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, 5-8, & 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US 2011/0228443) in view of Park et al. (US 2022/0172896).
In regards to claim 1,
Nishimura ‘443 discloses a multilayer electronic component, comprising:
a body (2 – fig. 1; [0018]) including a dielectric layer (fig. 1; [0018] & [0037]) and an internal electrode (3a-3d – fig. 1; [0018]); and
an external electrode (2a-2b – fig. 1; [0018]) disposed on the body,
wherein the dielectric layer includes:
a main component represented by (Cax, Sr1-x)(Zry, Ti1-y)O3 (table 1 – sample 15-16),
a first sub-component including at least one of rare earth elements selected from the group consisting of yttrium (Y), dysprosium (Dy), and terbium (Tb) ([0028] – Dy, Y, Tb),
a second sub-component including silicon (Si) (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16), and
a third sub-component including at least one variable valence acceptor elements (abstract, [0016], & table 1 – sample 15-16 – Mn),
wherein x satisfies 0.5 ≤ x < 1.0, and y satisfies 0.950 ≤ y < 1.00 (table 1 – sample 15-16), and
wherein a content of silicon (Si) of the second sub-component is 0.95 moles or higher and 1.35 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component (abstract, [0016] & table 1 – sample 15-16). Nishimura ‘443 fails to disclose wherein a content of the at least one of the rare earth elements of the first sub-component is 1.0 moles or higher and 2.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component.
Park ‘896 discloses that that the amount of rare earth element added to the main component is a result effective variable, particularly for improving reliability and suppressing leakage current while ensuring insulating characteristics and sinterability are not decreased ([0061-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Nishimura ‘443 such that the ceramic component has 1.0 moles or higher and 2.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component of Dy, Y, or Tb to obtain a capacitor with improved reliability and low leakage current while ensuring insulating characteristics and sinterability are not decreased as taught by Park ‘896. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 5,
Nishimura ‘443 as modified by Park ‘896 further discloses wherein the variable valence acceptor elements include at least one selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn) and combinations thereof (abstract, [0016], & table 1 – sample 15-16).
In regards to claim 6,
Nishimura ‘443 as modified by Park ‘896 further discloses wherein a content of the variable valence acceptor elements of the third sub-component is 1.0 moles or higher 3.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component (abstract & [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, in re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); in re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed, Cir. 1990)
In regards to claim 7,
Nishimura ‘443 as modified by Park ‘896 further discloses wherein an average sintering density of the dielectric layer is 4.66g/cm3 or more (claim 1 rejection above – based on the material composition the dielectric density which is a property of the material will be met).
In regards to claim 8,
Nishimura ‘443 discloses a multilayer electronic component, comprising:
a body (2 – fig. 1; [0018]) including a dielectric layer (fig. 1; [0018] & [0037]) and an internal electrode (3a-3d – fig. 1; [0018]); and
an external electrode (2a-2b – fig. 1; [0018]) disposed on the body,
wherein the dielectric layer includes a main component having a perovskite structure represented as ABO3, and a sub-component (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16),
wherein an A-site of the perovskite structure includes at least one of calcium (Ca) or strontium (Sr), and a B-site of the perovskite structure includes at least one of zirconium (Zr) and titanium (Ti) (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16),
a first sub-component including at least one of rare earth elements selected from the group consisting of yttrium (Y), dysprosium (Dy), and terbium (Tb) ([0028] – Dy, Y, Tb),
a second sub-component including silicon (Si) (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16), and
a third sub-component including at least one variable valence acceptor elements (abstract, [0016], & table 1 – sample 15-16 – Mn),
wherein, when a molecular ratio of calcium (Ca) in the A-site of the perovskite structure is defined as x, a molecular ratio of strontium (Sr) is defined as 1-x, a molecular ratio of zirconium (Zr) in the B-site of the perovskite structure is defined as y, and a molecular ratio of titanium (Ti) is defined as 1-y, x satisfies 0.5 ≤ x < 1.0, and y satisfies 0.950 ≤ y < 1.00 (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16),
wherein a content of silicon (Si) of the second sub-component is 0.95 moles or higher based on 100 moles of the B-site of the perovskite structure (abstract, [0016] & table 1 – sample 15-16). Nishimura ‘443 fails to disclose wherein a content of the at least one of the rare earth elements of the first sub-component is 1.0 moles or higher and 2.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the B-site of the perovskite structure.
Park ‘896 discloses that that the amount of rare earth element added to the main component is a result effective variable, particularly for improving reliability and suppressing leakage current while ensuring insulating characteristics and sinterability are not decreased ([0061-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Nishimura ‘443 such that the ceramic component has 1.0 moles or higher and 2.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component of Dy, Y, or Tb to obtain a capacitor with improved reliability and low leakage current while ensuring insulating characteristics and sinterability are not decreased as taught by Park ‘896. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 12,
Nishimura ‘443 as modified by Park ‘896 further discloses wherein the variable valence acceptor elements include at least one selected from the group consisting of manganese (Mn), vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn) and combinations thereof (abstract, [0016], & table 1 – sample 15-16).
In regards to claim 13,
Nishimura ‘443 as modified by Park ‘896 further discloses wherein a content of the variable valence acceptor elements of the third sub-component is 1.0 moles or higher 3.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component (abstract & [0016]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, in re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); in re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed, Cir. 1990)
In regards to claim 14,
Nishimura ‘443 as modified by Park ‘896 further discloses wherein an average sintering density of the dielectric layer is 4.66g/cm3 or more (claim 1 rejection above – based on the material composition the dielectric density which is a property of the material will be met).
In regards to claim 15,
Nishimura ‘443 discloses a dielectric composition, comprising:
a main component represented by (Cax, Sr1-x)(Zry, Ti1-y)O3 (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16),
a first sub-component at least one rare earth element selected from the group consisting of yttrium (Y), dysprosium (Dy), and terbium (Tb) ([0028] – Dy, Y, Tb),
a second sub-component including silicon (Si) (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16), and
a third sub-component including at least one variable valence acceptor elements (abstract, [0016], & table 1 – sample 15-16 – Mn),
wherein x satisfies 0.5 ≤ x < 1.0, and y satisfies 0.950 ≤ y < 1.00 (abstract & table 1 – sample 15-16),
wherein a content of silicon (Si) of the second sub-component is 0.95 moles or higher and 1.35 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component (abstract, [0016] & table 1 – sample 15-16). Nishimura ‘443 fails to disclose wherein a content of the rare earth element of the first sub-component is 1.0 moles or higher and 2.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component.
Park ‘896 discloses that that the amount of rare earth element added to the main component is a result effective variable, particularly for improving reliability and suppressing leakage current while ensuring insulating characteristics and sinterability are not decreased ([0061-0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Nishimura ‘443 such that the ceramic component has 1.0 moles or higher and 2.0 moles or lower based on 100 moles of the main component of Dy, Y, or Tb to obtain a capacitor with improved reliability and low leakage current while ensuring insulating characteristics and sinterability are not decreased as taught by Park ‘896. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP1036778A1 – claim 2
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