about 0.3 µm or more and about 1.0 µm or less.
Tsuru ‘125 discloses wherein each of the first inner electrodes and the second inner electrodes has a thickness of about 0.3 µm or more and about 1.0 µm or less ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the internal electrodes of Vandermark ‘027 to have a thickness as taught by Tsuru '125 to obtain a capacitor which is small in size and has good volume efficiency. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 14 & 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandermark ‘027 in view of JP5166212B2 hereafter referred to as Sato.
In regards to claim 14,
Vandermark ‘027 fails to discloses wherein each of the first via conductor and the second via conductor includes Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au or an alloy including at least one of Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au as a main component.
Sato discloses wherein each of the first via conductor and the second via conductor includes Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au or an alloy including at least one of Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Pt, Fe, Ti, Cr, Sn, or Au as a main component ([0039] & [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the via material of Sato as the via material of Vandermark ‘027 to obtain via conductors with good conductivity and based on the materials available. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In regards to claim 16,
Vandermark ‘027 fails to discloses wherein a diameter of each of the first via conductor and the second via conductor is about 30 µm or more and about 150 µm or less.
Sato discloses wherein a diameter of each of the first via conductor and the second via conductor is about 30 µm or more and about 150 µm or less ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vias of Vandermark ‘027 to have a diameter as taught by Sato to allow for good connectivity while maintaining good capacitance. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 17,
Vandermark ‘027 fails to discloses wherein a distance between a center of the first via conductor and a center of the second via conductor is about 50 µm or more and about 500 µm or less.
Sato discloses wherein a distance between a center of the first via conductor and a center of the second via conductor is about 50 µm or more and about 500 µm or less ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the vias of Vandermark ‘027 to have a pitch as taught by Sato to allow for good connectivity and ESL while reducing the potential of short circuit. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest (in combination with the other claim limitations) wherein the capacitor body includes an outer layer at an outer side portion in the lamination direction, which has higher strength than the dielectric layers, and which covers one end portion of each of the first via conductor and the second via conductor in the lamination direction (claim 4) and wherein the first via conductor and the second via conductor each include a first material layer and a second material layer different from the first material layer; and the second material layer is provided at end portions of the first via conductor and the second via conductor in the lamination direction, the end portions being open end portions with surfaces that are not covered (claim 5-6).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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 J 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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights