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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species A, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 20, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on July 20, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Ofifce has not established a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the species are not obvious variants of one another. Species A is directed towards internal electrodes that are connected to an external electrode and overlap with one another in a lamination direction. Species B is drawn to internal electrodes sharing an electrode layer having a different configuration as Species A. Further, Species B is directed to a floating electrode.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong (US Publication 2014/0293501).
In re claim 1, Jeong discloses a multilayer electronic component comprising:
a body (110 – Figure 1, ¶39) including a dielectric layer (111 – Figure 2, ¶39) and a plurality of internal electrodes (121, 122 – Figure 2, ¶39) disposed alternately with the dielectric layer in a first direction (‘T’ direction – Figure 1, Figure 2), the body including a first surface and a second surface (left and right surface of 110 – Figure 1, Figure 2) opposing each other in the first direction (‘T’ direction – Figure 1), a third surface and a fourth surface (surfaces opposing in the ‘L’ direction – Figure 1) connected to the first and second surfaces and opposing each other in a second direction (Figure 1), and a fifth surface and a sixth surface (surfaces opposing in the ‘W’ direction – Figure 1) connected to the first to the fourth surfaces and opposing each other in a third direction (Figure 1); and
external electrodes (131, 132 – Figure 1, Figure 2, ¶39) disposed on the third and fourth surfaces (Figure 1, Figure 2),
wherein at least one of the plurality of internal electrodes includes:
a main portion (122c – Figure 3B, ¶57) disposed in a central portion of the body (any portion that is in the vicinity of the center of 110 in the ‘L’ direction – Figure 1, Figure 3) in the second direction (Figure 2, Figure 3), a lead-out portion (122b – Figure 3B, ¶57) extending from the main portion in the second direction (Figure 3B), having a first end portion (right end of 122b – Figure 3B0 in contact with the external electrode (132 – Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3), and spaced apart from the fifth and sixth surfaces (Figure 1, Figure 3), and an extension portion (122a – Figure 3B, ¶57) extending from the main portion in a direction opposite to the lead-out portion (Figure 3B), spaced apart from the external electrode and having a second end portion opposing the first end portion (Figure 3B), and
wherein, when a width of the main portion (122c – Figure 3B) in the third direction is defined as W1 (Figure 3B), a width of the first end portion (right end of 122b – Figure 3B) in the third direction is defined as W2 (Figure 3B), and a width of the second end portion (Right end of 122a – Figure 3B) in the third direction is defined as W3, W2>W3>W1 is satisfied (Figure 3B).
In re claim 3, Jeong discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Jeong further discloses wherein a width of the lead-out portion (122b – Figure 3B) in the third direction gradually increases from the main portion (122c – Figure 3B) to the first end portion (Figure 3B), and wherein a width of the extension portion (122a – Figure 3B) in the third direction gradually increases from the main portion to the second end portion (Figure 3B).
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) 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Publication 2016/0126013) in view of Kobayashi (US Publication 2011/0273815).
In re claim 1, Park discloses a multilayer electronic component, comprising:
a body (110 – Figure 1, i¶30) including a dielectric layer (111 – Figure 2, Figure 3 ,¶31) and a plurality of internal electrodes (121, 122 – Figure 2, Figure 3, ¶30) disposed alternately with the dielectric layer in a first direction (‘T’ direction – Figure 1, Figure 2), the body including a first surface and a second surface (1, 2 – Figure 1, ¶34) opposing each other in the first direction (Figure 1), a third surface and a fourth surface (3, 4 – Figure 1, Figure 2, ¶34) connected to the first and second surfaces (Figure 1) and opposing each other in a second direction (‘L’ direction – Figure 1, Figure 2), and a fifth surface and a sixth surface (5, 6 – Figure 1, ¶34) connected to the first to the fourth surfaces and opposing each other in a third direction (‘W’ direction – Figure 1); and
external electrodes (131, 132 – Figure 1, Figure 2, ¶30) disposed on the third and fourth surfaces (3, 4 – Figure 1),
wherein at least one of the plurality of internal electrodes includes:
a main portion (121a – Figure 3, ¶51) disposed in a central portion of the body (Figure 1, Figure 3) in the second direction (‘L’ direction – Figure 1), a lead-out portion (121b – Figure 3, ¶51) extending from the main portion in the second direction (Figure 3), having a first end portion in contact with the external electrode (131 – Figure 1, Figure 3), and spaced apart from the fifth and sixth surfaces (5, 6 – Figure 1, Figure 3), and an extension portion (121c – Figure 3, ¶51) extending from the main portion in a direction opposite to the lead-out portion (Figure 3), spaced apart from the external electrode (131 – Figure 1, Figure 3) and having a second end portion opposing the first end portion (Figure 3), and
wherein, when a width of the main portion (121a – Figure 3) in the third direction is defined as W1, a width of the first end portion (end portion of 121b – Figure 3) in the third direction is defined as W2 (Figure 3), W2>W1 is satisfied.
Park does not disclose a width of the second end portion in the third direction is defined as W3, and W2>W3>W1 is satisfied.
Kobayashi discloses a width of the main portion (30a with D2 width– Figure 3A, ¶24, ¶33) in the third direction (‘Z’ direction – Figure 3A) is defined as W1 (D2 - Figure 3A), a width of the first end portion (end of 22a – Figure 3A, ¶24) in the third direction is defined as W2 (Figure 3A), and a width of the second end portion (end of 30a with D1 width – Figure 3A, ¶33) end of in the third direction is defined as W3 (D1 – Figure 3A), W2>W3>W1 is satisfied (Figure 3A) (¶48).
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 internal electrode width characteristics of Kobayashi to provide for a component having improved moisture resistance while maintaining capacitance characteristics.
In re claim 2, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park further discloses wherein the extension portion (121c – Figure 33) overlaps the lead-out portion (122c – Figure 3, ¶51) of an adjacent internal electrode (122 – Figure 3, ¶51) among the plurality of internal electrodes in the first direction (See Figure 3).
In re claim 4, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park does not disclose wherein, when a width of the body in the third direction is defined as Wo, a ratio of W1 to Wo, W1/Wo, is 0.4 to 0.8. However, it is well-known in the art that adjusting the width of the internal electrode of the main portion, and thus the overlap area of the internal electrodes is directly correlated with the capacitance of the device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the width of the main portion of the internal electrode to achieve a device of desired capacitance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 5, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park does not disclose wherein, when a width of the body in the third direction is defined as Wo, a ratio of W2 to Wo, W2/Wo, is 0.85 to 0.99. However, it is well-known in the art that adjusting the width of the internal electrode of the extension portion, and thus the overlap area of the internal electrodes is directly correlated with the capacitance of the device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the width of the main portion of the internal electrode to achieve a device of desired capacitance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 6, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park further discloses wherein the body includes a corner portion connecting the third surface to the fifth surface (3, 5 - Figure 1, Figure 3), connecting the third surface to the sixth surface (3, 6 - Figure 1, Figure 3), connecting the fourth surface to the fifth surface (4, 5 – Figure 1, Figure 3), or connecting the fourth surface to the sixth surface (4, 6 – Figure 1, Figure 3), and wherein the first end portion (end of 121b – Figure 3) is spaced apart from the corner portion (Figure 3).
Park does not disclose the corner portion having a rounded shape.
Kobayashi discloses the corner portion having a rounded shape (Figure 3A, ¶20).
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 chamfered corners of Kobayashi to prevent chipping during a manufacturing and packaging process.
In re claim 7, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park does not disclose wherein, when a length of the main portion in the second direction is defined as L1, a maximum length of the lead-out portion in the second direction is defined as L2, and a maximum length of the extension portion in the second direction is defined as L3, L1>L2>L3 is satisfied.
Kobayashi discloses wherein, when a length of the main portion (30a having width D2 – Figure 3A) in the second direction (‘X’ direction – Figure 3A) is defined as L1 (Figure 3A), a maximum length of the lead-out portion (22a – Figure 3A) in the second direction is defined as L2 (Figure 3A), and a maximum length of the extension portion (30a having a width of D1 – Figure 3A) in the second direction is defined as L3 (Figure 3A), L1>L2>L3 is satisfied (Figure 3A).
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 internal electrode width characteristics of Kobayashi to provide for a component having improved moisture resistance while maintaining capacitance characteristics.
In re claim 8, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 7, as explained above. Park does not explicitly disclose when a length of the body in the second direction is defined as Lo, a ratio of L2 to Lo, L2/Lo, is 0.05 to 0.30. However, it is well-known in the art that adjusting the length of the internal electrode of the lead-out portion, and thus the overlap area of the internal electrodes is directly correlated with the capacitance of the device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the width of the main portion of the internal electrode to achieve a device of desired capacitance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 10, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park further discloses wherein an end of the external electrode (131 – Figure 1) overlaps the lead-out portion (121b – Figure 3) in the third direction (¶64).
In re claim 11, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the main portion overlaps the main portion of an adjacent internal electrode among the plurality of internal electrodes in the first direction, and does not overlap the lead-out portion of the adjacent internal electrode in the first direction.
Kobayashi discloses wherein the main portion (18a in A3 – Figure 4A, ¶23, ¶32) overlaps the main portion of an adjacent internal electrode (18b in A3 – Figure 4B, ¶23, ¶32) among the plurality of internal electrodes in the first direction (‘Z’ direction – Figure 4), and does not overlap the lead-out portion (18b in A2 – Figure 4B, ¶32) of the adjacent internal electrode in the first direction (Figure 4).
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 internal electrode width characteristics of Kobayashi to provide for a component having improved moisture resistance while maintaining capacitance characteristics.
In re claim 12, Park in view of Kobayashi discloses the multilayer electronic component of claim 1, as explained above. Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the main portion overlaps the main portion of an adjacent internal electrode among the plurality of internal electrodes in the first direction, and does not overlap the extension portion of the adjacent internal electrode in the first direction.
Kobayashi discloses wherein the main portion (18a in A3 – Figure 4A) overlaps the main portion of an adjacent internal electrode (18b in A3 – Figure 4B) among the plurality of internal electrodes in the first direction (‘Z’ direction – Figure 4), and does not overlap the extension portion of the adjacent internal electrode (18b in A1 – Figure 4B) in the first direction (Figure 4).
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 internal electrode width characteristics of Kobayashi to provide for a component having improved moisture resistance while maintaining capacitance characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 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) wherein a ratio of L3 to L2, L3/L2, is 0.01 to 0.90
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirao (US Patent 11,651,894) Figure 8
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