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 .
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (US 2020/0105468).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
468
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
310
375
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses in Figs. 2-4, a multilayer ceramic capacitor, comprising:
a multilayer body (11) including a dielectric layer (12) and an inner
electrode (13a, 13b) alternately laminated; wherein
the multilayer body includes a first main surface (16a) and a second main surface (16b) opposed to each other in a lamination direction (T), a first side surface (17a) and a second side surface (17b) opposed to each other in a width direction (W) orthogonal or
substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction, and a first end surface (15a) and a second end surface (15b) opposed to each other in a length direction (L) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction (T) and the width direction (W);
the multilayer body includes an outer electrode (14a, 14b) on each of the first end surface (15a) and the second end surface (15b), the outer electrode (14a, 14b) being coupled to the inner electrode (13a, 13b);
the inner electrode (13a, 13b) includes a main facing portion (@13a – Fig. 4) and a thin portion (40);
a thickness of the thin portion (see annotated figure 4 above) is smaller than a thickness of the main facing portion (@13a, @13b – Fig. 4); and
the thin portion (see annotated figure 4 above) extends from an end portion of the main facing portion (@13a, @13b) in the width direction (W) to the first side surface or the second side surface.
Regarding claim 7, Hashimoto discloses the multilayer body includes first (23) and second side gap (23) portions not including the inner electrode (13a, 13b).
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto discloses the thin portion extends linearly or substantially linearly (see annotated figure above) .
Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto discloses the inner electrode (13a, 13b) includes Ni as a main component [0034].
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto discloses the inner electrode includes Cu, Ag, Pd, or Au, or an alloy including at least one of Cu, Ag, Pd, or Au [0034].
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawabata (JP H09190947A).
PNG
media_image4.png
236
282
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
416
632
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kawabata discloses in Figs. 1 and 4, a multilayer ceramic capacitor, comprising:
a multilayer body including a dielectric layer (1) and an inner electrode (2) alternately laminated; wherein
the multilayer body includes a first main surface (top – Fig. 1) and a second main surface (bottom – Fig. 1) opposed to each other in a lamination direction (top-bottom), a first side surface (top – Fig. 4) and a second side surface (bottom – Fig. 4) opposed to each other in a width direction (top-bottom – Fig. 4, front-back – Fig.1) orthogonal or
substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction, and a first end surface (left – Fig. 1) and a second end surface (right – Fig. 1) opposed to each other in a length direction (L) orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction and the width direction (W);
the multilayer body includes an outer electrode (4, 4) on each of the first end surface (left) and the second end surface (right), the outer electrode (4, 4) being coupled to the inner electrode (2);
the inner electrode (2) includes a main facing portion (see annotated fig. 4 above) and a thin portion (12);
a thickness of the thin portion (12) is smaller than a thickness of the main facing portion (fig. 1, 4); and
the thin portion (12 - see annotated figure 4 above) extends from an end portion of the main facing portion in the width direction to the first side surface or the second side surface.
Regarding claim 2, Kawabata discloses the thickness of the thin portion (12) is about 40% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (see annotated figure 4 above – Translation - P: 5, P: 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kawabata discloses the thin portion (12) has a length of about 10% or more of a length from the end portion to the side surface adjacent to the end portion (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kawabata discloses the thickness of the thin portion (12) is about 30% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (Translation P: 5, P:1).
Regarding claim 5, Kawabata discloses the thin portion (12) has a length of about 20% or more of a length from the end portion to the side surface adjacent to the end portion (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Kawabata discloses the multilayer body includes first (see annotated figure 4 above) and second side gap (see annotated figure 4 above) portions not including the inner electrode (2).
Regarding claim 8, Kawabata discloses the thickness of the thin portion (12) is about 20% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (samples 12, 13).
Regarding claim 11, Kawabata discloses the thin portion (12) extends linearly or substantially linearly (see Figure 2).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon (KR 20150096909).
PNG
media_image6.png
326
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
508
666
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Moon discloses in Figs. 1 and 5, a multilayer ceramic capacitor, comprising:
a multilayer body including a dielectric layer (211) and an inner electrode (221, 222) alternately laminated; wherein
the multilayer body includes a first main surface (top – Fig. 1) and a second main surface (bottom – Fig. 1) opposed to each other in a lamination direction (top-bottom), a first side surface (left – Fig. 1) and a second side surface (right – Fig. 1) opposed to each other in a width direction (left-right, Fig. 1; left – right, Fig. 5) orthogonal or
substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction, and a first end surface (front – Fig. 1) and a second end surface (back – Fig. 1) opposed to each other in a length direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction and the width direction;
the multilayer body includes an outer electrode (131,132) on each of the first end surface (front) and the second end surface (back), the outer electrode (131,133) being coupled to the inner electrode (211, 222);
the inner electrode (211, 222) includes a main facing portion and a thin portion (220);
a thickness of the thin portion (220, Fig. 5 – “D”) is smaller than a thickness of the main facing portion (Fig. 5 – “E”); and
the thin portion (220) extends from an end portion of the main facing portion in the width direction to the first side surface (left – Fig. 5) or the second side surface (right – Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Moon discloses the thickness of the thin portion (D) is about 40% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (E) [0091].
Regarding claim 4, Moon discloses the thickness of the thin portion (D) is about 30% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (E) [0091].
Regarding claim 8, Kawabata discloses the thickness of the thin portion (D) is about 20% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (E) [0091].
Regarding claim 11, Kawabata discloses the thin portion (D) extends linearly or substantially linearly (see Figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haratani et al. (US 6,278,602).
PNG
media_image8.png
308
550
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
376
488
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Haratani et al. disclose in Figs. 1-2, a multilayer ceramic capacitor, comprising:
a multilayer body including a dielectric layer (2) and an inner electrode (3-6) alternately laminated; wherein
the multilayer body includes a first main surface (top – Fig. 1) and a second main surface (bottom – Fig. 1) opposed to each other in a lamination direction (top-bottom), a first side surface (left – Fig. 2) and a second side surface (right – Fig. 2) opposed to each other in a width direction (top-bottom – Fig. 4, front-back – Fig.1) orthogonal or
substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction, and a first end surface (left – Fig. 1) and a second end surface (right – Fig. 1) opposed to each other in a length direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the lamination direction and the width direction;
the multilayer body includes an outer electrode (7, 8) on each of the first end surface (left) and the second end surface (right), the outer electrode (7, 8) being coupled to the inner electrode (3-6);
the inner electrode (3-6) includes a main facing portion (see fig. 2) and a thin portion (W);
a thickness of the thin portion ( @W) is smaller than a thickness of the main facing portion (fig. 1, 2); and
the thin portion (@W) extends from an end portion of the main facing portion in the width direction to the first side surface or the second side surface (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Haratani et al. disclose the thickness of the thin portion (@W) is about 40% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (see Fig. 2 – portion close to edge of the thin portion).
Regarding claim 4, Haratani et al. disclose the thickness of the thin portion (@W) is about 30% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (see Fig. 2 – portion close to edge of the thin portion).
Regarding claim 7, Haratani et al. disclose the multilayer body includes first (see Fig. 2) and second side gap (see Fig. 2 ) portions not including the inner electrode (3-6).
Regarding claim 8, Haratani et al. disclose the thickness of the thin portion (@W) is about 20% or less of the thickness of the main facing portion (see Fig. 2 – portion close to edge of the thin portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US 2020/0105468) in view of Takashima et al. (US 2015/0116898).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a continuity of the thin portion is lower than continuity of the main facing portion.
Takashima et al. disclose a capacitor comprising internal electrodes (4), wherein the internal electrodes (4) comprise edge portions (9d1, 9d2) and a main facing portion (9c), wherein a continuity of the edge portion is lower than continuity [0136]-[0138] of the main facing portion.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Hashimoto et al. so that a continuity of the thin portion is lower than continuity of the main facing portion, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor where the occurrence of delamination is reduced or prevented.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haratani et al. (US 6,278,602) in view of Mizuno et al. (US 2007/0025055).
Regarding claim 10, Haratani et al. disclose in the claimed invention except for the thin portion is curved toward the first main surface.
Mizuno et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising an internal electrode, wherein an end surface (13b) of the internal electrode is curved toward a first main surface (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the multilayer ceramic capacitor of Haratani et al. so that the thin portion is curved toward the first main surface, since such a modification would prevent cracks due thermal stress.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US 2020/0105468) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0155098).
Regarding claim 14, Hashimoto et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the inner electrode includes a first metal component and a second metal component different from the first metal component and defining a solid solution layer.
Yamaguchi et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising internal electrodes (3, 4) wherein the internal electrodes contain Ni and Sn and have a solid solution of Sn and Ni [0043].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the internal electrode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the multilayer ceramic capacitor of Hashimoto et al. so that the internal electrodes comprise a first metal component and a second metal component different from the first metal component and defining a solid solution layer, since such a modification would form a highly reliable ceramic capacitor with excellent high-temperature load life.
Regarding claim 15, Yamaguchi et al. disclose the first metal component includes Ni [0043].
Regarding claim 16, Yamaguchi et al. disclose the second metal component includes Sn [0043], In, Ga, Zn, Bi, Pb, Fe, V, Y or Cu.
Regarding claim 17, Yamaguchi et al. disclose the second metal component includes Sn [0043].
Regarding claim 18, Yamaguchi et al. disclose a thickness of the solid solution layer is about 1 nm or more and about 20 nm or less [0043].
Regarding claim 19, Yamaguchi et al. disclose the solid solution layer includes a central solid solution layer (claim 1, [0043]) and an outer solid solution layer (claim 1, [0043]);
the second metal (Sn – claim 1, [0043]) component of the central solid solution
layer includes a molar amount of about 0.008 or more and about 0.025 or less relative to a total molar amount of the first and second metal components (claim 1 – [0043]); and the second metal (Sn – claim 1, [0043]) component of the outer solid solution layer includes a molar amount of about 0.008 or more and about 0.025 or less relative to a total molar amount of first and second metal components (claim 1 – [0043]).
Yamaguchi et al. do not disclose a specific example where the solid solution layer includes a central solid solution layer and an outer solid solution layer; the second metal component of the central solid solution layer includes a molar amount of about 0.008 or more and about 0.025 or less relative to a total molar amount of the first and second metal components; and the second metal component of the outer solid solution layer includes a molar amount of about 0.008 or more and about 0.025 or less relative to a total molar amount of first and second metal components.
However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210313114
US 20190096584
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 PM.
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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848