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 06/14/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US20200027658).
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a ceramic capacitor comprising (see FIG. 1, element 100): a ceramic body (see FIG. 1, element 110) comprising front and rear surfaces (see FIG. 1, elements 5 and 6) that face each other, upper and lower surfaces (see FIG. 1, elements 1 and 2) that face each other, and both end surfaces (see FIG. 1, elements 3 and 4) that face each other; a plurality of first dummy electrodes (see FIG. 2, element 125a) disposed within the ceramic body, exposed to one end surface (see FIG. 1, elements 3), among the both end surfaces of the ceramic body, and also exposed to the front and rear surfaces (see FIG. 1, elements 5 and 6) of the ceramic body so as to neighbor the one end surface of the ceramic body; and a plurality of second dummy electrodes (see FIG. 2, element 126a) disposed within the ceramic body, exposed to the other end surface (see FIG. 1, elements 4) that is opposite to the one end surface, among the both end surfaces of the ceramic body, and also exposed to the front and rear surfaces (see FIG. 1, elements 5 and 6) of the ceramic body so as to neighbor the other end surface of the ceramic body.
With respect to claim 3, Lee discloses that a first bottom electrode and a second bottom electrode (see FIG. 1, elements 131b and 132b) disposed on both sides of the lower surface of the ceramic body, wherein a separation distance between ends of the first dummy electrode (see FIG. 2, element 125a) and the second dummy electrode (see FIG. 2, element 126a) at which the first dummy electrode and the second dummy electrode face each other is relatively longer than a separation distance between the first bottom electrode and the second bottom electrode.
With respect to claim 5, Lee discloses that the first dummy electrode (see FIG. 2, element 125a) and the second dummy electrode (see FIG. 2, element 126a) have a symmetrical shape.
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, 6-7 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ahn et al. (US 20140138136).
With respect to claim 2, Lee teaches the plurality of first dummy electrodes comprises a first lower dummy electrode (see FIG. 6B, elements 129) and a first upper dummy electrode (see FIG. 2, element 125a) disposed over the first lower dummy electrode (see FIG. 5), which is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body (see FIG. 6B, elements 129).
Lee does not expressly teach that a length of a part of the first lower dummy electrode, is longer than a length in which the first upper dummy electrode is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body.
Ahn, on the other hand, teaches a length of a part of the first lower dummy electrode (see FIG. 4, element 125a), is longer than a length in which the first upper dummy electrode is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body (see FIG. 4, element 125a, noting dummy electrode 125a is longer than dummy electrode 124). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use the first lower dummy electrode length of Ahn with the capacitor of Lee for effectively prevented from being transferred to a printed circuit board (see paragraph 80).
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 Lee and Ahn to form the claimed invention in order to effectively prevented from being transferred to a printed circuit board, and thus acoustic noise can be further reduced (see paragraph 80).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Lee and Ahn teach that in the plurality of first dummy electrodes, a part that is exposed to the front surface of the ceramic body forms an "L" shape (see FIG. 4, elements 124 and 125a).
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Lee and Ahn teach that in the plurality of first dummy electrodes, a part that is exposed to the front surface of the ceramic body has a shape in which the length of the part is increased from a top thereof toward a bottom thereof (see FIG. 4, elements 124 and 125a).
With respect to claim 12, Lee teaches the plurality of second dummy electrodes comprises a second lower dummy electrode (see FIG. 6B, elements 130) and a second upper dummy electrode (see FIG. 6B, elements 126a) disposed over the second lower dummy electrode (see FIG. 5), which is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body (see FIG. 6B, elements 130).
Lee does not expressly teach that a length of a part of the second lower dummy electrode, is longer than a length in which the second upper dummy electrode is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body.
Ahn, on the other hand, teaches a length of a part of the second lower dummy electrode (see FIG. 4, element 125b), is longer than a length in which the second upper dummy electrode is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body (see FIG. 4, element 125b, noting dummy electrode 125b is longer than dummy electrode 123). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use the second lower dummy electrode length of Ahn with the capacitor of Lee for effectively prevented from being transferred to a printed circuit board (see paragraph 80).
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 Lee and Ahn to form the claimed invention in order to effectively prevented from being transferred to a printed circuit board, and thus acoustic noise can be further reduced (see paragraph 80).
With respect to claim 13, the combined teachings of Lee and Ahn teach that a first internal electrode (see Lee FIG. 2, element 121) disposed within the ceramic body and exposed to one end surface (see Lee FIG. 2, element 3), among the both end surfaces of the ceramic body, a second internal electrode (see Lee FIG. 2, element 122) disposed within the ceramic body, exposed to the other end surface (see Lee FIG. 2, element 4) that is opposite to the one end surface, among the both end surfaces of the ceramic body, and comprising a part that overlaps the first internal electrode (Lee see paragraph 52); a first external electrode (see Lee FIG. 2, element 131) disposed in the one end surface (see Lee FIG. 2, element 3) of the ceramic body and connected to the first internal electrode (see Lee FIG. 2, element 121); and a second external electrode (see Lee FIG. 2, element 132) disposed in the other end surface (see Lee FIG. 2, element 4) of the ceramic body and connected to the second internal electrode (see Lee FIG. 2, element 122).
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Lee and Ahn teach that the second dummy electrode (see Ahn FIG. 4, element 123) is formed in at least one of dielectric layers in each of which the first internal electrode has been formed (see Ahn FIG. 4, element 121), and the first dummy electrode (see Ahn FIG. 4, element 124) is formed in at least one of dielectric layers in each of which the second internal electrode has been formed (see Ahn FIG. 4, element 122).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Lee and Ahn teach that when the ceramic capacitor is mounted on a board (see Ahn FIG. 5, element 200, paragraph 116-119), a solder part (see Ahn FIG. 5, element 230, paragraph 116-119) in which a solder goes up the first and second dummy electrodes and further surrounds a part of the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body is formed at each of a part of the first dummy electrode, which is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body, and a part of the second dummy electrode, which is exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body (see Ahn FIG. 5, element 230, paragraph 116-119). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use the amount of solder of Ahn with the capacitor of Lee for solder to formed at each part of dummy electrodes to controlled the level of acoustic noise (see paragraph 119).
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200027658) in view of Hong et al. (US20150096795).
With respect to claim 4, Lee teaches the ceramic capacitor (see Lee ‘658 FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 1.
Lee ‘658 does not expressly teach that an interval between the first dummy electrodes and between the second dummy electrodes in a height direction thereof is 2 µm to 3 µm.
Hong, on the other hand, teaches an interval between the first dummy electrodes and between the second dummy electrodes in a height direction thereof is 2 µm to 3 µm (see paragraph 46, noting a thickness of a single dielectric layer may be preferably 0.1 to 10.0 .mu.m).
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 Lee and Hong to form the claimed invention in order to improve the strength against external impacts (see paragraph 107).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200027658) in view of Lee et al. (KR20150051421).
With respect to claim 8, Lee ‘658 teaches one or more first and second internal electrodes (see Lee ‘657 FIG. 2, elements 121 and 122) formed within the ceramic body and comprising parts that are spaced apart from the both end surfaces of the ceramic body at a certain distance and that overlap each other (see Lee ‘657 FIG. 2, elements 121 and 122).
Lee ‘658 does not expressly teach that first and second vias configured to connect the first and second internal electrodes to the first and second bottom electrodes.
Lee ‘421, on the other hand, teaches first and second vias configured to connect the first and second internal electrodes to the first and second bottom electrodes (see Lee ‘421 FIG. 2, elements 21a, 21 and 22).
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 Lee ‘658 and Lee ‘421 to form the claimed invention in order to reduced ESL (see machine translation page 12, line 8-17).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Lee ‘658 and Lee ‘421 teach that the first via is entirely connected to the first internal electrode through the first internal electrode, and the second via is entirely connected to the second internal electrode through the second internal electrode (see Lee ‘421 FIG. 2, elements 21a, 21 and 22).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘658 and Lee ‘421, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 20140138136).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Lee ‘658 and Lee ‘421 teaches the ceramic capacitor (see Lee ‘658 FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 8.
Lee ‘658 and Lee ‘421 do not teach that at least one of the first and second internal electrodes is formed on a dielectric layer in which the first and second dummy electrodes have been formed.
Ahn, on the other hand, teaches at least one of the first and second internal electrodes (see Ahn FIG. 4, elements 121 and 122) is formed on a dielectric layer in which the first and second dummy electrodes have been formed (see Ahn FIG. 4, elements 123 and 124).
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 Lee ‘658, Lee ‘421 and Ahn to form the claimed invention in order to effectively prevented from being transferred to a printed circuit board, and thus acoustic noise can be further reduced (see paragraph 80).
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200027658) in view of Togashi (US20120314338).
With respect to claim 11, Lee teaches the ceramic capacitor (see Lee FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 1.
Lee does not expressly teach that a plating layer that covers each of the first and second dummy electrodes is further formed at each of parts of the first and second dummy electrodes, which are exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body.
Togashi, on the other hand, teaches a plating layer (see FIG. 1, element 18A) that covers each of the first and second dummy electrodes is further formed at each of parts of the first and second dummy electrodes, which are exposed to the front and rear surfaces of the ceramic body (see FIG. 1, element 18A, paragraph 49).
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 Lee and Togashi to form the claimed invention in order to prevent insulation failures (see paragraph 58).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US20200027658) in view of Lee et al. (US9336946).
With respect to claim 16, Lee ‘658 teaches the ceramic capacitor (see Lee ‘658 FIG. 1, element 100) of claim 1.
Lee ‘658 does not expressly teach that the first dummy electrode and the second dummy electrode do not overlap the first and second internal electrodes.
Lee ‘946, on the other hand, teaches the first dummy electrode (see FIG. 4, element 141) and the second dummy electrode (see FIG. 4, element 141) do not overlap the first and second internal electrodes (see FIG. 4, elements 121 and 122). As such, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use the first and second dummy electrode of Lee ‘946 with the capacitor of Lee ‘658 to not overlap the first and second internal electrodes with the first and second dummy electrode in order to improved the adhesive strength of the external electrodes (see paragraph 81).
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 Lee ‘658 and Lee ‘946 to form the claimed invention in order to improve the adhesive strength of the external electrodes (see paragraph 81).
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