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 .
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 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.
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate with applicant via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502.03, 502.05.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a glass film in contact with an end portion of the metal layer extends around the metal layer” it is unclear if the “a glass film” is meant to be the same or different form the “a glass film” of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends. For the purpose of examination the examiner is taking “a glass film in contact with an end portion of the metal layer extends around the metal layer” to read “the glass film is in contact with an end portion of the metal layer extending around the metal layer”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends as the limitation present therein is already present in claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1 & 4-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishisaka et al. (US 2018/0096791) in view of Makino et al. (US 2018/0294099).
In regards to claim 1 & 15,
Nishisaka ‘791 discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor, comprising:
a multilayer body (11 – fig. 1-4; [0023]) including a plurality of dielectric layers (12a-12b – fig. 2; [0024]) and a plurality of internal electrodes (13a-13b – fig. 2; [0024]) alternately stacked; and
a pair of external electrodes (14a-14b – fig. 1-4; [0023]) on surfaces of the multilayer body and electrically connected to the internal electrodes extending to the surfaces of the multilayer body, respectively; wherein
the multilayer body includes:
a first main surface and a second main surface on opposite sides in a thickness direction that is a lamination direction of the dielectric layers and the internal electrodes (fig. 1-4; [0026]);
a first end surface and a second end surface on opposite sides in a length direction in which the external electrodes face each other, the external electrodes being provided on the first end surface and the second end surface(fig. 1-4; [0026]); and
a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface on opposite sides in a width direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to both of the thickness direction and the length direction (fig. 1-4; [0026]);
the external electrodes include:
a metal layer (141a & 141b – fig. 2; [0044]) on the first end surface and the second end surface, and covering the internal electrodes extending to the first end surface and second end surface, respectively;
a glass film (142a & 142b – fig. 2; [0044]) on the first end surface and second end surface, adjacent to the metal layer and extending around the metal layer;
a fired layer (143a & 143b – fig. 2; [0054]) including glass and metal, and covering the metal layer; and
a plating film (144a & 144b – fig. 2; [0044]) covering the fired layer;
a thickness of the metal layer is between about 0.1 µm and about 15.0 µm inclusive ([0052]). Nishisaka ‘791 fails to discloses a thickness of the fired layer is between about 0.1 µm and about 1.0 µm inclusive.
Makino ‘099 discloses an external electrode including a second conductive layer (63 – fig. 3; [0057]) including glass ([0084-0087]) wherein a thickness of the electrode is 1.0 µm ([0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fired layer of Nishisaka ‘791 to have a thickness of 1.0 µm as taught by Makino ‘099 to obtain a capacitor that is small in size. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 4,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein a glass film in contact with an end portion of the metal layer extends around the metal layer ([0059] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 5,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein the multilayer body has a rectangular or substantially rectangular shape (fig. 1-2; [0023] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 6,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein the multilayer body has dimension in the length direction between about 200 µm and about 2000 µm inclusive, a dimension in the thickness direction between about 100 µm and about 1000 µm inclusive, and a dimension in the width direction between about 100 µm and about 1000 µm inclusive ([0028] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 7,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein a number of the dielectric layers is between 10 and 1000 inclusive ([0031] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 8,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of dielectric layers is about 0.3 µm and about 5.0 µm inclusive ([0032] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 9,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of dielectric layers includes at least one of BaTiO3, CaTiO3, SrTiO3, or CaZrO3 as a main component ([0042] of Makino ‘099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dielectric layers of Nishisaka ‘791 using a material as taught by Makino ‘099 to obtain a capacitor with a desired capacitance. Furthermore, 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.
In regards to claim 10,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of dielectric layers includes at least one of a Mn compound, a Fe compound, a Cr compound, a Co compound, or a Ni compound ([0042] of Makino ‘099).
In regards to claim 11,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of internal electrodes is between 10 and 100 inclusive (fig. 2; [0037] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 12,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of internal electrodes is between about 0.3 µm and about 5.0 µm inclusive ([0038] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 13,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of internal electrodes includes at least one of Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, an alloy of Ni and Cu, or an alloy of Ag and Pd ([0035] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 14,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein the metal layer includes at least one of Cu, Ni, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0048] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 16,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein the fired layer includes at least one of Cu, Ni, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0056] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 17,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein the plating film includes at least one of Cu, Ni, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0065] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 18,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein the plating film does not include glass ([0065] of Nishisaka ‘791).
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, & 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishisaka ‘791 in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0341190).
In regards to claim 1 & 15,
Nishisaka ‘791 discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor, comprising:
a multilayer body (11 – fig. 1-4; [0023]) including a plurality of dielectric layers (12a-12b – fig. 2; [0024]) and a plurality of internal electrodes (13a-13b – fig. 2; [0024]) alternately stacked; and
a pair of external electrodes (14a-14b – fig. 1-4; [0023]) on surfaces of the multilayer body and electrically connected to the internal electrodes extending to the surfaces of the multilayer body, respectively; wherein
the multilayer body includes:
a first main surface and a second main surface on opposite sides in a thickness direction that is a lamination direction of the dielectric layers and the internal electrodes (fig. 1-4; [0026]);
a first end surface and a second end surface on opposite sides in a length direction in which the external electrodes face each other, the external electrodes being provided on the first end surface and the second end surface(fig. 1-4; [0026]); and
a first lateral surface and a second lateral surface on opposite sides in a width direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to both of the thickness direction and the length direction (fig. 1-4; [0026]);
the external electrodes include:
a metal layer (141a & 141b – fig. 2; [0044]) on the first end surface and the second end surface, and covering the internal electrodes extending to the first end surface and second end surface, respectively;
a glass film (142a & 142b – fig. 2; [0044]) on the first end surface and second end surface, adjacent to the metal layer and extending around the metal layer;
a fired layer (143a & 143b – fig. 2; [0054]) including glass and metal, and covering the metal layer; and
a plating film (144a & 144b – fig. 2; [0044]) covering the fired layer;
a thickness of the metal layer is between about 0.1 µm and about 15.0 µm inclusive ([0052]). Nishisaka ‘791 fails to discloses a thickness of the fired layer is between about 0.1 µm and about 1.0 µm inclusive.
Lee ‘190 discloses an external electrode including a second conductive layer (131b/132b– fig. 2; [0058-0062]) including glass ([0058-0062]) wherein a thickness of the electrode is 0.1 µm and about 1.0 µm inclusive ([0058-0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fired layer of Nishisaka ‘791 to have a thickness of about 0.1 µm and about 1.0 µm inclusive as taught by Lee ‘190 to obtain a capacitor that is small in size. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to claim 4,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein a glass film in contact with an end portion of the metal layer extends around the metal layer ([0059] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 5,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein the multilayer body has a rectangular or substantially rectangular shape (fig. 1-2; [0023] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 6,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein the multilayer body has dimension in the length direction between about 200 µm and about 2000 µm inclusive, a dimension in the thickness direction between about 100 µm and about 1000 µm inclusive, and a dimension in the width direction between about 100 µm and about 1000 µm inclusive ([0028] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 7,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein a number of the dielectric layers is between 10 and 1000 inclusive ([0031] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 8,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of dielectric layers is about 0.3 µm and about 5.0 µm inclusive ([0032] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 9,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of dielectric layers includes at least one of BaTiO3, CaTiO3, SrTiO3, or CaZrO3 as a main component ([0033] of Lee ‘190).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the dielectric layers of Nishisaka ‘791 using a material as taught by Lee ‘190 to obtain a capacitor with a desired capacitance. Furthermore, 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.
In regards to claim 11,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein a number of the plurality of internal electrodes is between 10 and 100 inclusive (fig. 2; [0037] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 12,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of internal electrodes is between about 0.3 µm and about 5.0 µm inclusive ([0038] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 13,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein each of the plurality of internal electrodes includes at least one of Ni, Cu, Ag, Pd, Au, an alloy of Ni and Cu, or an alloy of Ag and Pd ([0035] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 14,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein the metal layer includes at least one of Cu, Ni, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0048] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 16,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein the fired layer includes at least one of Cu, Ni, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0056] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 17,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 further discloses wherein the plating film includes at least one of Cu, Ni, Ag, Pd, or Au ([0065] of Nishisaka ‘791).
In regards to claim 18,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Lee ‘190 further discloses wherein the plating film does not include glass ([0065] of Nishisaka ‘791).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 or Lee ‘190 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishisaka et al. (US 2016/0093440).
In regards to claim 2,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 or Lee ‘190 fails to disclose wherein the fired layer includes voids; and at least a portion of the voids includes plating material.
Nishisaka '440 discloses the fired layer (13a – fig. 6, [0041]) includes voids (portions of 13a filled with Cu – fig. 6, [0131]), and at least a portion of the voids includes plating material ([0131]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the fired electrode of Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 or Lee ‘190 to have voids that include the plating material as taught by Nishisaka '440 to improve the thermal conductivity and laser resistance of the external electrodes.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2021/0375548).
In regards to claim 3,
Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 or Lee ‘190 disclose all the claimed limitations discussed above with respect to claim 3, except for wherein an area of a metal portion is more than about ten times greater than an area of a glass portion, on a surface of the fired layer facing the plating film.
However, Miyazaki ‘548 discloses that the area of exposed glass is a result effective variable, particularly for reducing an amount of elution to the plating solution and increasing a compressive stress to glass which can reduce or prevent corrosion cracking due to stress concentration, thus reducing or preventing the occurrence of cracks caused by elution ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Nishisaka ‘791 as modified by Makino ‘099 or Lee ‘190 such that an area of a metal portion is more than about ten times greater than an area of a glass portion, on a surface of the fired layer facing the plating film to reduce an amount of elution to the plating solution and increasing a compressive stress to glass, as taught by Miyazaki ‘548. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP2015043424A – fig. 1 JP2001250740A – fig. 1
US 10,573,460 – fig. 2; C3:L27-42 US 11,763,992 – fig. 4
JP2015084360A – fig. 2-4
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848