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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 2, replace “An” with –an--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (JP H11214242 A) in view of Kim et al. (KR 102391580 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
154
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki et al. disclose in Fig. 1, a multilayered capacitor (3), comprising:
a capacitor body (2, 8-9) including a dielectric layer (2) and an internal electrode (8,9); and
an external electrode (7, 8) outside the capacitor body (2, 8-9),
wherein the internal electrode (8, 9) includes zirconium (Zr – Table 6 – sample 6-3), an average content of zirconium (Zr) for the internal electrode (8, 9) is greater than or equal to about 0.0005 mol% and less than about 5.0 mol% (0.65 mol%).
Miyazaki et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the dielectric layer includes a plurality of dielectric grains, at least one of the plurality of dielectric grains has a core-shell structure, and the core, the shell, or both include zirconium (Zr).
Kim et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 2), wherein the multilayer ceramic capacitor comprises a dielectric layer (111), the dielectric layer comprises a plurality of dielectric grains, at least one of the plurality of dielectric grains has a core-shell structure, and the core, the shell, or both include zirconium (Zr – Translation - Page 7, P: 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the dielectric layer art to form the dielectric of Miyazaki et al. using the dielectric material of Kim et al., since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having a dielectric where the change in dielectric constant due to temperature can be minimized.
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki et al. disclose the internal electrode (8, 9) further includes a conductive metal (Ni, Table 6, Sample 6-3).
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. disclose the dielectric grain includes a main component and a subcomponent, and the main component includes BaTiO3 (P:6, P:2)
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. disclose the subcomponent includes gadolinium (Gd) (P: 6, P: 6).
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki et al. disclose an average content of zirconium (Zr) for the internal electrode is in a range from about 0.001 mol% to about 1.0 mol% (0.65 mol % - Table 6 – sample 6-3) .
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. disclose an average content of zirconium (Zr) included in entirety of the shell (0.5 – 1.5 mols) is greater than an average content of zirconium (Zr) included in entirety of the core for a total core (0 moles, Translation - Page 7, P: 9).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. disclose an average content of zirconium (Zr) included in entirety of the shell is in a range from about 0.001 mol% to about 10.0 mol% (Translation - Page 7, P: 9).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. disclose an average content of zirconium (Zr) included in entirety of the core (0 mol) is in a range from about 0 mol% to about 2.0 mol% (Translation - Page 7, P: 9).
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an average thickness of the dielectric layer is in a range from about 0.1 µm to about 5 µm.
Kim et al. disclose an average thickness of the dielectric layer is 0.4 µm (P: 7, P: 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the dielectric layer art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the dielectric of Miyazaki et al. to have an average thickness of 0.4 µm, since such a modification would form thin dielectric layers.
Regarding claim 19, Miyazaki et al. disclose a multilayered capacitor (1), comprising:
an internal electrode (8, 9) comprising zirconium (Zr – Table 6 – sample 6-3) and a conductive metal (Ni – Table 6 – sample 6-3), wherein an average content of Zr in the internal electrode is in a range from about 0.0005 mol% to about 5.0 mol% (Zr – Table 6 – sample 6-3 - 0.65 mol%), and a dielectric layer (2).
Miyazaki et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the dielectric comprising at least one dielectric grain having a core-shell structure, wherein core of the core-shell structure has an average Zr content of less than 1 mol%, and shell of the core-shell structure has an average Zr content in a range from about 0.001 mol% to about 10 mol%.
Kim et al. disclose a dielectric layer for use in a ceramic capacitor, wherein the dielectric includes at least one dielectric grain having a core-shell structure, wherein core of the core-shell structure has an average Zr content of less than 1 mol% (0 mol%), and shell of the core-shell structure has an average Zr content in a range from about 0.001 mol% to about 10 mol% (Translation - Page 7, P: 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the dielectric layer art to form the dielectric of Miyazaki et al. using the dielectric material of Kim et al., since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having a dielectric where the change in dielectric constant due to temperature can be minimized.
Claim(s) 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 102391580 B1) in view of Miyazaki et al. (JP H11214242 A).
PNG
media_image2.png
300
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. disclose a multilayered ceramic capacitor (100), comprising:
a capacitor body (110) including a dielectric layer (111) and an internal electrode (121, 122), and
an external electrode (131, 132) outside the capacitor body (110),
wherein the internal electrode (121, 122) includes a conductive metal,
the dielectric layer includes a plurality of dielectric grains,
at least one of the plurality of dielectric grains has a core-shell structure,
the core, the shell, or both include zirconium (Zr),
an average content of Zr in the core is less than about 1 mol% (0 mol%), and
an average content of Zr in the shell is in a range from about 0.001 mol% to about 10 mol% (Translation - Page 7, P: 9).
Kim et al. disclose the claim invention except for the internal electrode comprises a conductive metal and Zr.
Miyazaki et al. disclose in Fig. 1, a multilayered capacitor (3), comprising:
an internal electrode (8, 9) that includes a conductive metal (Ni) and zirconium (Zr – Table 6 – sample 6-3).
It would have been obvious in the internal electrode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the capacitor of Kim et al. using the internal electrode material of Miyazaki et al., since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor wherein the heat/shock resistance characteristic is improved.
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. disclose the dielectric grain includes a main component and a subcomponent, and the main component includes BaTiO₃ (abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. disclose the subcomponent includes gadolinium (Gd) (P: 6, P: 6).
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki et al. disclose an average content of zirconium (Zr) for the internal electrode (8, 9) is greater than or equal to about 0.0005 mol% and less than about 5.0 mol% (Table 6 – sample 6-3 - 0.65 mol%).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. disclose an average content of zirconium (Zr) included in entirety of the shell (0.5 – 1.5 mols) is greater than an average content of zirconium (Zr) included in entirety of the core for a total core (0 moles, Translation - Page 7, P: 9).
Regarding claim 16, Miyazaki et al. disclose an average content of zirconium (Zr) for the internal electrode is in a range from about 0.001 mol% to about 1.0 mol% (0.65 mol % - Table 6 – sample 6-3) .
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. disclose an average thickness of the dielectric layer is 0.4 µm (P: 7, P: 4).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al. (JP H11214242 A) and Kim et al. (KR 102391580 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0063862).
Regarding claim 10, Miyazaki et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an average thickness of the internal electrode is in a range from about 0.1 µm to about 2 µm.
Kim et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic component having internal electrodes (table 1), where in the internal electrodes have an average thickness in the range from about 0.1 µm to about 2 µm (table 1 – Samples 1-23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the internal electrode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the internal electrodes of Miyazaki et al. to have a thickness of 0.1 µm to about 2 µm, since such a modification would form thin internal electrodes.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 102391580 B1) and Miyazaki et al. (JP H11214242 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0063862).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an average thickness of the internal electrode is in a range from about 0.1 µm to about 2 µm.
Kim et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic component having internal electrodes (table 1), where in the internal electrodes have an average thickness in the range from about 0.1 µm to about 2 µm (table 1 – Samples 1-23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the internal electrode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the internal electrodes of Kim et al. to have a thickness of 0.1 µm to about 2 µm, since such a modification would form thin internal electrodes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0237264 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 PM.
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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848