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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 filed on 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Iguchi (See Applicant’s response, page 6, “Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102”), Applicant argues that it is well-settled that anticipation requires that every claim limitation be found within the four corners of a single prior art reference, arranged as claimed, such that a person of ordinary skill would be able to at once envisage the claimed arrangement; combining isolated numerical examples from distinct sections of a reference to satisfy different claim elements is not a hallmark of analysis under 35 U.S.C. §102 (at page 6 of the arguments). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Figure 2 shows all the elements recited in paragraphs 41-50.
With respect to Nishigaki (See Applicant’s response, page 6-7, “Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), Applicant argues that Nishigaki is directed to a structurally and functionally distinct device in which gaps are intentionally formed between the external electrode and the dielectric layer to relieve thermal expansion stresses. The glass compositions described in Nishigaki are developed and optimized in the context of promoting or accommodating those intentional voids, not in the context of an interface layer and base electrode system designed to promote adhesion and electrical connectivity as in both Iguchi and the claimed invention (at page 7 of the arguments). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Please see paragraph 55 of Nishigaki clearly indicates that the whole point of Nishigaki is to eliminate gaps.
With respect to Nishigaki (See Applicant’s response, pages 7-8, “Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”), Applicant argues that Furthermore, even if one were to consider the proposed combination, there would have been no reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the specific M2 range recited in claim 3. The Office Action's conversion of Nishigaki's weight percent values into molar ratios involves a series of assumptions, including fixing the SiO2 content at 50 wt% while varying BaO content between 5 wt% and 20 wt%, to produce a derived molar ratio range of approximately 0.033 to 0.15. This computation is not grounded in any teaching or suggestion by Nishigaki that these converted molar ratio values are suitable, effective, or even transferable to the base electrode glass of a multilayer ceramic capacitor having an interface layer of the type described in Iguchi and the claimed invention. Nishigaki does not teach or suggest the relationship between the Ba/Si ratio of a base electrode glass (M2) and the Ba/Si ratio of an interface layer glass (M1), nor does it provide any guidance concerning how the ratio M1/M2 should be controlled to achieve improved performance in a system having both an interface layer and a base electrode layer. Because the claimed invention describes the functional and structural interplay between M1 and M2, a skilled artisan would have had no expectation, let alone a reasonable one, that selecting a glass composition from a structurally unrelated reference would yield the claimed combination of properties (at page 7-8 of the arguments). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nishigaki clearly indicates that ranges for the SiO2 content and the BaO content are within the satisfied claim range. In doing so it increases the electrical connection between the internal and the external electrode. As such one of the ordinary skills in the art would have a reasonable expectation that those ratio would increase the electrical connection within the parameters of the Iguchi reference.
With respect to hindsight reasoning (See Applicant’s response, page 8, “Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103”). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claims 1-18 remains rejected as set forth below.
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 1-2 and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iguchi et al. (US20220285098).
With respect to claim 1, Iguchi discloses a multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 2) comprising: a body (see FIG. 1, element 4) including a dielectric layer (see FIG. 1, element 10) and an internal electrode (see FIG. 1, element 12) disposed on the dielectric layer; an external electrode (see FIG. 1, element 6) including a base electrode layer (see FIG. 2, element 6a) connected to the internal electrode; and an interface layer (see FIG. 2, element 14) disposed between an end of the dielectric layer and the base electrode layer, wherein the interface layer includes a first glass containing Ba, Zn, and Si (see paragraph 49), the base electrode layer includes a second glass containing Ba and Si (see FIG. 2, elements 6a and 62, paragraph 41-43), and when an average molar ratio (Ba/Si) of Ba to Si contained in the first glass is M1 (see paragraph 50, noting
B
a
S
i
=
0.39
0.27
= 1.44) and an average molar ratio (Ba/Si) of Ba to Si contained in the second glass is M2 (see paragraph 41, noting
B
a
S
i
=
0.05
0.2
= 0.25), M1 and M2 satisfy M1/M2≥1.5 (
M
1
M
2
=
1.44
0.25
= 5.76, which satisfy the claim limitation).
With respect to claim 2, Iguchi discloses the M1 is 0.2 or more and 3.5 or less (see paragraph 50, noting
B
a
S
i
=
0.39
0.27
= 1.44, which satisfy the claim limitation).
With respect to claim 4, Iguchi discloses the M1 and M2 satisfy M1/M2≤83 (
M
1
M
2
=
1.44
0.25
= 5.76, which satisfy the claim limitation).
With respect to claim 5, Iguchi discloses an average thickness of the interface layer is more than 2 µm and 8 µm or less (see FIG. 2, element Lr, paragraph 48, noting Lr is between 1 μm to 10 μm).
With respect to claim 6, Iguchi discloses the second glass further includes Zn, and an average molar ratio (Zn/Si) of Zn to Si contained in the first glass is greater than an average molar ratio (Zn/Si) of Zn to Si contained in the second glass (see paragraph 41 and 50, noting
Z
n
S
i
=
0.15
0.05
= 3 and
Z
n
S
i
=
0.27
0.27
= 1, which satisfy the claim limitation).
With respect to claim 7, Iguchi discloses at least a portion of the second glass is in contact with the first glass (see FIG. 2, elements 46 and 46a, paragraph 56).
With respect to claim 8, Iguchi discloses the first and second glasses each further include at least one of Al, Mg, Ca, and Sr (see paragraphs 42 and 52, noting Al, Mg and Ca).
With respect to claim 9, Iguchi discloses a fraction of total number of moles of Ba, Zn, and Si relative to a total number of moles of remaining elements excluding oxygen, among elements constituting the interface layer, is 0.5 or more (see paragraph 41 and 50 and previous example above).
With respect to claim 10, Iguchi discloses the base electrode layer includes a metal containing Cu (see paragraph 40, noting Cu).
With respect to claim 11, Iguchi discloses, wherein the external electrode includes a plating layer disposed on the base electrode layer (see paragraph 38).
With respect to claim 12, Iguchi discloses the base electrode layer is in direct contact with the internal electrode (see FIG. 2, elements 12 and 6a, paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 13, Iguchi discloses a multilayer electronic component (see FIG. 1, element 2), comprising: a dielectric layer(see FIG. 1, element 10); an internal electrode (see FIG. 1, element 12) disposed on the dielectric layer; and an external electrode (see FIG. 1, element 6) disposed on a side surface of the dielectric layer and the internal electrode, the external electrode including: a base electrode (see FIG. 2, element 6a) containing a second glass (see FIG. 2, elements 6a and 62, paragraph 41-43), and an interface layer (see FIG. 2, element 14) comprising a first glass (see paragraph 49) disposed at an interface between the dielectric layer and the base electrode, wherein the first and second glasses include Ba, Si and Zn (see paragraph 41 and 49), and an average molar ratio (Zn/Si) of Zn to Si contained in the first glass is greater than an average molar ratio (Zn/Si) of Zn to Si contained in the second glass (see paragraph 41 and 50, noting
Z
n
S
i
=
0.15
0.05
= 3 and
Z
n
S
i
=
0.27
0.27
= 1, which satisfy the claim limitation).
With respect to claim 14, Iguchi discloses an average molar ratio M1 of Ba/Si contained in the first glass and an average molar ratio M2 of Ba/Si contained in the second glass is M2, M1 and M2 satisfy 1.5 ≤ M1/M2 ≤ 83 (see paragraphs 41 and 50, noting
B
a
S
i
=
0.39
0.27
= 1.44 and
B
a
S
i
=
0.05
0.2
= 0.25,
M
1
M
2
=
1.44
0.25
= 5.76).
With respect to claim 15, Iguchi discloses the first glass covers (see FIG. 2, elements 14 and 46, paragraph 56) an entire side surface of the dielectric layer (see FIG. 2, element 10) and a portion of the internal electrode (see FIG. 2, element 12).
With respect to claim 16, Iguchi discloses an average thickness of the interface layer is in a range from 2 µm and 8 µm (see FIG. 2, element Lr, paragraph 48, noting Lr is between 1 μm to 10 μm).
With respect to claim 17, Iguchi discloses the base electrode comprises a metal containing Cu (see paragraph 40, noting Cu).
With respect to claim 18, Iguchi discloses the first and second glasses additionally contain Al, Mg, Ca, Sr or a combination thereof (see paragraphs 42 and 52, noting Al, Mg and Ca).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Iguchi in view of Nishigaki (JP2011049351).
With respect to claim 3, Iguchi teaches the multilayer electronic
component of claim 1.
Iguchi does not explicitly teach that the M2 is 0.01 or more and less than
0.2. However, paragraph 42 indicates that the compound structure of the glass ratio is not limited.
Nishigaki, on the other hand, teaches the M2 is 0.01 or more and less
than 0.2 (see paragraph 54, noting that the glass composition includes SiO2 and BaO in varies wt% ranges. Converting that to a molar% results in a ratio between 0.033 to 0.15 base on 5 wt% to 20 wt% as BaO and 50 wt% as SiO2).
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 Iguchi and Nishigaki in order to strengthen the electrical connection between the internal electrode layer and the external electrode (see paragraph 45).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights