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 § 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.
Claims 1-17 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 1, lines 15-16, the limitation, “the outer surface” is confusing. Which of the at least a pair of outer surfaces is applicant referring to?
Claim 2, line 3, the limitation, “the outer surfaces” is confusing. Which of the at least a pair of outer surfaces is applicant referring to?
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, 4-5, 8-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2012/0127626).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
322
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. disclose in fig. 1-3, a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a multilayer body (110) including internal electrode layers (120a, 120b) and
dielectric layers (111) that are alternately laminated; and
external electrodes (130a, 130b) on at least a pair of opposite outer surfaces (left, right) from among outer surfaces of the multilayer body (110) and extending in a lamination direction (top-bottom);
each internal electrode layer (120a, 120b) including a counter portion (middle area) and a lead-out portion (@120a, @120b) that extends from the counter portion to
the 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).
Regarding claim 2, Chang et al. disclose the outer surfaces include end surfaces (left-right – Fig. 3) situated at both ends of the multilayer body (110) in a length direction that intersects with the lamination direction (top-bottom – Fig. 2);
the external electrodes (130a, 130b) include end-surface external electrodes on the end surfaces (130a, 130b), respectively; and
the internal electrode layers (120a, 120b) include an end-surface-connection internal electrode layer including an end-surface-connection lead-out portion as the lead-out portion (see Fig. 3 @120a, @120b), the end-surface-connection lead-out portion extending to the end-surface external electrode (130a, 130b).
Regarding claim 4, Chang et al. disclose the edges include an edge extending in a length direction (left-right – Fig. 3) that intersects with the lamination direction (top-bottom – Fig. 2), and the convex-concave portion on the edge extending in the length direction (left-right) includes two or more consecutive sets of the convexity and the
concavity (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Chang et al. disclose 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).
Regarding claim 8, Chang et al. disclose wherein each of the edges includes five convexities (see Fig. 3) and four concavities (see Fig. 3) between adjacent ones of the convexities.
Regarding claim 9, Chang 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. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Chang et al. disclose the convex-concave portion includes four consecutive sets of one of the convexities (see Fig. 3) and one of the concavities (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Chang et al. disclose 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 (table 1).
Regarding claim 14, Chang et al. disclose the convex-concave portion has a sine wave shape (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (JP 2005-327999).
PNG
media_image3.png
196
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
210
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
198
382
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura et al. disclose in fig. 1-2, a multilayer ceramic capacitor (title) comprising:
a multilayer body (1) including internal electrode layers (2a; 2b) and
dielectric layers (3) that are alternately laminated; and
external electrodes (4a, 4b) on at least a pair of opposite outer surfaces (left, right – Fig. 1) from among outer surfaces of the multilayer body (1) and extending in a lamination direction (top-bottom – Fig. 1);
each internal electrode layer (2a, 2b) including a counter portion (middle area) and a lead-out portion (contacts external electrodes) that extends from the counter portion to the external electrode (4a, 4b), the counter portion of one of a pair of the internal electrode layers (2a, 2b) adjacent to each other in the lamination direction overlaps with the counter portion of each of a remainder of the internal electrode layers (2a, 2b);
the counter portion including on edges thereof (Fig. 2), a convex-concave portion that includes a convexity and a concavity alternating with each other, the convexity bending toward the outer surface (Fig. 2) adjacent to the edge, the concavity bending away from the outer surface adjacent to the edge (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura et al. disclose when the internal electrode layers included in the 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).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura et al. disclose in a cross section that extends in the lamination direction (top-bottom – Fig. 1) and a length direction (left-right – Fig. 1) 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 (1) in a width direction (top-bottom – Fig. 2) intersecting with the lamination direction;
regions where the internal electrode layers (2a, 2b) are exposed and are arranged one above the other in the lamination direction alternate with regions where the internal electrode layers (2a, 2b) are not exposed and are arranged one above the other in the lamination direction.
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura et al. disclose each of the external electrodes (4a, 4b) include a base electrode layer [0029] and a plated layer [0029].
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura et al. disclose the plated layer includes a nickel plated layer [0029] and a tin plated layer [0029].
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura et al. disclose the convex-concave portion has a triangular wave shape (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. (US 2019/0096584).
PNG
media_image6.png
374
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
314
422
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
314
282
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hong et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a multilayer body (110) including internal electrode layers (121, 521; 122, 522) and dielectric layers (111, 511) that are alternately laminated; and
external electrodes (141, 142) on at least a pair of opposite outer surfaces (x) from among outer surfaces of the multilayer body (110) and extending in a lamination direction (z);
each internal electrode layer (121, 521; 122, 522) including a counter portion (middle area) and a lead-out portion (contacts the external electrode) that extends from the counter portion to the external electrode (141, 142), the counter portion of one of a pair of the internal electrode layers (121, 521; 122, 522) adjacent to each other in the lamination direction (z) 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. 11), a convex-concave portion that includes a convexity and a concavity alternating with each other, the convexity bending toward the outer surface (Fig. 11) adjacent to the edge, the concavity bending away from the outer surface adjacent to the edge (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 15, Hong et al. disclose the convex-concave portion has a rectangular wave shape (Fig. 11).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2012/0127626) in view of Kanzaki et al. (US 2021/0202172).
Regarding claim 3, Chang et al. disclose the outer surfaces include side surfaces (top – bottom – Fig. 3) at both ends of the multilayer body in a width direction that intersects with the lamination direction (top-bottom – Fig. 2);
Chang et al. disclose the claimed invention except for 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.
Kanzaki et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor, wherein the capacitor comprises side surfaces (12c, 12d – Fig. 8) at both ends of the multilayer body in a width direction (W) that intersects with the lamination direction (T); the external electrodes (26a, 26b, 26c, 26d) include side-surface external electrodes (26c, 26d) on the side surfaces (12c, 12d), respectively; and internal electrode layers (118b) include a side-surface-connection internal electrode layer (120b2, 120b1) 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(26c, 26d).
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 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, since such a modification would form a three-terminal multilayer ceramic capacitor having a low crack generation rate and a high level of reliability.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2012/0127626) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2017/0316883).
Regarding claim 12, Chang et al. disclose the claimed invention except for each of the external electrodes include a base electrode layer and a plated layer.
Yamaguchi et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor (title) comprising external electrodes (14,14), wherein each of the external electrodes include a base electrode layer and a 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 include a base electrode layer and a 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.
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi et al. disclose the plated layer includes a nickel plated layer and a tin plated layer [0055].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP 2005-327999).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura et al. disclose the shape of the convex-concave portion is not limited [0014].
A sawtooth 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H09260201 A
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