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 filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 of Remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art of Saito et al. (US Publication 2017/0301474) fails to disclose the new limitations of amended claim 1. In particular, the Applicant asserts that the embodiments of the prior art fail to disclose at least three multilayer capacitors having a plurality of electrodes that are positioned orthogonally to the mounting surface.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above assertion. Saito explicitly discloses a variation of the embodiment in Figure 3 of Saito in which three multilayer capacitors are disposed on a substrate (see Figure 7, [¶41]). Further, Saito discloses an orientation of the internal electrodes that are perpendicular to the substrate (¶44). Therefore, Saito discloses the limitations of amended claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US Publication 2017/0301474) in view of Hattori et al. (WO2016035590A1).
In re claim 1, Saito discloses an electronic component comprising:
a substrate (200 – Figure 3, ¶25);
a plurality of multilayer capacitors (311, 312 – Figure 3, ¶25) mounted on a mounting surface of the substrate (Figure 3); and
wherein each of the plurality of multilayer capacitors includes:
an element body (¶26) having formed a plurality of dielectric layers (space between 211c, 212c - - Figure 3, ¶24) stacked and having a pair of end surfaces and four side surfaces coupling the pair of end surfaces (Figure 3);
an external electrode (211a, 211b, 212a, 212b – Figure 3, ¶24) arranged on the element body (Figure 3); and
a plurality of internal electrodes (211c, 212c – Figure 3) arranged in the element body and arranged to be opposed to each other in a stacking direction of the plurality of dielectric layers (Figure 3), the external electrode (211a, 211b, 212a, 212b – Figure 3) of the multilayer capacitor being mounted on the substrate by solder (¶27), and wherein at least a part of adjacent multilayer capacitors overlaps each other when viewed from a direction in which the pair of side surfaces of the element body are opposed to each other (See Figure 3),
the direction being along the mounting surface of the substrate, in the adjacent multilayer capacitors, stacking directions of the plurality of internal electrodes are the same (Figure 3), and a distance between the adjacent multilayer capacitors is 1/2 or less of a height of the multilayer capacitor mounted on the substrate (See Figure 4: Sample IN200 having a value of 0.1 mm with a component size of 0603 or 1005),
the plurality of multilayer capacitors (211, 212, 213 – Figure 7, ¶24) includes at least three multilayer capacitors (Figure 7) each with the stacking direction of the plurality of internal electrodes orthogonal to the mounting surface (¶44).
Saito does not disclose a sealing part formed of a resin and sealing the plurality of multilayer capacitors.
Hattori discloses a sealing part (R – Figure 5, Figure 13, Figure 14, ¶298) formed of a resin (¶289) and sealing the plurality of multilayer capacitors (10 – Figure 5, Figure 13, Figure 14, ¶73).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sealing resin of Hattori to protect the electronic component from external environmental factors and to decrease the vibration of the electronic component.
In re claim 2, Saito in view of Hattori discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Saito further discloses wherein each of the plurality of multilayer capacitors (211, 212 – Figure 3) has the same configuration, shape, and dimension, and the plurality of multilayer capacitors are arranged so as to overlap each other when viewed from the direction in which the pair of side surfaces of the element body are opposed to each other (Figure 3), the direction being along the mounting surface of the substrate (Figure 3) (See Figure 4: Sample IN200 having a value of 0.1 mm with a component size of 0603 or 1005).
In re claim 3, Saito in view of Hattori discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Saito further discloses wherein the multilayer capacitor (211, 212 – Figure 3) is arranged so as to have the stacking direction of the plurality of internal electrodes (211c, 212c – Figure 3) orthogonal to the mounting surface (Figure 3).
In re claim 4, Saito in view of Hattori discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Saito further discloses wherein and the element body has a length in the stacking direction of 1.0 mm or more (See Figure 4: Sample IN200 having a value of 0.1 mm with a component size of 2012.).
Saito does not disclose the number of the dielectric layers stacked of the multilayer capacitor is 100 or more. However it is well-known in the art that adjusting the number of dielectric layers is directly correlated with the capacitance of the device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the number of dielectric layers to achieve a device having desired capacitance, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 5, Saito in view of Hattori discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Saito does not disclose wherein a distance between the mounting surface of the substrate and the element body of the multilayer capacitor opposed to the mounting surface is 0.2 mm or less, and the sealing part is arranged between the mounting surface and the element body.
Hattori discloses wherein a distance between the mounting surface of the substrate (upper surface of B – Figure 2, Figure 13, ¶71) and the element body (CP1l – Figure 2, Figure 13, ¶74) of the multilayer capacitor opposed to the mounting surface is 0.2 mm or less (¶101), and the sealing part (R – Figure 2, Figure 13) is arranged between the mounting surface and the element body (Figure 2, Figure 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the height of the sealing body and multilayer capacitor, and thus, distance between the mounting surface and the element body, to reduce the vibration of the substrate (¶23, ¶97-101).
In re claim 6, Saito in view of Hattori discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Saito does not disclose wherein the resin is a silicone resin or an epoxy resin.
Hattori discloses wherein the resin is a silicone resin or an epoxy resin (¶153).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sealing resin of Hattori to protect the electronic component from external environmental factors and to decrease the vibration of the electronic component.
In re claim 7, Saito in view of Hattori discloses the electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Saito does not disclose wherein a height of the sealing part from the mounting surface is twice or more a height of the multilayer capacitor mounted on the mounting surface.
Hattori discloses a height of the sealing part from the mounting surface is twice or more a height of the multilayer capacitor mounted on the mounting surface (¶97, ¶101).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the sealing resin of Hattori to protect the electronic component from external environmental factors and to decrease the vibration of the electronic component.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 prior art fails to disclose (in combination with other claim limitations) the at least three multilayer capacitors are arranged in a zigzag manner when viewed in the stacking direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park (US Publication 2016/0309578) Figure 9
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARUN RAMASWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-1962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
/ARUN RAMASWAMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights