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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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(s) 1, 4-10, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US 2021/0233713) in view of Echigoya et al. (US 2021/0248435).
In regards to claim 1,
Nishimura ‘713 discloses a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising:
a ceramic element body (12 – fig. 9; [0026]) including ceramic layers (14 – fig. 9; [0026]), first internal electrodes (16a – fig. 9; [0034]), and second internal electrodes (16a – fig. 9; [0034]) that are laminated in a height direction, a first main surface (12a – fig. 9; [0026]) and a second main surface (seen in fig. 9) opposed to each other in the height direction, a first end surface (12e – fig. 9; [0026]) and a second end surface (12f – fig. 9; [0026]) opposed to each other in a length direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the height direction, and a first lateral surface (12c – fig. 1; [0026]) and a second lateral surface (12d – fig. 1; [0026]) opposed to each other in a width direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the height direction and the length direction; and
a first external electrode (40a – fig. 9; [0132]) and a second external electrode (40b – fig. 9; [0132]) on an outer surface of the ceramic element body; wherein
each of the first internal electrodes extends toward, is exposed at the first end surface, and is electrically connected with the first external electrode (fig. 9);
each of the second internal electrodes extends toward, is exposed at the second end surface, and is electrically connected with the second external electrode (fig. 9);
when a cross section parallel or substantially parallel to the first lateral surface and the second lateral surface is viewed, the first external electrode has an L-shape on the first end surface and the first main surface, and the second external electrode has an L-shape on the second end surface and the first main surface (fig. 9; [0132])). Nishimura ‘713 fails to disclose the second main surface includes embossed holes; and a dimension of at least one of the embossed holes in the width direction is smaller than a dimension of the second main surface in the width direction.
Echigoya ‘435 discloses the second main surface includes embossed holes (34, fig. 2-3; [0025]); and a dimension of at least one of the embossed holes in the width direction is smaller than a dimension of the second main surface in the width direction (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the surface of Nishimura ‘713 to have embossed portions as taught by Echigoya ‘435 in the upper surface to provide the user with information about the component ([0025-0026]).
In regards to claim 4,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the first external electrode and the second external electrode each include:
a base external electrode (26 – fig. 9; [0053] of Nishimura ‘713); and
at least one plated external electrode layer (28 – fig. 9; [0053] of Nishimura ‘713) provided outside the base external electrode.
In regards to claim 5,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the base external electrode includes a dummy internal electrode that is shorter than the first internal electrodes and the second internal electrodes in the length direction and is exposed at the first main surface of the ceramic element body (seen in fig. 9 of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 6,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the dummy internal electrode is made of a same material as materials of the first internal electrodes and the second external electrode ([0045] & [0063] of Nishimura ‘713 teaches Ni as the material).
In regards to claim 7,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the dummy internal electrode includes Ni as a main component ([0063] of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 8,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the base external electrode is a thin film ([0063] of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 9,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the thin film includes NiCr as a main component ([0113] of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 10,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the plated external electrode layer includes at least one of a Cu-plated external electrode layer, a Ni-plated external electrode layer, and an Au-plated external electrode layer ([0114] of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 15,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein one of a dimension in the length direction or a dimension in the width direction is about 1.0 mm or less and the other is about 0.5 mm or less ([0163] of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 16,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein a dimension in the height direction is about 0.1 mm or less ([0163] of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 17,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein a thickness of each of the ceramic layers is about 0.3 µm to about 2.0 µm ([0030] of Nishimura ‘713).
In regards to claim 18,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein the embossed holes are recessed holes each including a bottom (fig. 2-3; [0025] of Echigoya ‘435).
In regards to claim 19,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 further discloses wherein at least one of the embossed holes is spaced away from each of the first external electrode and the second external electrode (fig. 2-3 of Echigoya ‘435).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2016072279A hereafter referred to as Sugita.
In regards to claim 2,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 discloses the corners and ridges are rounded ([0026] of Nishimura ‘713). Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 fails to disclose wherein R dimensions of a ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other are respectively larger than R dimensions of a ridge line where the second main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the second main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other.
Sugita discloses wherein R dimensions of a ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other are respectively larger than R dimensions of a ridge line where the second main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, a ridge line where the second main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and a ridge line where the second main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other (fig. 2-3; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rounded the ridges of Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 as taught by Sugita to allow for the height of the solder fillet during mounting to be reduced.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 and Sugita as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2012/0194031).
In regards to claim 3,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 and Sugita fails to disclose wherein the R dimension of each of the ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and the ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other is about 1 μm or more and about 10 μm or less.
Ogawa ‘031 discloses wherein the R dimension of each of the ridge line where the first main surface and the first end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the second end surface are in contact with each other, the ridge line where the first main surface and the first lateral surface are in contact with each other, and the ridge line where the first main surface and the second lateral surface are in contact with each other is about 1 μm or more and about 10 μm or less ([0013] & [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rounded the ridges of Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 and Sugita to have a radius value as taught by Ogawa ‘031 to allow for good fixing strength of the plated layers ensuing good moisture resistance.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Motoki et al. (US 8,520,361).
In regards to claim 11,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 fails to disclose wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Ni-plated external electrode layer provided outside the base external electrode and the Au-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
Motoki ‘361 discloses wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Ni-plated external electrode layer (11 – fig. 1; C5:L53-56) provided outside the base external electrode (13 – fig. 1; C4:L61-63) and the Au-plated (12 – fig. 1; C5:L57-61) external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plated layer of Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 to have a structure as taught by Motoki ‘361 to obtain an electrode that is thin and has good solderability. Furthermore, 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.
In regards to claim 12,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 fails to disclose wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Cu-plated external electrode layer provided outside the base external electrode, the Ni-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Cu-plated external electrode layer, and the Au-plated external electrode layer provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
Motoki ‘361 discloses wherein the plated external electrode layer includes the Cu-plated external electrode layer (14 – fig. 1; C4:L23-25)provided outside the base external electrode (13 – fig. 1; C4:L61-63), the Ni-plated external electrode layer (11 – fig. 1; C5:L53-56) provided outside the Cu-plated external electrode layer, and the Au-plated external electrode layer (12 – fig. 1; C5:L57-61) provided outside the Ni-plated external electrode layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plated layer of Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 to have a structure as taught by Motoki ‘361 to obtain an electrode that is thin and has good solderability. Furthermore, 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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2012/0039014).
In regards to claim 13,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 fails to disclose wherein the Ni-plated external electrode layer includes P.
Ogawa ‘014 discloses wherein the Ni-plated external electrode layer includes P ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the Ni plated layer of Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 to include P as taught by Ogawa ‘014 to obtain a Ni plating layer with improved fixing strength and improved corrosion resistance. Furthermore, 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Uenishi et al. (US 2019/0096577).
In regards to claim 14,
Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 fails to disclose wherein the Cu-plated external electrode layer includes Ni.
Uenishi ‘577 discloses wherein the Cu-plated external electrode layer includes Ni (claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the plated layer of Nishimura ‘713 as modified by Echigoya ‘435 using a Cu-Ni alloy as taught by Uenishi ‘577 as such a material is taught to be a known alternative to just Cu or Ni. Furthermore, 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.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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 J 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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights