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 (s) (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Please refer to applicant’s copy of the 1449 herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the minor informalities listed below:
FIG. 4 should have upper case letters to read “FIG. 4”.
The elements in FIG. 6 and FIG. 7 should have the underline removed (ex. 704 to 704). Note: there
are other elements in other figures that are underlined, which is allowed, as those elements
denote a cross-section.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Interpretation
Regarding Claim 3 – the Examiner understands the phrase “breaking down solids...using an electric assisted device” to mean any device that is powered by electricity in some manner, which is used to change the size of solids.
Examiner Note: A method is defined as a series of actions (MPEP 2106 (I), i.e., “processes…defines “actions”; inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). Thus, since methods are defined by actions, the method is given weight only to the extent that it impacts the method in a manipulative sense. See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31, noting “recited structural limitations must affect method in manipulative sense and not amount to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure”.
The following Claims have recited structural limitations that are outcomes of the method, and do not impact the method in a manipulative sense:
Claim 10 – “a multi-layer ceramic capacitor”.
Claim 11 – “an inductor”.
Claim 12 – “a resistor”.
Claim 13 – “ a stand-alone device”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 is/are objected to because of the following informalities. The form below is read/Examiner suggestion:
Regarding Claim 1 : deposition of each layer/ deposition of each layer of ceramic slurry; more than one layer is deposited/more than one layer of ceramic slurry is deposited; more layers to form/more layers of ceramic slurry to form.
Regarding Claim 9: more layers activates/more layers of ceramic slurry activates.
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 13 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 13 recites “a stand-alone device”. It is unclear what “ a stand-alone device” is, making the claim indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
All dependent claims not cited but dependent on the independent and dependent claims above are also hereby rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB
US20170092556A1 by Gustafson(herein “Gustafson”) and in further view of USPGPUB
20060221550A1 by Ryu et. al. (herein “Ryu”).
Regarding Claim 1 – Gustafson teaches,
A method comprising,
preparing a ceramic slurry; [0078], “ A ceramic slurry can be made with barium titanate
(BaTiO.sub.3)…”
defining a three-dimensional geometry of an electrical passive component;
depositing at least one layer of slurry comprising barium carbonate and titanium dioxide
particles on top of a powder bed;
drying the powder bed after deposition of each layer when more than one layer is deposited;
and sintering the one or more layers to form the electrical passive component;
[0050], [0049], Fig. 6, “ In at least one embodiment, the present invention discloses a system and a
method to 3D print electrical components, such as, e.g., multilayer ceramic capacitors, inductors and/or
resistors…”, “ FIG. 6 is a flow diagram…
Operation 610 defines a final product's three-dimensional geometry using CAD software.
Operation 620 deposits layers of slurry comprising powder material (BaTiO3) onto a surface or on top of
a powder bed, which then slip-casts to make a new layer. As the slurry deposits in each two dimensional
layer, the printer may select insulator and/or conductor as the material type, in separate passes or as a
combined pass. …The deposit of slurry drops may be individually controlled, thereby generating a
regular surface for each layer. Operation 630 dries any liquid from the powder bed, e.g., infrared flash-
dry, after deposition of each layer. Operation 640 repeats operations 620 and 630 until a green part is
formed. Operation 650 sinters the green part to form a final product…”
While Gustafson teaches a three-dimensional geometry of an electrical passive component (i.e.
related to 3D additive manufacturing ([0009]), where the slurry comprises a powder material of
barium titanate (BaTiO.sub.3) used for multi-layer ceramic capacitors (MLCC) and other electrical
components as part of ceramic chip packaging ([0042], [0043],[0044]), Gustafson fails to teach,
depositing at least one layer of slurry comprising barium carbonate and titanium dioxide
particles on top of a powder bed;
In a similar endeavor of fabricating MLCC with barium titanate, Ryu teaches that fine barium titanate
powder is produced by a solid-state reaction of BaCO3 powder and TiO2 powder. Further, dispersing
dispersing BaCO3 powder into a solution of solvent and dispersant to prepare a slurry and then wet-
milling the slurry; mixing TiO2 powder (large specific surface area) slurry into the wet-milled BaCO3
slurry to form mixed slurry and then drying the mixed slurry into mixed powder; calcining the dried
mixed powder to produce BaTiO3 powder ([0020], [0021], [0022] Sample 6 in Table I and Table II). Here,
the process of Ryu is analogous to the process of Gustafson in this manner: creating a slurry and then
drying the slurry. As well, solid state reaction of BaCO3 and TiO2 to create BaTiO3 is known in the art
([0006]) to be cost effective ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the BaCO3/TiO2 slurry of Ryu in the
method of Gustafson, as one would be motivated to do so for the purpose of forming in-situ BaTiO3 to
eliminate the initial process of manufacturing BaTiO3 in fabricating MLCC and chip packages for the
common industrial reason to reduce cost. Further, it has been held that constructing formerly integral
structure (in this instance the BaTiO3 slurry of Gustafson) into various elements (in this instance the
BaCO3/TiO2 slurry of Ryu) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129
USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding Claim 2 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
While Gustafson teaches the use of a ceramic slurry, Gustafson fails to teach wherein,
preparing the ceramic slurry comprises breaking down solids of barium carbonate and titanium
dioxide;
Ryu teaches in preparing the slurry, the BaCO3 slurry portion being wet milled where the specific
surface area of the BaCO3 powder increases from 20 m2/g to 31 m2/g due to wet milling the BaCO3
powder to create the BaCO3 slurry ([0070], Sample 6 Table 1, i.e. increased surface area = reduced
particles size). Further, Ryu teaches in preparing the slurry, the TiO2 slurried powder portion was mixed
into the wet milled BaCO3 slurry via a beads mill. One skill in the art would know that a beads mill, which
is a device that uses electrical power, targets sub-micron particles, suggesting a reduced particle size of
TiO2 particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use the particle size reduction method of Ryu in the method of
Gustafson, as one would be motivated to do so for the purposes of providing a high tetragonality and
uniform dielectric of the resulting BaTiO3 powder ( a requirement for high dielectric powder) which
supports higher capacity and minimization of the MLCC, as noted by Ryu ([0082], [0086],
[0087],[0088],Table 2/Sample 6, Fig. 9b regarding sample 6).
Regarding Claim 3 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 2 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 2.
wherein,
breaking down solids of barium carbonate and titanium dioxide comprises using an electric-
assisted device;
Ryu teaches this previously in Claim 2 (beads mill). Bead milling, and bead mills, are common in industry
where bead mills are powered by electricity. A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the
known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the
product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), with motivation noted in Claim 2 (targets sub-micron particles to support
high tetragonality and uniform dielectric and higher capacity and minimization of the MLCC).
Regarding Claim 4 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
wherein,
preparing the ceramic slurry comprises mixing a suspension comprising barium carbonate and
titanium dioxide;
Ryu further teaches BaCO3 powder and TiO2 powder are “uniformly dispersed”, by the acicular shaped
BaCO3 powder wet milled (slurry) to make spherical before mixing with the TiO2 powder[0067] .
“Uniformly dispersed” indicates an absence of material gradients in the slurry, which is the definition of
a suspension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to uniformly disperse the powders in the slurry ( by wet milling the
BaCO3 powder) of the method of Ryu in the method of Gustafson, one being motivated to do so for the
purposes of suppressing particle growth of the eventual synthesized BaTiO3 under 1000°C, as noted by
Ryu [0074].
Regarding Claim 5 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 4 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 4.
wherein,
mixing the suspension comprises adding a solvent;
Ryu teaches preparing the BaCO3 powder slurry for the suspension by adding distilled water and
polyacrylic dispersant ([0070], then wet milling (example for Sample 6 Table 1). The motivation for
adding a solvent, i.e. wet milling, is previously captured in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6 and 7 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 5 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 5.
wherein,
mixing the suspension comprises adding a plasticizer (Claim 6).
mixing the suspension comprises adding a binder (Claim 7).
Ryu teaches after BaCO3 powder slurry wet milling, an increase in viscosity is apparent and ammonia was
added to reduce viscosity, i.e. Ryu teaches the concept of adding a material to change the properties of
a slurry. Ryu teaches the claim except for specific materials added to the change properties of the
wet BaCO3 powder slurry. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior at the time
of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add desired additives, such as plasticizers and
binders, to a slurry, as one would be motivated to do so to meet the requirements of the slurry for the
process at hand. Solvents, plasticizers and binders are common in the ceramic industry to be used for
slips and slurries to control the desired rheological properties. Further it has held to be within the
ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the
intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical
Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 8 –– Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 7 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 7.
wherein,
mixing the suspension comprises adding a dispersant;
Ryu teaches this previously in Claim 5 with the motivation to do so found in Claim 4 (suppressing particle
growth of the eventual synthesized BaTiO3 under 1000°C).
Regarding Claim 9 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Gustafson teaches wherein,
sintering of the one or more layers activates a solid-state reaction ; [0049], Operation 630 dries any
liquid from the powder bed, e.g., infrared flash-dry, after deposition of each layer.
Operation 640 repeats operations 620 and 630 until a green part is formed. Operation 650 sinters
the green part to form a final product”. Further, that “sintering is a solid-state diffusion process”.
While Gustafson teaches sintering (solid state diffusion process) of BaTiO3, Gustafson fails to teach,
activates a solid-state reaction between barium carbonate and titanium dioxide particles
to form barium titanate;
Ryu teaches...” in solid state reaction, BaCO3 powder and TiO2 powder are used as starting powder. The
BaCO3 powder and TiO2 powder are mixed, and then undergo solid phase reaction in a calcination
process to be synthesized into final BaTiO3 powder [0009]. The BaCO3/TiO2 slurry of Sample 6 at a
temperature of 990°C formed BaTiO3 [0083]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the BaCO3/TiO2 slurry of
Sample 6 to activate a solid-state reaction between barium carbonate and titanium dioxide particles
to form barium titanate per the slurry of Ryu in the process of Gustafson. Here, the materials and
processes of Ryu are substantially identical to the instant claim. 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).
Regarding Claim 10, 11 and 12 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of
the limitations of claim 1.
the electrical passive component comprises a multi-layer ceramic capacitor (Claim 10).
the electrical passive component comprises an inductor (Claim 11).
the electrical passive component comprises a resistor (Claim 12).
Claims 10-12 are considered to be directed to a structural limitation only. While it does not directly
impact the claimed method steps Gustafson teaches ([0050] lines 1-6), “the present invention
discloses a system and a method to 3D print electrical components, such as, e.g.,
multilayer ceramic capacitors, inductors and/or resistors, into the solid ceramic block of an integrated
circuit that is used in its packaging. Previously, passive electrical components have been…”.
Regarding Claim 13 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
the electrical passive component is a stand-alone device; Claim 13 is rejected per Claim Interpretation above.
Regarding Claim 14 – Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 1 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 1.
Gustafson teaches wherein,
the electrical passive component is integrated within a ceramic chip packaging; Fig. 7, [0019], “FIG. 7
is a schematic of an integration of passive components in a ceramic part of a chip packaging”
Regarding Claim 15- Gustafson and Ryu in the rejection of claim 14 above teaches all of the
limitations of claim 14.
Gustafson teaches wherein,
the ceramic chip packaging is formed along with the electrical passive component; [0089], [0090], “A capacitor, a resistor, an inductor, and/or a multi-property device may be printed into a ceramic package of an integrated circuit. Depending on the shape and configuration of the components, each layer will print portions of the capacitor, resistor and/or inductor using materials such as, e.g., carbon and ferrite pastes, conductive ink, ceramic and metal slurry”, “the slurry may be deposited in any suitable manner, including depositing in separate, distinct lines, …or by individual drops. The deposit of slurry drops may be individually controlled, thereby generating a regular surface for each layer. Operation 2130 dries any liquid from the powder bed, e.g., infrared flash-dry, after deposition of each layer. Operation 2140 repeats operations 2120 and 2130 until a green part is formed. Operation 2150 sinters the green part to form a final product.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 CT.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER PAUL DAIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741