Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/762,710

ELECTRONIC COMPONENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner
MCFADDEN, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
2847
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
TDK Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
701 granted / 815 resolved
+18.0% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
840
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
54.9%
+14.9% vs TC avg
§102
33.2%
-6.8% vs TC avg
§112
6.7%
-33.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 815 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOBAYASHI et al (US 2009/0323253) in view of Saito et al (US 2016/0086733). Regarding claim 1, KOBAYOSHI teaches an electronic component (Fig. 1-6) comprising: an element body (Fig. 3, 9); an external electrode (Fig. 3, 10) including a conductive layer (Fig. 3, 20) including a plurality of silver particles ([0055]) and a metal plating layer (Fig. 3, 22) disposed outside the conductive layer with a gap (Fig. 3, at 21) between the metal plating layer and the element body (Fig. 3), the external electrode being disposed on the element body (Fig. 3); and an oxide of a metal component included in the metal plating layer ([0057]), the oxide being in contact with the metal plating layer and the element body and being disposed in the gap between the metal plating layer and the element body (Fig. 3). However, KOBAYASHI fails to teach that the conductive layer is a conductive resin layer. Saito teaches that the conductive layer (Fig. 1, 13a) is a conductive resin layer [0048]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Saito to the invention of KOBAYASHI, in order to increase the reliability of the capacitor (Saito [0032]). Regarding claim 2, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the metal plating layer includes a copper plating layer ([0056]), and the oxide includes an oxide of copper included in the copper plating layer ([0057]). Regarding claim 3, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the metal plating layer includes an other metal plating layer (Fig. 5, 23) different from the copper plating layer (Fig. 5), the other metal plating layer being disposed outside the copper plating layer with a gap between the other metal plating layer and the element body (Fig. 5, there is a gap where 22/21 are). Regarding claim 4, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the other metal plating layer includes a nickel plating layer ([0074]). Regarding claim 5, KOBAYOSHI fails to teach the claim limitations. Saito teaches that the other metal plating layer includes a solder plating layer outside the nickel plating layer ([0132]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Saito to the invention of KOBAYASHI, in order to increase the reliability of the capacitor (Saito [0032]). Regarding claim 6, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the solder plating layer has a gap between the solder plating layer and the element body (Fig. 3, there is at least some gap between the outside of 23 and the body where 21 and 22 are). Regarding claim 7, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the oxide extends along an edge of the conductive resin layer (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 8, KOBAYOSHI teaches an electronic component (Fig. 1-6), comprising: an element body (Fig. 3, 9); an external electrode (Fig. 3, 10) disposed on the element body and including a conductive layer (Fig. 3, 20) including a plurality of silver particles [0055]); and an oxide (Fig. 3, 21) disposed in front of an edge of the conductive layer and in contact with the element body (Fig. 3). However, KOBAYASHI fails to teach that the conductive layer is a conductive resin layer. Saito teaches that the conductive layer (Fig. 1, 13a) is a conductive resin layer [0048]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Saito to the invention of KOBAYASHI, in order to increase the reliability of the capacitor (Saito [0032]). Regarding claim 9, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the oxide extends along the edge of the conductive resin layer (Fig. 3, extends at least partially on the top edge). Regarding claim 10, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the external electrode includes a metal plating layer (Fig. 3, 22) outside the conductive resin layer (Fig. 3), and the oxide includes an oxide of a metal component included in the metal plating layer ([0057]). Regarding claim 11, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the metal plating layer includes a copper plating layer ([0056]), and the oxide includes an oxide of copper included in the copper plating layer ([0057]). Regarding claim 12, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the metal plating layer includes an other metal plating layer (Fig. 5, 23) different from the copper plating layer (Fig. 5), the other metal plating layer being disposed outside the copper plating layer (Fig. 5). Regarding claim 13, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the other metal plating layer includes a nickel plating layer ([0074]). Regarding claim 14, KOBAYOSHI fails to teach the claim limitations. Saito teaches that the other metal plating layer includes a solder plating layer outside the nickel plating layer ([0132]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Saito to the invention of KOBAYASHI, in order to increase the reliability of the capacitor (Saito [0032]). Regarding claim 15, KOBAYOSHI, as modified by Saito, further teaches that the metal plating layer is separated from the element body (Fig. 5, 22 is separated from the body), and the oxide is disposed between the metal plating layer and the element body (Fig. 5, outside of 23 is separated from the body in at least some places). Additional Relevant Prior Art: AHN et al (US 2013/0250480) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-3. Yang et al (US 2019/0385795) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-10. Kang (US 2022/0122777) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-4. YI et al (US 2023/0178302) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-6. LEE et al (US 2022/0172898) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-2. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P MCFADDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5649. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 8am-9pm PST. 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. /MICHAEL P MCFADDEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 03, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592346
MONOLITHIC MULTILAYERED CERAMIC CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590195
POLYPROPYLENE FILM, POLYPROPYLENE FILM INTEGRATED WITH METAL LAYER, AND FILM CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592339
MULTILAYER CERAMIC CAPACITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586727
MULTILAYERED CAPACITOR AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586718
MULTILAYER CERAMIC ELECTRONIC COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+20.4%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 815 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month