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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 and B1 in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged. The restriction with respect to Group A is withdrawn, and claim 4 is rejoined. The applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the Group B restriction requirement, therefore the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 12 is withdrawn without traverse.
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 1-11 and 13 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 recites “alternately disposing the first sheet and the second sheet”. It’s not clear if “the first sheet” refers to the “first dielectric green sheet” previously recited or a different first sheet.
In claim 2, it’s unclear what “a point of ¼” and “a point of 3/4” represent. Are ¼ and ¾ relative to a specific length?
Claims 6 and 10 recite “the first and second dielectric paste portions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the second sheet”. It’s not clear if this refers to the “second dielectric green sheet” previously recited or “the second sheet” previously recited. A possible remedy is to use different terminology to more clearly distinguish between the “second dielectric green sheet” and the “second sheet”. For example, the second sheet could be “the second combined sheet”.
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) 1-5, 8, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al. (US 2022/0093340) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2004/0216305).
As to claim 1, Matsui discloses a method of manufacturing a multilayer electronic component 1, comprising: disposing first internal electrode patterns 103 on a first dielectric green sheet 203 (fig 5-6, para 64-83), including a first main portion and a first convex portion 215 having a thickness thicker than a thickness of the first main portion, wherein a first gap is created on the first dielectric green sheet on which the first internal electrode patterns are not disposed, disposing second internal electrode patterns on a second dielectric green sheet, including a second main portion and a second convex portion having a thickness thicker than a thickness of the second main portion, wherein a second gap is created on the second dielectric green sheet on which the second internal electrode patterns are not disposed thereby forming a second sheet (see annotated fug below, also fig 2-7, associated text para 26-83); forming a laminated bar by alternately disposing the first sheet and the second sheet (para 81-85, fig 6-7); forming a laminate by cutting the laminated bar (para 86-87, fig 7); and forming an external electrode 3 on the laminate (step S6, para 92), wherein the forming the laminated bar is performed by disposing the first sheet so that the first internal electrode patterns face downward in a stacking direction, and disposing the second sheet so that the second internal electrode patterns face upward in the stacking direction, with a dielectric sheet 204 therebetween (2-7, associated text para 26-83).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsui does not disclose the method further comprising applying a first dielectric paste to the first gap and the first internal electrode patterns, wherein the forming of the second sheet further comprises applying a second dielectric paste to the second gap and the second internal electrode patterns.
Kobayashi discloses forming a stacked layered electronic component wherein a dielectric paste 120 is applied to internal electrode patterns 21, 22 and a gap, said electrode patterns and gap formed on a green ceramic sheet 110 (fig 5-8, 11, para 28-32; 104-111). Kobayashi discloses this can be for multiple sheets to form units of layers 110/21,22/120 (fig 5-8, 11, para 28-32; 104-111). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Matsui by applying a first dielectric paste to the first gap and the first internal electrode patterns, wherein the forming of the second sheet further comprises applying a second dielectric paste to the second gap and the second internal electrode patterns as taught by Kobayashi above as such improves lamination quality, and reduces voltage and structural defects (para 28-32). Additionally. para 32 states application of dielectric paste over the internal electrodes is a well-suited method for forming multilayer electronic components.
In the modified method the first dielectric paste will face downward in the stacking direction as it will be applied on the bottom surface of the first electrode patterns in the fig above. The second dielectric paste will face upward in the stacking direction as it will be applied on the upper surface of second electrode patterns.
As to claim 2, Matsui discloses the method wherein the first convex portion and the second convex portion are disposed between a point of ¼ and a point of ¾ among points obtained by dividing the first internal electrode pattern and the second internal electrode pattern into four parts in a direction, perpendicular to the stacking direction, respectively (figs, 6-7, para 80-87).
As to claim 3, Matsui discloses the method wherein the forming of the laminated bar is performed by disposing the first convex portion to overlap the second gap in the stacking direction, and disposing the second convex portion to overlap the first gap in the stacking direction (figs, 6-7, para 80-87).
As to claim 4, Matsui discloses the method wherein in the forming of the laminated bar is performed so that the first convex portion does not overlap the second internal electrode pattern in the stacking direction, and the second convex portion does not overlap the first internal electrode pattern in the stacking direction (figs, 6-7, para 80-87).
As to claim 5, Kobayashi discloses the method wherein in the forming of the laminated bar, the first dielectric paste and the second dielectric paste come into contact with each other (figs 11-15, discussion of said figs)
As to claim 8, Matsui discloses the method wherein the forming the laminate is performed by cutting the laminated bar along a virtual straight line passing through the first convex portion and the second gap and a virtual straight line passing through the second convex portion and the first gap (fig 7)
As to claim 9, Matsui discloses the method wherein the forming the laminated bar comprises disposing a third dielectric green sheet 204 between the first sheet and the second sheet (fig 6, see fig above).
As to claim 11, Masui discloses the method further comprising firing (step S5) the laminate between the forming the laminate and the forming the external electrode (para 81-92)
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Kobayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (WO 2018139405, see attached machine translation for text citations).
As to claims 6, 7 and 13, Matsui and Kobayashi do not disclose the first and second dielectric paste portions include the same material as an organic material included in the first and second internal electrode patterns, said same material being dihydroterpinyl acetate (DHTA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Matsui and Kobayashi such that the first and second dielectric paste portions include the same material as an organic material included in the first and second internal electrode patterns, said same material being dihydroterpinyl acetate (DHTA) as taught by WO405 (para 101-104, 124) as such yields favorable attack resistance properties (para 124).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui and Kobayashi, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Trinh (US 2004/0066605).
Trinh discloses that insulation resistance is a results effective variable that effects capacitance and dielectric strength (para 9-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the third dielectric green sheet to have greater insulation resistance than that of the first and second dielectric paste portions as one of ordinary skill would have achieved such by performing routine experimentation to achieve only the expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9-6.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights