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 06/04/2024 and 09/24/2024 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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only (claim 20 appears to depend on both claim 19 and claim 1). See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, claim 20 is being considered to depend only on claim 19.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabayashi et al. (US20070135295) in view of Park et al. (US20140179508).
With respect to claim 1, Sasabayashi teaches a dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) comprising: a first crystal grain that has a perovskite structure expressed by a general formula of BaCaTiO3 (see paragraph 16), and has a core portion and a shell portion surrounding the core portion and including a rare earth element and manganese (see paragraphs 15 and 16, noting Mn is one of rare-earth element).
Sasabayashi does not expressly teach that a second crystal grain in which an elemental ratio of total of barium and calcium to titanium is 0.70 or less and a main component is barium calcium titanate.
Park, on the other hand, teaches a second crystal grain in which an elemental ratio of total of barium and calcium to titanium is 0.70 or less and a main component is barium calcium titanate (see paragraph 43, noting BaTi4O9 is the same one of the compound use in instant application).
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 Sasabayashi and Park to form the claimed invention in order to obtain excellent dielectric properties (see paragraph 55).
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach that wherein the rare earth element is gadolinium (see Sasabayashi paragraph 52, noting Gd).
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach that silicon of which an elemental ratio to titanium is 0.002 or more and 0.05 or less (see Sasabayashi paragraph 17, noting Si/Ti elemental ratio is 0.002 to 0.02 which satisfies claim limitation), and magnesium of which an elemental ratio to titanium is 0.00 or more and 0.05 or less (see Sasabayashi paragraph 17, noting Mg/Ti elemental ratio is 0.001 to 0.02 which satisfies claim limitation).
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach the second crystal grain is at least one selected from a group of BaTi4O9, BaTi5O11, BaTi6O13, Ba4Ti11O26, Ba4Ti12O27, Ba4Ti13O30, Ba6Ti17O40 (see Park paragraph 43, noting BaTi4O9).
With respect to claim 19, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach a multilayer ceramic electronic device (see Sasabayashi FIG.1, element 1) comprising: a dielectric ceramic composition (see Sasabayashi paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 1 (see the above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 20, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach a plurality of internal electrode layers (see Sasabayashi FIG.1, elements 4 and 5); a dielectric layer (see Sasabayashi FIG.1, element 3) that is sandwiched by the plurality of internal electrode layers and includes the dielectric ceramic composition as claimed in claim 1 (see the above rejection of claim 1); and an external electrode that is electrically connected to the plurality of internal electrode layers (see Sasabayashi FIG.1, elements 8 and 9).
Claim 3, 9-15 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabayashi and Park, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US20170190626).
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 2, wherein an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium is 0.002 or more and 0.05 or less.
Sasabayashi and Park do not teach the elemental ratio of the total of barium and calcium to titanium is 0.926 or more and 0.995 or less, wherein an elemental ratio of gadolinium to titanium is 0.005 or more and 0.05 or less.
Yoon, on the other hand, teaches the elemental ratio of the total of barium and calcium to titanium is 0.926 or more and 0.995 or less (see paragraph 41, 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). See also paragraph 15 of Sasabayashi teaches general formula ABO.sub.3 (where A is at least Ba or Ba and Ca and B is Ti, or Ti and Zr and or Hf), wherein an elemental ratio of gadolinium to titanium is 0.005 or more and 0.05 or less (see paragraph 79, noting elemental ratio of Gd/Ti is 0.005 to 0.1 which satisfies claim limitation).
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 Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon to form the claimed invention in order to prevent deterioration of the reliability of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see paragraph 80).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach
the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 1, the second crystal grain includes manganese (see Sasabayashi paragraphs 15 and 16, noting Mn is one of rare-earth element).
Sasabayashi and Park do not teach an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium in the second crystal grain is 0.02 or more and 0.10 or less.
Yoon, on the other hand, teaches an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium in the second crystal grain is 0.02 or more and 0.10 or less (see paragraph 59, noting Mn/Ti elemental ratio is 0.002 to 0.05 which satisfies claim limitation).
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 Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon to form the claimed invention in order to prevent deterioration of the reliability of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see paragraph 80).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach
the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 1, the second crystal grain includes manganese (see Sasabayashi paragraphs 15 and 16, noting Mn is one of rare-earth element).
Sasabayashi and Park do not teach an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium in the second crystal grain is 0.02 or more and 0.05 or less.
Yoon, on the other hand, teaches an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium in the second crystal grain is 0.02 or more and 0.05 or less (see paragraph 59, noting Mn/Ti elemental ratio is 0.002 to 0.05 which satisfies claim limitation).
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 Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon to form the claimed invention in order to prevent deterioration of the reliability of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see paragraph 80).
With respect to claim 11, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach a dielectric ceramic (see Sasabayashi paragraph 15) composition comprising: a first crystal grain that has a perovskite structure expressed by a general formula of BaCaTiO3 (see Sasabayashi paragraph 16), and has a core portion and a shell portion surrounding the core portion and including a rare earth element and manganese (see Sasabayashi paragraphs 15 and 16, noting Mn is one of rare-earth element); and a second crystal grain which is barium titanate composite oxide in which an elemental ratio of total of barium and calcium to the barium titanate composite oxide is smaller than an elemental ratio of titanium to the barium titanate composite oxide (see Park paragraph 43, noting BaTi4O9 is the same one of the compound use in instant application).
Sasabayashi and Park do not expressly teach that, wherein the second crystal grain includes manganese and has an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium of 0.02 or more and 0.10 or less.
Yoon, on the other hand, teaches the second crystal grain includes manganese and has an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium of 0.02 or more and 0.10 or less (see paragraph 59, noting Mn/Ti elemental ratio is 0.002 to 0.05 which satisfies claim limitation).
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 Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon to form the claimed invention in order to prevent deterioration of the reliability of the multilayer ceramic capacitor (see paragraph 80).
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon teach the barium titanate composite oxide is at least one selected from a group of BaTi4O9, BaTi5O11, BaTi6O13, Ba4Ti11O26, Ba4Ti12O27, Ba4Ti13O30, Ba6Ti17O40 (see Park paragraph 43, noting BaTi4O9).
With respect to claim 13, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon teach the rare earth element is gadolinium (see Sasabayashi paragraph 52, noting Gd).
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon teach an elemental ratio of the total of barium and calcium to titanium is 0.926 or
more and 0.995 or less (see Yoon paragraph 41, 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). See also paragraph 15 of Sasabayashi teaches general formula ABO.sub.3 (where A is at least Ba or Ba and Ca and B is Ti, or Ti and Zr and or Hf), wherein an elemental ratio of gadolinium to titanium is 0.005 or more and 0.05 or less (see Yoon paragraph 79, noting elemental ratio of Gd/Ti is 0.005 to 0.1 which satisfies claim limitation), and wherein an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium is 0.002 or more and 0.05 or less (see Yoon paragraph 59, noting Mn/Ti elemental ratio is 0.002 to 0.05 which satisfies claim limitation).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon teach silicon of which an elemental ratio to titanium is 0.002 or more and 0.05 or less (see Sasabayashi paragraph 17, noting Si/Ti elemental ratio is 0.002 to 0.02 which satisfies claim limitation), and magnesium of which an elemental ratio to titanium is 0.00 or more and 0.05 or less (see Sasabayashi paragraph 17, noting Mg/Ti elemental ratio is 0.001 to 0.02 which satisfies claim limitation).
With respect to claim 18, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon teach an elemental ratio of manganese to titanium in the second crystal grain is 0.02 or more and 0.05 or less (see Yoon paragraph 59, noting Mn/Ti elemental ratio is 0.002 to 0.05 which satisfies claim limitation).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabayashi and Park, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US20220130608) and Murakami et al. (US20210304966).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 1.
Sasabayashi and Park do not teach a concentration of the rare earth element in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion, and wherein a concentration of manganese in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion.
Mizuno, on the other hand, teaches a concentration of the rare earth element in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion (see paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use a shell with a high rare earth element concentration and a core with a low rare earth element concentration of Mizuno with the dielectric ceramic composition of Sasabayashi and Park to obtain excellent reliability even at high temperature and high electric field (see paragraph 38).
Mizuno does not expressly teach that a concentration of manganese in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion.
Murakami, on the other hand, teaches that a concentration of manganese in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion (see paragraph 38 and 49, noting Mn is one of M element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art looking for a way to improve the dielectric ceramic composition to use Mn concentration in the core and shell portions of Murakami and further provides a way to improve the temperature characteristic of the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 82).
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 Sasabayashi, Park, Mizuno and Murakami to form the claimed invention in order to improve the dielectric ceramic composition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabayashi and Park, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20190279817).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 1.
Sasabayashi and Park do not teach a maximum grain diameter of the first crystal grain is 2 μm or less.
Park 817, on the other hand, teaches a maximum grain diameter of the first crystal grain is 2 μm or less (see paragraph 88).
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 Sasabayashi, Park and Park 817 to form the claimed invention in order to improve permittivity and resistivity simultaneously (see paragraph 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabayashi and Park, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US20070123413).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi and Park teach the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 1.
Sasabayashi and Park do not teach an elemental ratio of a total of barium and calcium to titanium in the second crystal grain is 0.16 or more (see Sasabayashi paragraph 40) .
Suzuki, on the other hand, teaches an elemental ratio of a total of barium and calcium to titanium in the second crystal grain is 0.16 or more (see paragraph 40).
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 Sasabayashi, Park and Suzuki to form the claimed invention in order to improve the characteristics and reliability of electronic component (see paragraph 7).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Mizuno et al. (US20220130608) and Murakami et al. (US20210304966).
With respect to claim 16, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon teach the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 11.
Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon do not teach a concentration of the rare earth element in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion, and wherein a concentration of manganese in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion.
Mizuno, on the other hand, teaches a concentration of the rare earth element in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion (see paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention, to use a shell with a high rare earth element concentration and a core with a low rare earth element concentration of Mizuno with the dielectric ceramic composition of Sasabayashi and Park to obtain excellent reliability even at high temperature and high electric field (see paragraph 38).
Mizuno does not expressly teach that a concentration of manganese in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion.
Murakami, on the other hand, teaches that a concentration of manganese in the shell portion is larger than that in the core portion (see paragraph 38 and 49, noting Mn is one of M element). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art looking for a way to improve the dielectric ceramic composition to use Mn concentration in the core and shell portions of Murakami and further provides a way to improve the temperature characteristic of the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 82).
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 Sasabayashi, Park, Yoon, Mizuno and Murakami to form the claimed invention in order to improve the dielectric ceramic composition.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20190279817).
With respect to claim 17, the combined teachings of Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon teach the dielectric ceramic composition (see paragraph 15) as claimed in claim 11.
Sasabayashi, Park and Yoon do not teach a maximum grain diameter of the first crystal grain is 2 μm or less.
Park 817, on the other hand, teaches a maximum grain diameter of the first crystal grain is 2 μm or less (see paragraph 88).
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 Sasabayashi, Park, Yoon and Park 817 to form the claimed invention in order to improve permittivity and resistivity simultaneously (see paragraph 5).
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