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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination of Kang ‘115 as modified by Tsutsumi ‘449 fails to disclose the “solder wicking mechanism” of amended claim 1. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “solder wicking mechanism”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Cited art US 2018/0332715 and JP2002280253 provide evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art understand that a groove will allow for improved solder bondability.
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) 1-3, 7-8, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2020/0350115) in view of Tsutsumi et al. (US 2020/0066449).
In regards to claim 1,
Kang ‘115 discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a ceramic body (110 – fig. 1; [0034]) in which a plurality of dielectric layers are laminated ([0034]);
a recessed part (R1 and/or R2 – fig. 2; [0036]) formed to be depressed at a corner where a side surface of the ceramic body and a lower surface of the ceramic body come in contact with each other; and
a lower electrode (portion of 121 on lower surface and/or portion of 122 on lower surface – fig. 2; [0037]) formed on the lower surface of the ceramic body. Kang ‘115 fails to disclose wherein the ceramic body comprises a dummy electrode disposed inside the ceramic body and exposed to both side surfaces of the ceramic body and exposed through an upper surface of the recessed part.
Tsutsumi ‘449 discloses wherein the ceramic body (10 – fig. 1; [0026]) comprises a dummy electrode (11a and/or 11b – fig. 1; [0027]) disposed inside the ceramic body and exposed to both side surfaces of the ceramic body (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to from dummy electrodes as taught by Tsutsumi ‘449 in the ceramic body of Kang ‘115 so as to be exposed to surfaces parallel with the lower surface (including the upper surface of the recess) to obtain a device wherein a thin-film formed external electrode can be formed with good adhesion to the ceramic body.
In regards to claim 2,
Kang ‘115 as modified by Tsutsumi ‘449 further discloses wherein the recessed part is formed to be depressed so that one side surface thereof is open (fig. 1-4 of Kang ‘115).
In regards to claim 3,
Kang ‘115 as modified by Tsutsumi ‘449 further discloses wherein the recessed part is formed to be depressed so that a lower surface and one side surface thereof are open (fig. 1-4 of Kang ‘115).
In regards to claim 7,
Kang ‘115 as modified by Tsutsumi ‘449 further discloses wherein the ceramic body comprises an inner electrode (131 – fig. 3-4; [0038] of Kang ‘115) disposed inside the ceramic body, and wherein the inner electrode includes a first inner electrode (131 – fig. 3-4; [0038] of Kang ‘115) spaced apart from the side surface of the ceramic body and having both ends that overlap the lower electrode (121/122 – fig. 4 of Kang ‘115).
In regards to claim 8,
Kang ‘115 as modified by Tsutsumi ‘449 further discloses wherein the inner electrode comprises a second inner electrode (132 – fig. 3-4; [0038] of Kang ‘115) disposed to be spaced apart from the first inner electrode (fig. 4 of Kang ‘115) and exposed to the recessed part (R2 – fig. 2 & 4; [0038] of Kang ‘115).
In regards to claim 11,
Kang ‘115 as modified by Tsutsumi ‘449 further discloses wherein the recessed part comprises a metal layer (portion of 121 and/or 122 formed in recess – fig. 4; [0040] of Kang ‘115) formed on a surface of the recessed part and electrically connected to the lower electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4-6 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 recessed part is provided with a continuous curved surface that is formed to be depressed (claim 4) wherein the lower electrode is formed in a shape that opens the lower surface of the recessed part (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