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 .
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 depends from a canceled claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, 18-21, and 23-24 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 § 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) 11, 14-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morita (US 2023/0223196 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Morita discloses in fig. 1, a multilayer electronic component (100), comprising:
a body (11-13) including a dielectric layer (11) and an internal electrode (12); and
an external electrode (20a, 21) disposed on the body and comprising a conductive metal [0054], a ceramic material (23, [0068]) and glass (diffused, [0076]),
wherein the ceramic material includes BaTiO₃ [0068],
wherein when a content (wt%) of the ceramic material (23, [0076]) included in the external electrode is referred to as CE and a content (wt%) of glass (diffused, [0076]) included in the external electrode is referred to as GL, the external electrode satisfies GL < CE [0076].
Regarding claim 14, Morita discloses the glass includes lithium (Li, [0073]).
Regarding claim 15, Morita discloses the ceramic material includes barium (Ba) and titanium (Ti) [0076].
Regarding claim 18, Morita discloses conductive metal comprises Ni [0094].
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, 8-10, 12-13, 19-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US 2023/0223196 A1) in view of Nagamoto et al. (JP 2001-297628A).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Morita discloses a multilayer electronic component (100), comprising:
a body including a dielectric layer (11) and an internal electrode (12); and
an external electrode (20a, 21) disposed on the body and comprising a conductive metal [0094], a ceramic material [0076],[0094] and glass (diffused, [0076])
wherein the ceramic material includes a perovskite (ABO₃)-based material [0094], and
wherein when a content (wt%) of the ceramic material [0076] included in the external electrode (23) is referred to as CE and a content (wt%) of glass included in the external electrode is referred to as GL (diffused, [0076]), the external electrode satisfies GL < CE [0076].
Morita discloses the claimed invention except for the glass includes silicon (Si), boron (B), sodium (Na), and aluminum (Al).
Nagamoto et al. disclose a conductive paste used in the formation of an external electrode for a multilayer ceramic capacitor, wherein the conductive paste comprises a glass material that comprises Si - B - Na - AI (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 form the multilayer ceramic device of Morita using the glass material of Nagamoto et al, wherein the glass material comprises Si - B- Na-Al, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having excellent bonding strength between the external electrode and both the ceramic body and external plating film.
Regarding claim 2, Nagamoto et al. disclose the glass includes borosilicate glass (table 1 - composition primary comprising SiO2 and B2O3).
Regarding claim 3, Nagamoto et al. disclose the glass includes at least one of copper (Cu), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), zirconium (Zr), lithium (Li), titanium (Ti), calcium (Ca), and lead (Pb) (table 1).
Regarding claim 4, Morita discloses the ceramic material includes BaTiO₃ [0068].
Regarding claim 5, Morita discloses the ceramic material includes barium (Ba) and titanium (Ti) [0068], [0076].
Regarding claim 8, Morita discloses conductive metal comprises Ni [0094].
Regarding claim 9, Nagamoto et al. disclose the glass includes SiO₂, B₂O₃, Na₂O, and AI203 (table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Nagamoto et al. disclose the glass includes at least one of CuO, Bi₂O₃, ZnO, ZrO, Li₂O, TiO₂, CaCO₃, NaHCO₃, and PbO (table 1).
Regarding claim 12, Morita discloses the claimed invention except for the glass includes borosilicate glass.
Nagamoto et al. disclose a glass that includes borosilicate glass (table 1 - composition primary comprising SiO2 and B203).
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 multilayer ceramic device of Morita using the glass material of Nagamoto et al, wherein the glass material is a borosilicate glass, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having excellent bonding strength between the external electrode and both the ceramic body and external plating film.
Regarding claim 13, Morita discloses the claimed invention except for the glass includes silicon (Si), boron (B), sodium (Na), and aluminum (AI).
Nagamoto et al. disclose a conductive paste used in the formation of an external electrode for a multilayer ceramic capacitor, wherein the conductive paste comprises a glass material that comprises Si - B - Na - AI (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 form the multilayer ceramic device of Morita using the glass material of Nagamoto et al, wherein the glass material comprises Si - B- Na-Al, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having excellent bonding strength between the external electrode and both the ceramic body and external plating film.
Regarding claim 19, Morita discloses the claimed invention except for the glass includes SiO₂, B₂O₃, Na₂O, and Al₂O3.
Nagamoto et al. disclose a glass includes SiO₂, B₂O₃, Na₂O, and AI203 (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 form the multilayer ceramic device of Morita using the glass material of Nagamoto et al, wherein the glass material comprises SiO₂, B₂O₃, Na₂O, and AI203, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having excellent bonding strength between the external electrode and both the ceramic body and external plating film.
Regarding claim 20, Morita discloses the claimed invention except for the glass includes at least one of CuO, Bi₂O₃, ZnO, ZrO, Li₂O, TiO₂, CaCO₃, NaHCO₃, and PbO.
Nagamoto et al. disclose a glass includes at least one of CuO, Bi₂O₃, ZnO, ZrO, Li₂O, TiO₂, CaCO₃, NaHCO₃, and PbO (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 form the multilayer ceramic device of Morita using the glass material of Nagamoto et al, wherein the glass material comprises at least one of CuO, Bi₂O₃, ZnO, ZrO, Li₂O, TiO₂, CaCO₃, NaHCO₃, and PbO, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having excellent bonding strength between the external electrode and both the ceramic body and external plating film.
Regarding claim 21, Morita discloses an external electrode (21) for an electronic component, comprising:
a conductive metal [0094], a ceramic material [0094] and glass (from diffusion [0076]
wherein content of ceramic material (CE) in the external electrode is greater than
content of glass (GL) in the external electrode [0076], and wherein the ceramic material includes a perovskite (ABO₃)-based material [0094].
Morita discloses the claimed invention except for the glass includes silicon (Si), boron (B), sodium (Na) and aluminum (Al),
Nagamoto et al. disclose a conductive paste used in the formation of an external electrode for a multilayer ceramic capacitor, wherein the conductive paste comprises a glass material that comprises Si - B - Na - AI (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 form the multilayer ceramic device of Morita using the glass material of Nagamoto et al, wherein the glass material comprises Si - B- Na-Al, since such a modification would form a multilayer ceramic capacitor having excellent bonding strength between the external electrode and both the ceramic body and external plating film.
Regarding claim 23, Morita discloses the ceramic material includes at least one of lithium (Li), barium (Ba), calcium (Ca), aluminum (A1), copper (Cu), zirconium (Zr), and titanium (Ti) [0094].
Regarding claim 24, Nagamoto et al. disclose the glass includes at least one of copper (Cu), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), zirconium (Zr), lithium (Li), titanium (Ti), calcium (Ca), and lead (Pb) (table 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 22 are 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.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 electronic component / external electrode wherein 0.1 x CE ≤ GL ≤ 0.2 x CE (claims 7, 17 and 22).
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