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 .
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.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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) 1-5, 8, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishisaka et al. (US 2018/0096791) in view of Hasegawa et al. (JP H05-326317A).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
378
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Nishisaka et al. disclose in Figs. 1-2, a multilayer ceramic capacitor (title) comprising:
an element body portion (11) including a first principal surface (16a) and a second principal surface (16b) opposite to each other in a thickness direction (T), a first side surface (17a) and a second side surface (17b) opposite to each other in a width direction (W), and a first end surface (15a) and a second end surface (15b) opposite to each other in a length direction (L), and a plurality of dielectric layers (12b) and a plurality of internal electrode layers (13a, 13b) laminated in the thickness direction (T);
a first external electrode (14a) on the first end surface (15a); and
a second external electrode (14b) on the second end surface (15b); wherein
the plurality of internal electrode layers (13a, 13b) includes a plurality of first internal electrode layers (13a) connected to the first external electrode (14a) and a plurality of second internal electrode layers (13b) connected to the second external electrode (14b);
each of the plurality of first internal electrode layers (13a) includes a first opposing portion opposed to an adjacent second internal electrode layer (13b) of the plurality of second internal electrode layers (13b) in the thickness direction (T), and a first lead-out portion (contained in left LG area) connecting the first opposing portion and the first external electrode (14a);
each of the plurality of second internal electrode layers (13b) includes a second opposing portion opposed to an adjacent first internal electrode layer (13a) of the plurality of first internal electrode layers (13a) in the thickness direction (T), and a second lead-out portion (contained in right LG area) connecting the second opposing portion and the second external electrode (14b);
each of the first external electrode (14a) and the second external electrode (14b) includes a Cu layer (141a,143a; 141b, 143b) on the element body portion (10), a Ni plating layer (144a, [0092]; 144b, [0092]) on the Cu layer (141a, 143a; 141b, 143b), and a Sn plating layer (144a, [0092]; 144b, [0092]) on the Ni plating layer [0092];
the Cu layer (141a, 143a; 141b, 143b) includes a first layer portion (141a, 141b) connected to a plurality of the first lead-out portions (13a @ left LG) or a plurality of the second lead-out portions (13b @ right LG) and a second layer portion (143a, 143b) covering the first layer portion (141a, 141b);
the first layer portion (141a, 141b) has a higher Cu content [0049] than the second layer portion [0096], (table 1 – sample 4) and extends in the thickness direction (T);
the second layer portion (143a, 143b) has a higher content of a glass than the first layer portion [0049], (table 1 – sample 4);
the Cu of the first layer portion (141a) of the first external electrode (14a) is continuous to connect the first lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction (T);
the Cu of the first layer portion (141b) of the second external electrode (14b) is continuous to connect the second lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction (T); and
in a cross section of the second layer portion (143a, 143b) extending through a central portion in the width direction (W) and parallel or substantially parallel to the thickness direction and the length direction (L), the glass occupies about 25% or more (Table 1, sample 4) of an area of the second layer portion (143a, 143b).
Nishisaka et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a width of the first opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the first lead-out portion in the width direction and a width of the second opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the second lead-out portion in the width direction.
Hasegawa et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor [0006] comprising internal electrodes ([0006], Fig. 3), wherein a width of an opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of a lead-out portion in the width direction ([0006]-[0007], see annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
325
781
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the internal electrode art to form the multilayer ceramic capacitor of Nishisaka et al. so that a width of the first opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the first lead-out portion in the width direction and a width of the second opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the second lead-out portion in the width direction, since such a modification would reduce the cost of the capacitor component [0002]-[0003].
Regarding claim 2, Nishisaka et al. disclose Ni is diffused in the first layer portion.
While Nishisaka et al. do not specifically state that the Ni is diffused in the first layer, it is understood to be an inherent feature.
When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art. (examiner’s emphasis)).
Regarding claim 3, Nishisaka et al. disclose the first layer portion has a higher Ni concentration as the first layer portion is closer to the element body portion.
While Nishisaka et al. do not specifically state that the first layer portion has a higher Ni concentration as the first layer portion is closer to the element body portion, it is understood to be an inherent feature.
When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art. (examiner’s emphasis)).
Regarding claim 4, Nishisaka et al. disclose a thickness of the second layer portion (143a, 143b) in the length direction (L) can be about 75% or more of a thickness [0057] of the Cu layer (141a, 141b) [0052] in the length direction (L).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 5, Nishisaka et al. disclose the element body portion (11) has a rectangular or substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Nishisaka et al. disclose each of the plurality of internal electrode layers (13a, 13b) includes Ni [0035].
Regarding claim 10, Nishisaka et al. disclose the multilayer ceramic capacitor (10) has a dimension in the length direction of greater than or equal to about 0.2 mm and less than or equal to about 4.5 mm (0.6 mm – [0093]); a dimension in the width direction of greater than or equal to about 0.125 mm and less than or equal to about 3.2 mm (0.3 mm – [0093]), and a dimension in the thickness direction of greater than or equal to about 0.125 mm and less than or equal to about 2.5 mm (0.3 mm – [0093]).
Regarding claim 13, Nishisaka et al. disclose a thickness of the first layer portion (141a, 141b) can be about 25% or less of a total thickness of the Cu layer [0052], [0057].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Nishisaka et al. disclose a thickness of the first layer portion (141a, 141b) can be about 5% or less of a total thickness of the Cu layer [0052],[ 0057].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim(s) 6-7, and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishisaka et al. (US 2018/0096791) and Hasegawa et al. (JP H05-326317A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2013/0321980).
Regarding claim 6, Nishisaka et al. disclose the claimed invention except for each of the plurality of dielectric layers includes a perovskite compound including Ba and Ti as a primary component.
Suzuki et al. discloses a ceramic capacitor dielectric composition, wherein the dielectric composition comprises a perovskite compound that includes Ba and Ti as a primary component ([0029], [0034]-[0035] table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the ceramic art to modify the dielectric layers of Nishisaka et al. to comprise a perovskite compound having Ba and Ti as main components, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having a high-dielectric constant ceramic that exhibits superior reliability [0029].
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al. disclose each of the plurality of dielectric layers includes at least one of Si, Mg, Mn, V, Cr, or rare earth elements as an additive ([0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Nishisaka et al. disclose the claimed invention except for each of the plurality of internal electrode layers includes Sn at an interface with a dielectric layer of the plurality of dielectric layers.
Suzuki et al. disclose a ceramic capacitor comprising internal electrodes (3, 4) separated by dielectric layers (2), wherein each of the plurality of internal electrode layers includes Sn at an interface with a dielectric layer of the plurality of dielectric layers [0011].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capacitor of Nishisaka et al. so that each of the plurality of internal electrode layers includes Sn at an interface with a dielectric layer of the plurality of dielectric layers, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having superior reliability [0026] during an application of a voltage.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (US 2018/0374645) in view of Nishisaka et al. (US 2018/0096791) and Hasegawa et al. (JP H05-326317A).
PNG
media_image4.png
258
454
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
390
478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Imai discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
an element body portion including a first principal surface (top) and a second principal surface (bottom) opposite to each other in a thickness direction (d3), a first side surface (Fig.2 – left) and a second side surface (Fig. 2- right) opposite to each other in a width direction (d2), and a first end surface (left) and a second end surface (right) opposite to each other in a length direction (d1), and a plurality of dielectric layers (11b1, 11b2) and a plurality of internal electrode layers (11a1 to 11a3) laminated in the thickness direction (d3);
a first external electrode (12) on the first end surface (left); and
a second external electrode (12) on the second end surface (right); wherein
the plurality of internal electrode layers (11a1) includes a plurality of first internal electrode layers (11a1) connected to the first external electrode (12) and a plurality of second internal electrode layers (11a1) connected to the second external electrode (12);
each of the plurality of first internal electrode layers (11a1) includes a first opposing portion opposed to an adjacent second internal electrode layer (11a1) of the plurality of second internal electrode layers (11a1) in the thickness direction (d3), and a first lead-out portion connecting the first opposing portion and the first external electrode (12);
each of the plurality of second internal electrode layers (11a1) includes a second opposing portion opposed to an adjacent first internal electrode layer (11a1) of the plurality of first internal electrode layers (11a1) in the thickness direction (d3), and a second lead-out portion connecting the second opposing portion and the second external electrode (12).
Imai discloses the claimed invention except for:
A) a width of the first opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the first lead-out portion in the width direction; a width of the second opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the second lead-out portion in the width direction; and
B) each of the first external electrode and the second external electrode includes a Cu layer on the element body portion, a Ni plating layer on the Cu layer, and a Sn plating layer on the Ni plating layer;
the Cu layer includes a first layer portion connected to a plurality of the first lead-out portions or a plurality of the second lead-out portions and a second layer portion covering the first layer portion;
the first layer portion has a higher Cu content than the second layer portion and extends in the thickness direction;
the second layer portion has a higher content of a glass than the first layer portion;
the Cu of the first layer portion of the first external electrode is continuous to connect the first lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction;
the Cu of the first layer portion of the second external electrode is continuous to connect the second lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction; and
in a cross section of the second layer portion extending through a central portion in the width direction and parallel or substantially parallel to the thickness direction and the length direction, the glass occupies about 25% or more of an area of the second layer portion.
A) Hasegawa et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor [0006] comprising internal electrodes [0006], Fig. 3, wherein a width of an opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of a lead-out portion in the width direction ([0006]-[0007], see annotated figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
325
781
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the internal electrode art to form the multilayer ceramic capacitor of Imai so that a width of the first opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the first lead-out portion in the width direction and a width of the second opposing portion in the width direction is larger than a width of the second lead-out portion in the width direction, since such a modification would reduce the cost of the capacitor component [0002]-[0003].
B) Nishisaka et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising external electrodes (14a, 14b), wherein each of the first external electrode (14a) and the second external electrode (14b) includes a Cu layer (141a,143a; 141b, 143b) on an element body portion (10), a Ni plating layer (144a, [0092]; 144b, [0092]) on the Cu layer (141a, 143a; 141b, 143b), and a Sn plating layer (144a, [0092]; 144b, [0092]) on the Ni plating layer [0092];
the Cu layer (141a, 143a; 141b, 143b) includes a first layer portion (141a, 141b) connected to a plurality of first lead-out portions (13a @ left LG) or a plurality of second lead-out portions (13b @ right LG) and a second layer portion (143a, 143b) covering the first layer portion (141a, 141b);
the first layer portion (141a, 141b) has a higher Cu content [0049] than the second layer portion [0096], (table 1 – sample 4) and extends in the thickness direction (T);
the second layer portion (143a, 143b) has a higher content of a glass than the first layer portion [0049], (table 1 – sample 4);
the Cu of the first layer portion (141a) of the first external electrode (14a) is continuous to connect the first lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction (T);
the Cu of the first layer portion (141b) of the second external electrode (14b) is continuous to connect the second lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction (T); and
in a cross section of the second layer portion (143a, 143b) extending through a central portion in the width direction (W) and parallel or substantially parallel to the thickness direction and the length direction (L), the glass occupies about 25% or more (Table 1, sample 4) of an area of the second layer portion (143a, 143b).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the multilayer ceramic capacitor of Imai, so that each of the first external electrode and the second external electrode includes a Cu layer on the element body portion, a Ni plating layer on the Cu layer, and a Sn plating layer on the Ni plating layer;
the Cu layer includes a first layer portion connected to a plurality of the first lead-out portions or a plurality of the second lead-out portions and a second layer portion covering the first layer portion;
the first layer portion has a higher Cu content than the second layer portion and extends in the thickness direction;
the second layer portion has a higher content of a glass than the first layer portion;
the Cu of the first layer portion of the first external electrode is continuous to connect the first lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction;
the Cu of the first layer portion of the second external electrode is continuous to connect the second lead-out portions adjacent to each other in the thickness direction; and
in a cross section of the second layer portion extending through a central portion in the width direction and parallel or substantially parallel to the thickness direction and the length direction, the glass occupies about 25% or more of an area of the second layer portion, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising thin external electrodes with excellent moisture resistance.
Regarding claim 11, Imai discloses a portion of the plurality of internal electrode layers (11a1, 11a3 – Fig. 2) bulges toward one of the first (top) and second principal surfaces.
Regarding claim 12, Imai discloses the portion of the plurality of internal electrode layers includes about 20% or less of a total number of the plurality of internal electrode layers (see Fig. 2, 11a1, 11a3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2013/0120898 A1
US 2015/0085422 A1
US 2017/0250028 A1
US 2022/0102077 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