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 .
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, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukudome et al. (US 7,430,107).
With respect to claim 1, Fukudome discloses a multi-layered ceramic capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a ceramic body including a dielectric layer (see FIG. 1, element 3), a plurality of first internal electrodes in the dielectric layer (see FIG. 2, elements 5 connected to vias 7), and a plurality of second internal electrodes in the dielectric layer such that the dielectric layer spaces the plurality of first internal electrodes apart from the plurality of second internal electrodes (see FIG. 2, elements 6, connected to vias 8); a first conductive electrode unit passing through the ceramic body in a third direction and electrically connected to the plurality of first internal electrodes (see FIG. 2, via 7); a second conductive electrode unit passing through the ceramic body in the third direction and electrically connected to the plurality of second internal electrodes (see FIG. 2, via 8); and first and second external electrodes on a first surface of the ceramic body, the first and second external electrodes connected to the first conductive electrode unit and the second conductive electrode unit (see FIG. 2, elements 12 and 13), respectively, wherein the first and second conductive electrode units have a cone shape (see FIG. 5, noting the embodiment therein has a cone shape for element 47, which corresponds to element 7 in FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 2, Fukudome discloses a lower dielectric layer on a second surface of the ceramic body, the second surface opposite to the first surface such that the first and second surfaces face each other in the third direction. See FIG. 1, element 22.
With respect to claim 3, Fukudome discloses that a cross-sectional diameter of the cone shape increases from the first surface to a second surface of the ceramic body, the second surface opposite to the first surface such that the first and second surfaces face each other in the third direction. See FIG. 5.
With respect to claim 5, Fukudome discloses that cross-sections of the first and second conductive electrode units, with respect to a stacking direction of the first and second internal electrodes, have a trapezoidal shape. See FIG. 5.
With respect to claim 7, Fukudome discloses that maximum diameters of the first and second conductive electrode units are within a range of about 20 µm to about 100 µm. See col. 8, lines 36-44.
With respect to claim 9, Fukudome discloses that the first and second conductive electrode units comprise a same metal as the first and second internal electrodes. See col. 8, lines 4-19.
With respect to claim 10, Fukudome discloses that the first and second external electrodes each comprise at least one of copper (Cu), tin (Sn), or nickel (Ni). See col. 8, lines 46-67.
With respect to claim 12, Fukudome discloses a multi-layered ceramic capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a ceramic body including a dielectric layer (see FIG. 2, body 1 and dielectric layer 3), a plurality of first internal electrodes (see FIG. 2, electrodes 5), and a plurality of second internal electrodes (see FIG. 2, electrodes 6), the plurality of first internal electrodes and the plurality of second internal electrodes alternating with each other with the dielectric layer between the plurality of first internal electrodes and the plurality of second internal electrodes (see FIGS. 1 and 2); an external electrode on an upper surface of the ceramic body (see FIG. 2, elements 12/13); a first conductive electrode unit passing through the plurality of first internal electrodes in the ceramic body and electrically connected to the external electrode (see FIG. 2, element 7); a second conductive electrode unit passing through the plurality of second internal electrodes in the ceramic body and electrically connected to the external electrode (see FIG. 2, element 8); and a lower dielectric layer in contact with lower surfaces of the first and second conductive electrode units and of the ceramic body (see FIG. 2, element 22), wherein the first and second conductive electrode units have a cone shape (see FIG. 5, noting the embodiment therein has a cone shape for element 47, which corresponds to element 7 in FIG. 2).
With respect to claim 15, Fukudome discloses that maximum diameters of the first and second conductive electrode units are within a range of about 20 µm to about 100 µm. See col. 8, lines 36-44.
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 6, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukudome et al. (US 7,430,107) in view of Masuda (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013/0120901).
With respect to claim 6, Fukudome fails to explicitly teach that a difference between a minimum diameter and a maximum diameter of the first and second conductive electrode units is about 10 µm or more.
Masuda, on the other hand, teaches that a difference between a minimum diameter and a maximum diameter of the first and second conductive electrode units is about 10 µm or more. See paragraph [0040], noting a maximum diameter of approximately 50 nm and a minimum diameter of approximately 30 nm. Such an arrangement results in a porous capacitor having increased connection reliability. See paragraph [0017].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fukudome, as taught by Masuda, in order to increase the connection reliability of the capacitor.
With respect to claim 13, Fukudome fails to explicitly teach that a diameter of the cone shape increases from top to bottom.
Masuda, on the other hand, teaches that a diameter of the cone shape increases from top to bottom. Such an arrangement results in a porous capacitor having increased connection reliability. See paragraph [0017].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fukudome, as taught by Masuda, in order to increase the connection reliability of the capacitor.
With respect to claim 14, Fukudome fails to explicitly teach that a difference between a minimum diameter and a maximum diameter of the first and second conductive electrode units is about 10 µm or more.
Masuda, on the other hand, teaches that a difference between a minimum diameter and a maximum diameter of the first and second conductive electrode units is about 10 µm or more. See paragraph [0040], noting a maximum diameter of approximately 50 nm and a minimum diameter of approximately 30 nm. Such an arrangement results in a porous capacitor having increased connection reliability. See paragraph [0017].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in that art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Fukudome, as taught by Masuda, in order to increase the connection reliability of the capacitor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukudome et al. (US 7,430,107) in view of Feichtinger et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2006/0249758).
With respect to claim 8, Fukudome fails to teach that the first and second external electrodes have a hemispherical shape and are spaced apart from each other.
Feichtinger, on the other hand, teaches that the first and second external electrodes have a hemispherical shape and are spaced apart from each other. See FIG. 2B, elements 10/15/20. Such an arrangement results in proper space saving and simple mounting for the capacitor. See paragraph [0019.
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 Fukudome, as taught by Feichtinger, in order to save space while providing a simple mount for the capacitor.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukudome et al. (US 7,430,107) in view of KR 10-2008-0061719).
With respect to claim 17, Fukudome fails to teach that the external electrode includes an organic solderability preservative film on uppermost portions of the first and second conductive electrode units.
KR ‘719, on the other hand, teaches that the external electrode includes an organic solderability preservative film on uppermost portions of the first and second conductive electrode units. See the abstract. Such an arrangement results in improved contact between molten solder and the external electrodes. See the abstract.
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 Fukudome, as taught by KR ‘719, in order to improved contact between molten solder and the external electrodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: with respect to claim 19, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that the plurality of internal electrode units protrude from the first surface of the ceramic body, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 19. Claim 20 is allowed by virtue of its dependency from claim 19.
Claims 4, 11, 16, and 18 are 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: with respect to claims 4 and 16, the prior art fails to teach that the first and second conductive electrode units protrude out of the upper surface of the ceramic body (i.e., the surface is at a level higher than the first surface of the ceramic body), when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of their respective base claims.
With respect to claims 11 and 18, the prior art fails to teach that the first and second internal electrodes are bent in the third direction at a surface in contact with the first and second conductive units, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of their respective base claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kuroda et al. (US 6,370,010) discloses a multilayer capacitor having terminal electrodes extending from the first surface to the second surface, but fails to teach that that the electrodes extend beyond the surface or have a cone shape. Sakata discloses a multilayer capacitor having internal electrodes with a cone shape, but fails to teach that the electrodes pass fully through the ceramic body in the third direction.
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