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 26 and its depending claims are 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 26 recites the limitation "the surface" in Line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 32 currently depends from claim 29. Claim 32 should depend from claim 30. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 13-14, 16-21, 25-27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koo et al. (US Publication 2024/0274363).
In re claim 1, Koo discloses a multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (110 – Figure 2, ¶31) including a dielectric layer (111 – Figure 2, ¶31) and an internal electrode (121 – Figure 2, ¶31) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer (Figure 2);
an external electrode (131b – Figure 2, ¶66) disposed on the body and connected to the internal electrode (121 – Figure 2); and
a region (131a – Figure 5, ¶31) containing Ni, Al and Cu (¶31), wherein the internal electrode includes Ni (¶43), and the external electrode contains Al and Cu (¶66).
In re claim 2, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the region containing Ni, Al, and Cu, includes a first region (P4 – Figure 5, ¶78) adjacent to the internal electrode (121 – Figure 5), and a second region (P3 – Figure 5, ¶78) adjacent to the external electrode (Figure 5; Note that the Examiner is taking 131a1 to be part of the external electrode here, ¶77), and wherein an Al-Ni alloy is disposed in the first region, and an Al-Cu alloy is disposed in the second region (¶77-78; Note that the Examiner is taking P4 having a greater Ni concentration to be the Al-Ni alloy and P3 having a greater Cu concentration to be the Al-Cu alloy.).
In re claim 3, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 2, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the region containing Ni, Al and Cu comprises an Al-Ni alloy (alloy contained in P4 – Figure 5) and an Al-Cu alloy (alloy contained in P3 – Figure 5).
In re claim 4, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 2, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the first region has a Ni content decreasing in a direction from the internal electrode to the external electrode, and the second region has a Cu content decreasing in a direction from the external electrode to the internal electrode (¶77-78).
In re claim 6, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 2, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the first region (P4 – Figure 5) is disposed inside of the body (110 – Figure 2, Figure 5), and at least a portion of the second region (P1 – Figure 5, ¶77; Note that the Examiner is taking P1 the second region here.) is disposed outside of the body (Figure 5).
In re claim 13, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the region containing Ni, Al and Cu (131a – Figure 5) is substantially formed of a Ni-Al-Cu alloy (¶65).
In re claim 14, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 13, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein in the region containing Ni, Al, and Cu, a Ni content decreases and a Cu content increases in a direction from the internal electrode to the external electrode (¶77-78; Note that the concentration of Cu increases as the concentration of Ni decreases from P4 to P3).
In re claim 16, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the region (131a – Figure 5) containing Ni, Al, and Cu includes a first region (P4 – Figure 5) adjacent to the internal electrode, a second region (P2 – Figure 5) adjacent to the external electrode (131b – Figure 5), and an intermediate region (131a1 – Figure 5) between the first region and the second region, wherein an Al-Ni alloy is disposed in the first region (P4 – Figure 5; Note P4 has a lower concentration of Cu [¶78].), an Al-Cu alloy is disposed in the second region (P2 – Figure 5; Note that P2 has a greater concentration of Cu [¶78]), and a Ni-Al-Cu alloy is disposed in the intermediate region (131a1 – Figure 5, ¶64).
In re claim 17, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the region containing Ni, Al and Cu (131a – Figure 5) is disposed between the internal electrode (121 – Figure 5) and the external electrode (131b – Figure 5).
In re claim 18, Koo discloses a multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (110 – Figure 2) including a dielectric layer (111 – Figure 2) and internal electrodes (121– Figure 2, ¶31) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer; and
an external electrode (131 – Figure 2) disposed on the body and including a base electrode layer (131a, 131b – Figure 5) connected to the internal electrodes (121 – Figure 5), wherein the base electrode layer includes Al, Cu, and glass (¶60, ¶64).
In re claim 19, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 18, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the base electrode layer (131a, 131b – Figure 5) is in contact with at least a portion of an end of the dielectric layer (111 – Figure 5) disposed between the internal electrodes (121 – Figure 5).
In re claim 20, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 18, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein at least one of Al, Cu, and glass included in the base electrode layer (131a, 131b – Figure 5) is in contact with at least a portion of an end of the dielectric layer (111 – Figure 5) disposed between the internal electrodes (¶64-66, ¶77-78, Figure 5).
In re claim 21, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 18, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein at least a portion of the Al contained in the base electrode layer (131a, 131b – Figure 5) is alloyed with Cu (¶81).
In re claim 25, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 18, as explained above. Koo further discloses a region containing Ni, Al, and Cu (P4 to P3 – Figure 5), extending from ends of the internal electrodes (121 – Figure 5) to the base electrode layer (131a, 131b – Figure 5), wherein Al is present in an entirety of the region containing Ni, Al, and Cu (¶66-68, ¶77-78), and at least a portion of Al contained in the region containing Ni, Al, and Cu is alloyed with at least one of Ni and Cu (¶64, ¶66).
In re claim 26, Koo discloses a multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (110 – Figure 2, Figure 5) including a dielectric layer (111 – Figure 2, Figure 5) and an internal electrode (121 – Figure 5) comprising Ni (¶46) alternately disposed with the dielectric layer (111 – Figure 2, Figure 5), the internal electrode being spaced from a first surface of the body (Figure 5);
an external electrode (131b, 131c – Figure 2, Figure 5, ¶56-57) disposed on the surface of the body (Figure 2); and
a region (131a – Figure 5) comprising Ni, Al and Cu (¶64) disposed between the internal electrode (121 – Figure 5) to the external electrode (131b, 131c – Figure 5) to electrically connect the internal electrode and the external electrode (Figure 2, Figure 5).
In re claim 27, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 26, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the external electrode comprises a base layer (131b – Figure 5) including Al, Cu and glass (¶64).
In re claim 30, Koo discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 26, as explained above. Koo further discloses wherein the region comprising Ni, Al and Cu (131a – Figure 5) comprises a first region (P4 – Figure 5) adjacent the internal electrode (121 – Figure 5), a second region (P4 – Figure 5) adjacent the external electrode, and an intermediate region (P1 – Figure 5) between the first region and the second region (Figure 5).
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (US Publication 2024/0274363) in view of Lee (US Publication 2021/0082620).
In re claim 23, Koo discloses The multilayer electronic component of claim 18, as explained above. Koo does not disclose wherein the external electrode further includes a conductive resin layer disposed on the base electrode layer and including conductive particles and a resin.
Lee discloses the external electrode further includes a conductive resin layer (131b – Figure 2, ¶92) disposed on the base electrode layer (131a – Figure 2, ¶91) and including conductive particles and a resin (¶90).
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 conductive resin layer of Lee to provide for an electrode layer that is capable of securing bonding properties and absorbing impact (¶93: Lee).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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 does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the first region has an Al content increasing from the internal electrode towards the external electrode, and the second region has an Al content increasing from the external electrode to the internal electrode.
Claim 7-12 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. The prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) an atomic percentage of Al contained in the intermediate region is higher than an atomic percentage of Al contained in the first and second regions.
Claim 15 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 does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) in the region containing Ni, Al, and Cu has a highest Al content in a central region, and the Al content decreases from the central region towards both the internal electrode and external electrode.
Claim 22 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 does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the external electrode includes a Ni plating layer and a portion of an interface area between the base electrode layer and the Ni plating layer is provided with Al and an Al-Ni alloy.
Claim 24 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 does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) at least a portion of an interface area between the base electrode layer and the conductive resin layer is provided with Al and an Al-Cu alloy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US Publication 2014/0063684) [¶49], [¶57-64]
Kim et al. (US Publication 2015/0155097) [¶49], [¶64]
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