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 § 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 10 recites the limitation "the Cu" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jun et al (US 2021/0057153).
Regarding claims 1, Jun discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 1-5) comprising: a multilayer body (Fig. 1, 110) including a plurality of dielectric ceramic layers (Fig. 2, 111) and a plurality of internal electrode layers (Fig. 2, 121/122) laminated alternately in a lamination direction (Fig. 2, Z), a pair of main surfaces (Fig. 1, 1/ 2) opposed to each other in the lamination direction (Fig. 1), a pair of side surfaces (Fig. 1, 5/ 6) which are opposed to each other in a width direction (Fig. 1, Y) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction (Fig. 1), a pair of end surfaces (Fig. 1, 3/ 4) opposed to each other in a length direction (Fig. 1, X) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction and the width direction (Fig. 1); and a pair of external electrodes (Fig. 1, 131/132) connected to the internal electrode layers (Fig. 2); wherein the pair of external electrodes each include: a first external electrode layer (Fig. 5, 131a) connected to the internal electrode layers (Fig. 2); and a second external electrode layer (Fig. 5, 131c) on the first external electrode layer (Fig. 5); and a metal group including at least one of Sn ([0078]), In, Ga, Zn, Bi, Pb, Fe, V, or Y is included at an interface between the first external electrode layer and the second external electrode layer (Fig. 5).
Regarding claims 2, Jun further discloses that the first external electrode layer includes Ni ([0081]).
Regarding claims 4, Jun further discloses that the second external electrode layer includes Cu ([0087]).
Regarding claims 7, Jun further discloses that the second external electrode layer includes the metal group ([0077-0078] when 131b2 is considered part of the second electrode).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KANG et al (US 2023/0135148).
Regarding claims 18, KANG discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 1-6) comprising: a multilayer body (Fig. 1, 110) including a plurality of dielectric ceramic layers (Fig. 2, 111) and a plurality of internal electrode layers (Fig. 2, 121/122) laminated alternately in a lamination direction (Fig. 2, First direction), a pair of main surfaces (Fig. 1, 1/ 2) opposed to each other in the lamination direction (Fig. 1), a pair of side surfaces (Fig. 1, 5/ 6) which are opposed to each other in a width direction (Fig. 1, Third direction) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction (Fig. 1), and a pair of end surfaces (Fig. 1, 3/ 4) opposed to each other in a length direction (Fig. 1, Second direction) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction and the width direction (Fig. 1); and a pair of external electrodes (Fig. 1, 130/140) connected to the internal electrode layers (Fig. 2); wherein the pair of external electrodes each include: a first external electrode layer (Fig. 6, 131) connected to the internal electrode layers (Fig. 2); and a second external electrode layer (Fig. 6, 132) on the first external electrode layer (Fig. 6); the first external electrode layer includes Ni and a metal group including at least one of Sn ([0069]), In, Ga, Zn, Bi, Pb, Fe, V, or Y; the second external electrode layer includes Cu and a metal group including at least one of Sn ([0096]), In, Ga, Zn, Bi, Pb, Fe, V, or Y.
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) 3, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al (US 2021/0057153) in view of KANG et al (US 2023/0135148).
Regarding claims 3, Jun fails to teach the claim limitations.
KANG teaches that the first external electrode layer includes a dielectric region (Fig. 6, 131b).
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 KANG to the invention of Jun, in order to improve mechanical bonding strength of the multilayer capacitor (KANG [0011]).
Regarding claims 6, Jun fails to teach the claim limitations.
KANG teaches that the first external electrode layer includes the metal group ([0069]).
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 KANG to the invention of Jun, in order to improve mechanical bonding strength of the multilayer capacitor (KANG [0011]).
Regarding claims 9, Jun fails to teach the claim limitations.
KANG teaches that the metal group defines a solid solution in the Ni ([0069]).
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 KANG to the invention of Jun, in order to improve mechanical bonding strength of the multilayer capacitor (KANG [0011]).
Regarding claims 10, Jun fails to teach the claim limitations.
KANG teaches that the metal group defines a solid solution in the Cu ([0096]).
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 KANG to the invention of Jun, in order to improve mechanical bonding strength of the multilayer capacitor (KANG [0011]).
Regarding claims 11, Jun fails to teach the claim limitations.
KANG teaches that a concentration of the metal group defining the solid solution in the Cu is lower than a concentration of the metal group defining the solid solution in the Ni (Fig. 6, higher concentration of 131a in 131 than 132a in 132).
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 KANG to the invention of Jun, in order to improve mechanical bonding strength of the multilayer capacitor (KANG [0011]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al (US 2021/0057153) in view of HONG et al (US 2014/0233147).
Regarding claims 5, Jun fails to teach that the conductive resin layer contains a glass component.
HONG teaches that the second external electrode layer (Fig. 3, 31b) includes a glass component ([0104]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of HONG to the invention of Jun, in order to construct the devices using known materials in the art to meet user needs based on known material properties and availability of those materials. The use of conventional materials/components to perform their known function is obvious. MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al (US 2021/0057153).
Regarding claims 8, Jun fails to teach the claim limitations.
However, the examiner notes that the limitation of “wherein a thickness of the interface between the first external electrode and the second external electrode is about 10nm or more and about 80nm or less” is considered to be a result effective variable, as you can set a definition of an interface to be whatever size you want, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention to include the limitation of “wherein a thickness of the interface between the first external electrode and the second external electrode is about 10nm or more and about 80nm or less” as this limitation would be easily reached by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to construct the devices using understood variable specifications and designs in the art to best meet user needs based on known design possibilities.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al (US 2023/0135148) in view of KIM et al (US 2017/0301468).
Regarding claim 12, KANG teaches a multilayer ceramic capacitor (Fig. 1-6) comprising: a multilayer body (Fig. 1, 110) including a plurality of dielectric ceramic layers (Fig. 2, 111) and a plurality of internal electrode layers (Fig. 2, 121/122) laminated alternately in a lamination direction (Fig. 2, First direction), a pair of main surfaces (Fig. 1, 1/ 2) opposed to each other in the lamination direction (Fig. 1), a pair of side surfaces (Fig. 1, 5/ 6) which are opposed to each other in a width direction (Fig. 1, Third direction) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction (Fig. 1), and a pair of end surfaces (Fig. 1, 3/ 4) opposed to each other in a length direction (Fig. 1, Second direction) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction and the width direction (Fig. 1); and a pair of external electrodes (Fig. 1, 130/140) connected to the internal electrode layers (Fig. 2); wherein the pair of external electrodes each include: a first external electrode layer (Fig. 6, 131) connected to the internal electrode layers (Fig. 2); and a second external electrode layer (Fig. 6, 132) on the first external electrode layer (Fig. 6); the first external electrode layer includes Ni and a metal group including at least one of Sn ([0069]), In, Ga, Zn, Bi, Pb, Fe, V, or Y; the second external electrode layer includes Cu.
However, KANG fails to teach that the metal group is included at an interface between the first external electrode layer and the second external electrode layer.
KIM teaches that the metal group is included at an interface between the first external electrode layer and the second external electrode layer (Fig. 4, at 132d [0084]).
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 KIM to the invention of KANG, in order to make it so that the equivalent series resistance (ESR) may be reduced by improving conductivity of external electrodes and improving electrical and mechanical adhesion (KIM [0009]).
Regarding claim 13, KANG, as muddied by KIM, further teaches that the second external electrode layer includes the metal group ([0096]).
Regarding claims 14, KANG fails to teach the claim limitations.
However, the examiner notes that the limitation of “wherein a thickness of the interface between the first external electrode and the second external electrode is about 10nm or more and about 80nm or less” is considered to be a result effective variable, as you can set a definition of an interface to be whatever size you want, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention to include the limitation of “wherein a thickness of the interface between the first external electrode and the second external electrode is about 10nm or more and about 80nm or less” as this limitation would be easily reached by one having ordinary skill in the art in order to construct the devices using understood variable specifications and designs in the art to best meet user needs based on known design possibilities.
Regarding claim 15, KANG, as muddied by KIM, further teaches that the metal group defines a solid solution in the Ni ([0069]).
Regarding claim 16, KANG, as muddied by KIM, further teaches that the metal group defines a solid solution in the Cu ([0096]).
Regarding claim 17, KANG, as muddied by KIM, further teaches that a concentration of the metal group defining the solid solution in the Cu is lower than a concentration of the metal group defining the solid solution in the Ni (Fig. 6, higher concentration of 131a in 131 than 132a in 132).
Cited Prior Art
Saito et al (US 2007/0242416) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-4.
PARK et al (US 2013/0120898) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-3.
MOON et al (US 2015/0090483) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-3.
OTANI (US 2017/0032896) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-3.
HAMANAKA et al (US 2018/0166215) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-3.
LEE et al (US 2020/0135403) teaches relevant art in Fig. 1-5.
ONISHI et al (US 2020/0312560) teaches relevant art in [0072].
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