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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024 and 09/20/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered except reference US20132041347A1 by the examiner. Reference US20132041347A1 was not considered as it does not exist. Therefore, it was crossed out in the IDS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (US20170190626).
With respect to claim 1, Yoon discloses a dielectric ceramic composition comprising: a first crystal grain that has a perovskite structure expressed by a general formula of BaTiO3 (see paragraph 20, noting BaTiO.sub.3), and has a core portion and a shell portion surrounding the core portion and including dysprosium (see paragraph 77); and a second crystal grain in which an elemental ratio of barium to titanium is 0.70 or less (see paragraph 22, noting BaTi2O5 is the same one of the compound use in instant application) and a main component is barium titanate composite oxide, wherein an elemental ratio of barium to titanium of the dielectric ceramic composition is 0.90 or more and 0.98 or less (see paragraph 41, 51). Reference teaches that having a ratio of 90% BaTiO3 and 10% BaTi2O5 teaches these ratio and that ratio satisfies Ba/Ti ratio. BaTiO3 (0.9*1=0.9), BaTi2O5 (0.1*0.5=0.05), 0.9+0.05= 0.95.
With respect to claim 4, Yoon discloses the second crystal grain is at least one selected from a group of BaTi2O5, BaTi4O9, BaTi5O11, BaTi6O13, Ba4Ti11O26, Ba4Ti12O27, Ba4Ti13O30, Ba4Ti14O27, or Ba6Ti17O40 (see paragraph 22, noting BaTi.sub.2O.sub.5).
With respect to claim 8, Yoon discloses a dielectric ceramic composition comprising: barium titanate as a main component (see paragraph 20, noting BaTiO.sub.3), wherein an elemental ratio of barium to titanium is 0.90 or more and 0.98 or less (see paragraph 41 and 51, reference teaches that having a ratio of 90% BaTiO3 and 10% BaTi2O5 teaches these ratio and that ratio satisfies Ba/Ti ratio. BaTiO3 (0.9*1=0.9), BaTi2O5 (0.1*0.5=0.05), 0.9+0.05= 0.95), and wherein the dielectric ceramic composition contains 0.5 mol or more and 3.0 mol or less of dysprosium per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 77 in combination with paragraph 78, noting 0.25 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder), contains 0.05 mol or more and 0.5 mol or less of a donor element per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 57, noting 0.2 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder), contains 0.05 mol or more and 3.0 mol or less of an acceptor element per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 57, noting 0.2 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder), and contains 0.5 mol or more and 3.0 mol or less of silicon per 100 mol of titanium (see paragraph 71 in combination with 72, noting 0.2 mol to 5.0 mol based on 100 mol of the base material powder).
With respect to claim 9, Yoon discloses the donor element is at least one of vanadium or molybdenum (see Yoon paragraph 57, noting vanadium (V)).
With respect to claim 10, Yoon discloses the acceptor element is at least one of manganese or magnesium (see Yoon paragraph 57, noting Manganese (Mn)).
With respect to claim 11, Yoon discloses a multilayer ceramic electronic device (see paragraph 6) comprising: a dielectric ceramic composition as claimed in claim 1 (see the above rejection of claim 1).
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.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Murakami et al. (US20210304966).
With respect to claim 2, Yoon teaches the first crystal grain includes a donor element (see paragraph 57, noting vanadium (V)).
Yoon does not expressly teach that a concentration of the donor element at a grain boundary or a grain boundary triple point of the first crystal grain is larger than that in the first crystal grain.
Murakami, on the other hand, teaches a concentration of the donor element at a grain boundary or a grain boundary triple point of the first crystal grain is larger than that in the first crystal grain (see paragraph 38 and 49, noting V is one of M element).
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 Yoon and Murakami to form the claimed invention in order to improve the temperature characteristic of the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 82).
With respect to claim 3, Yoon discloses the donor element is at least one of vanadium and molybdenum (see paragraph 57, noting vanadium (V)).
With respect to claim 6, Yoon discloses the first crystal grain includes an acceptor element (see paragraph 57, noting Manganese (Mn)).
With respect to claim 7, Yoon discloses the acceptor element is at least one of manganese or magnesium (see paragraph 57, noting Manganese (Mn)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Kim et al. (US20230147982).
With respect to claim 5, Yoon teaches the dielectric ceramic (see paragraph 20, noting BaTiO.sub.3) composition as claimed in claim 1.
Yoon does not expressly teach that in the first crystal grain, a concentration of dysprosium of the shell portion is higher than that of the core portion.
Kim, on the other hand, teaches in the first crystal grain, a concentration of dysprosium of the shell portion is higher than that of the core portion (see paragraphs 60 and 61).
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 Yoon and Kim to form the claimed invention in order to prevent leakage current at the grain boundaries of dielectric grains (see paragraph 59).
Conclusion
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