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 claim(s) 1-2, 4-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice in the response filed 6/3/2026 and the well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (see MPEP 2144.03).
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) 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawasawa et al. (JP H09260201 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
258
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kawasawa et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a multilayer body including internal electrode layers (23) and dielectric layers (21) that are alternately laminated; and external electrodes (22a, 22b) on at least a pair of opposite outer surfaces (left-right – Fig. 1, 6) from among outer surfaces of the multilayer body and extending in a lamination direction (top-bottom Fig. 1, 5);
each internal electrode layer (23) including a counter portion (23a) and a lead-out portion (23b) that extends from the counter portion (23a) to the external electrode (22a, 22b), the counter portion (23a) of one of a pair of the internal electrode layers adjacent to each other in the lamination direction overlaps with the counter portion (23a) of each of a remainder of the internal electrode layers (23);
the counter portion (23a) including on edges thereof, a convex-concave portion [0017] that includes a convexity and a concavity alternating with each other, the convexity bending toward a corresponding one of the outer surfaces adjacent to the corresponding edge, the concavity bending away from the corresponding outer surface adjacent to the corresponding edge (See Fig. 5-6); and
the lead-out portions (23b) of the internal electrode layers (23) being substantially free of the convex-concave portion.
Regarding claim 2, Kawasawa et al. disclose the pair of opposite outer surfaces include end surfaces (left-right) situated at both ends of the multilayer body in a length direction (left-right) that intersects with the lamination direction (top-bottom);
the external electrodes (22a, 22b) include end-surface external electrodes on the end surfaces (left, right), respectively; and the internal electrode layers (23) include an end-surface-connection internal electrode layer
including an end-surface-connection lead-out portion as the lead-out portion, the end-surface-connection lead-out portion extending to the end-surface external electrode (22a, 22b).
Regarding claim 4, Kawasawa et al. disclose the edges include an edge extending in a length direction (left-right) that intersects with the lamination direction (top-bottom), and the convex-concave portion on the edge extending in the length direction (top-bottom) includes two or more consecutive sets of the convexity and the concavity (see Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Kawasawa et al. disclose in a cross section that extends in the lamination direction (top-bottom) and a length direction (left-right) intersecting with the lamination direction and that is spaced farther apart than an outermost point of the convexity and less farther apart than an innermost point of the concavity from one of side surfaces on both sides of the multilayer body (Fig. 5) in a width direction intersecting with the lamination direction;
regions where the internal electrode layers are exposed and are arranged one above the other in the lamination direction alternate with regions where the internal electrode layers are not exposed and are arranged one above the other in the lamination direction (top-bottom – Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Kawasawa et al. disclose each of the edges includes five convexities and four concavities between adjacent ones of the convexities (see Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 9, Kawasawa et al. disclose the convex-concave portion includes two or more consecutive sets of one of the convexities and one of the concavities (see Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 10, Kawasawa et al. disclose the convex-concave portion includes four consecutive sets of one of the convexities and one of the concavities (see Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 12, Kawasawa et al. disclose each of the external electrodes (22a, 22b) includes a base electrode layer [0023] and a plated layer [0023].
Regarding claim 16, Kawasawa et al. disclose the convex-concave portion has a sawtooth wave shape (Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 17 Kawasawa et al. disclose the convex-concave portion has a triangular wave shape (Fig. 5-6).
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) 5, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasawa et al. (JP H09260201 A) in view of Chang et al. (US 2012/0127626).
Regarding claim 5, Kawasawa et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the convex-concave portion on at least one of the edges includes a location at which, for the convexity and the concavity adjacent to each other, a difference between a distance from an outermost point of the convexity to the outer surface and a distance from an innermost point of the concavity to the outer surface is about 3 µm or more.
Chang et al. disclose each internal electrode layer (120a, 120b) includes a counter portion (middle area) and a lead-out portion (@120a, @120b) that extends from the counter portion to an external electrode (130a, 130b), the counter portion of one of a pair of the internal electrode layers (120a, 120b) adjacent to each other in the lamination direction overlaps with the counter portion of each of a remainder of the internal electrode layers (120a, 120b); the counter portion including on edges thereof (Fig. 3), a convex-concave portion that includes a convexity and a concavity alternating with each other, the convexity bending toward the outer surface (Fig. 3) adjacent to the edge, the concavity bending away from the outer surface adjacent to the edge (Fig. 3); wherein the convex-concave portion on at least one of the edges includes a location at which, for the convexity and the concavity adjacent to each other, a difference (b) between a distance from an outermost point of the convexity to the outer surface and a distance from an innermost point of the concavity to the outer surface is about 3 µm or more (table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capacitor of Kawasawa et al. so that the convex-concave portion on at least one of the edges includes a location at which, for the convexity and the concavity adjacent to each other, a difference (b) between a distance from an outermost point of the convexity to the outer surface and a distance from an innermost point of the concavity to the outer surface is about 3 µm or more (table 1), since such a modification would form a ceramic capacitor having thermal shock reliability.
Regarding claim 11, Kawasawa et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the convex-concave portion on all of the edges includes a location at which, for the convexity and the concavity adjacent to each other, a difference (a) between a distance from an outermost point of the convexity to the outer surface and a distance from an innermost point of the concavity to the outer surface is about 3 µm or more.
Chang et al. disclose the convex-concave portion (see Fig. 4) on all of the edges includes a location at which, for the convexity and the concavity adjacent to each other, a difference (a) between a distance from an outermost point of the convexity to the outer surface and a distance from an innermost point of the concavity to the outer surface is about 3 µm or more (table 1 – 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 device of Kawasawa et al. so that the convex-concave portion on all of the edges includes a location at which, for the convexity and the concavity adjacent to each other, a difference (a) between a distance from an outermost point of the convexity to the outer surface and a distance from an innermost point of the concavity to the outer surface is about 3 µm or more, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having thermal shock reliability.
Regarding claim 14, Kawasawa et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the convex-concave portion has a sine wave shape.
Chang et al. disclose a convex-concave portion having a sine wave shape (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 internal electrodes of Kawasawa et al. having a sine wave shape convex-concave portion, since such a modification would form a ceramic capacitor having thermal shock reliability.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasawa et al. (JP H09260201 A) in view of Nakamura et al. (JP 2005-327999).
Regarding claim 6, Kawasawa et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the internal electrode layers included in the multilayer body are viewed from one of main surfaces on both sides of the multilayer body in the lamination direction, a positional deviation between an outermost point of the convexity of one of the internal electrode layers and an outermost point of the convexity of another of the internal electrode layers is about 250 µm or less in a length direction intersecting with the lamination direction.
Nakamura et al. disclose when internal electrode layers included in a multilayer body (1) are viewed from one of main surfaces (Fig. 2) on both sides of the multilayer body (1) in the lamination direction (top-bottom - Fig. 1), a positional deviation (see Fig. 1a) between an outermost point of the convexity of one of the internal electrode layers (2a) and an outermost point of the convexity of another of the internal electrode layers is about 250 µm or less (aligned - see Fig. 2a) in a length direction (left - right - Fig. 2) intersecting with the lamination direction (top-bottom - Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capacitor of Kawasawa et al. so that the internal electrode layers included in the multilayer body are viewed from one of main surfaces on both sides of the multilayer body in the lamination direction, a positional deviation between an outermost point of the convexity of one of the internal electrode layers and an outermost point of the convexity of another of the internal electrode layers is about 250 µm or less in a length direction intersecting with the lamination direction, since such a modification would maximize the capacitance of the internal electrodes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasawa et al. (JP H09260201 A) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0316883).
Regarding claim 13, Kawasawa et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the plated layer includes a nickel-plated layer and a tin-plated layer.
Yamaguchi et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising external electrodes (14, 14), wherein the external electrodes include a base electrode layer, a nickel-plated layer and a tin-plated layer [0050]-[0055].
Lacking unexpected results, 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 Chang et al. so that each of the external electrodes includes a base electrode layer, a nickel plated layer, and a tin plated layer, since, external electrode materials are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and electrical properties.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasawa et al. (JP H09260201 A).
Kawasawa et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the convex-concave portion has a rectangular wave shape.
A rectangular wave shape is a well-known convex-concave shape.
Lacking unexpected results, 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 convex-concave portion of Nakamura et al. having a sawtooth shape, since such a modification would form a shape having desired reliability / desired electrical characteristics.
Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape, a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Span-Deck Inc. V. FabCon, Inc., 215 USPQ 835.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest a multilayer ceramic capacitor wherein the external electrodes include side-surface external electrodes on the side surfaces, respectively; and the internal electrode layers include a side-surface-connection internal electrode layer including a side-surface-connection lead-out portion as the lead-out portion, the side-surface- connection lead-out portion extending to the side-surface external electrode (claim 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 2847
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights