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 06/27/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 5-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryoo et al. (US20200168397).
With respect to claim 1, Ryoo discloses a dielectric comprising: a dielectric grain (see FIG. 3, element 11a); a segregate (see FIG. 3, element 11d, paragraph 9, noting pores are filled with glass); and a pore (see FIG. 3, element 11c), wherein the segregate and the pore are in contact to form a specific combination in a section of the dielectric (see paragraph 9, noting pores are filled with glass).
With respect to claim 5, Ryoo discloses the segregate has a linear expansion coefficient smaller than that of the dielectric grain. See paragraphs 66, 99 and 110, noting linear expansion coefficient for BaTiO3 above 120ᵒC is ≈9.8 to 11.4 and SiO2 is 5x10-7. As such it meets the claim limitation.
With respect to claim 6, Ryoo discloses an element that the segregate comprises the most in terms of atomicity other than O, Ca, Sr, Zr, and Ti is Si (see paragraph 66).
With respect to claim 9, Ryoo discloses the dielectric grain comprises barium titanate (see paragraph 99 and 110).
With respect to claim 10, Ryoo discloses a multilayer electronic device comprising the dielectric according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo in view of Iguchi (US20200090869).
With respect to claim 7, Ryoo teaches the dielectric according to claim 1.
Ryoo does not expressly teach that the dielectric grain has a grain size of 0.10 µm or more and 3.00 µm or less.
Iguchi, on the other hand, teaches the dielectric grain has a grain size of 0.10 µm or more and 3.00 µm or less (see paragraph 38, noting 0.01 to 4 μm).
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 Ryoo and Iguchi to form the claimed invention in order to obtain a high mechanical strength of the dielectric composition (see paragraph 38).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo in view of Fujii et al. (US6329311).
With respect to claim 8, Ryoo teaches
Ryoo does not expressly teach that the dielectric grain comprises a component represented by a composition formula [(CaxSr1-x)O]n[(TiyZr1-y)O2].
Fujii, on the other hand, teaches the dielectric grain comprises a component represented by a composition formula [(CaxSr1-x)O]n[(TiyZr1-y)O2] (see col. 2, line 51).
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 Ryoo and Fujii to form the claimed invention in order to prevent the polishing step from being prolonged and prevent cracks (see col. 13, line 63-65 to col. 14, line 1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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 claim 2, the pore of the specific combination has a size smaller than that of the segregate of the specific combination, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 3, an average size of the segregate divided by an average size of the pore is more than 1.00 and 6.00 or less, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 4, a number ratio of the specific combination in the section of the dielectric is 2.0 x 104 or more and 5.0 x 106 or less per mm2, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
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 2847
Prosecution Insights