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 listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0351335).
With respect to claim 1, Kato discloses a multilayer ceramic electronic component (see abstract), comprising: a stack including dielectric layers and internal electrode layers alternately stacked on one another (see FIG. 3 and paragraph [0057], elements 12 and 13, separated by dielectric layers 17), the internal electrode layers including ends exposed on a side surface of the stacks (see FIG. 9 and paragraph [0083]); and a dielectric protective layer covering the side surface (see FIG. 3, elements 20 and 21), and wherein the dielectric protective layer and the ends of the internal electrode layers define voids being between the dielectric protective layer and the ends (see FIG. 4, element 24), and having the voids have an average size less than or equal to a thickness of each of the internal electrode layers (see FIG. 4, noting that the voids have a sizing equal to the thickness of each of the internal electrode layers).
With respect to claim 2, Kato discloses that each of the internal electrode layers has a thickness of 0.4 to 1.0 µm inclusive. See paragraph [0058], noting a thickness for the internal electrode (and by extension, the voids) of 0.5 to 2.0 µm and more specifically, about 1.0 µm.
With respect to claim 3, Kato discloses that the voids have an average size of 0.1 to 0.5 µm inclusive. See paragraph [0068], citing a size of 0.1 µm or more.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2021-057438. The Office notes that JP ‘438 was submitted as part of an IDS filed 11 June 2024.
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘438 discloses a method for manufacturing a multilayer ceramic electronic component (see paragraph [0001]), the method comprising: preparing a stack including dielectric layers and internal electrode layers alternately stacked on one another (see FIG. 2 and paragraph [0037])), the internal electrode layers including ends exposed on a side surface of the stack, the ends extending in a first direction (see FIG. 6); applying a laser beam to the side surface in a direction intersecting with the first direction at an incident angle greater than 0° and less than or equal to 90° with respect to the side surface to clean the side surface (see FIGS. 19 and 20 and paragraphs [0048]-[0049], noting an oblique angle for the laser beam); covering the cleaned side surface with a dielectric protective layer (see FIG. 12 and paragraph [0052]); and firing the stack with the dielectric protective layer (see paragraph [0060]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-057438.
With respect to claim 5, JP ‘438 fails to explicitly teach that the incident angle is greater than 30°.
However, such a modification is considered to merely require an optimization of the range for the incident angle, which can be determined by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B). The Office notes that JP ‘438 clearly teaches moving the bodies 116, creating different incident angles, in order to prevent unevenness of the laser processing (see paragraphs [0089] and [0091]), meaning that JP ‘438 identifies incident angle as a result-oriented variable, which can be optimized through routine experimentation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify JP ‘438 through routine experimentation, to prevent unevenness in the laser processing of the ceramic bodies.
With respect to claim 6, JP ‘438 fails to explicitly teach that the laser beam travels in a direction at an angle greater than or equal to 60° with the first direction when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the side surface.
However, such a modification is considered to merely require an optimization of the range for the incident angle, which can be determined by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B). The Office notes that JP ‘438 clearly teaches moving the bodies 116, creating different incident angles, in order to prevent unevenness of the laser processing (see paragraphs [0089] and [0091]), meaning that JP ‘438 identifies incident angle as a result-oriented variable, which can be optimized through routine experimentation).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify JP ‘438 through routine experimentation, to prevent unevenness in the laser processing of the ceramic bodies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Most of the references show a ceramic component having an internal electrode spaced away from the side margin, wherein the space is filled with a ceramic or other insulative oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION R FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m..
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.
/DION R. FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848