DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that the combination of Choi and Yeon would not result in the claimed multilayer electronic component. The Office disagrees as follows.
On page 7 of the response, Applicant submits that the Choi teaches the use of graphene platelets within the cover and margin portions, while Yeon teaches the use of a carbon material, including carbon fibers, within the external electrode layers. As such, Applicant argues the one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Yeon to cure the deficiencies in Choi, based on the difference in alleged usage of the carbon materials. However, contrary to Applicant’s argument, both Choi and Yeon clearly teaches the use of carbon materials, including either graphene or carbon nanotubes, for improving the strength characteristics of a multilayer ceramic electronic component. See paragraph [0076] of Choi and paragraph [0053] of Yeon, respectively. Since Yeon is solving the same problem set forth in Choi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try the simple substitution of carbon nanotubes, as taught by Yeon (as providing the same result as graphene), in place of graphene, as taught by Choi.
On page of the response, Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success by combining the teachings of Choi and Yeon, and further, that the proposed combination would not work for its intended purposes. However, as noted above, the use of carbon nanotubes in Yeon provides a similar benefit as the noted graphene in Choi, to improve the strength characteristics of the multilayer ceramic electronic component, and Yeon further notes that carbon nanotubes can be used in replacement of graphene to provide this benefit. See paragraph [0076] of Choi and paragraph [0053] of Yeon, respectively. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly find a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Choi as taught by Yeon, and further, would expect the proposed combination would work for its intended purposes. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Finally, the Office notes that Applicant provides no evidence that carbon nanotubes would not work in place of graphene in Choi, but merely makes unsupported arguments only. There are no citations to any part of Choi or Yeon that support Applicant’s assertions that carbon nanotubes cannot be used in place of graphene.
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claims 1-8 and 13-19 is hereby maintained below.
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:
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 1315, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0411238) in view of Yeon et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0207204).
With respect to claim 1, Choi teaches a multilayer electronic component (see abstract) comprising: a body including first and second internal electrodes alternately disposed in a first direction with a dielectric layer interposed therebetween (see FIG. 2, body 110, dielectric layers 111, and internal electrodes 121 and 122; paragraph [0054]) and including first and second surfaces facing each other in the first direction, third and fourth surfaces connected to the first and second surfaces and facing each other in a second direction, and fifth and sixth surfaces connected to the first to fourth surfaces and facing each other in a third direction (see paragraph [0057]); and external electrodes disposed on the third and fourth surfaces (see FIG. 2, external elements 131/132; paragraph [0054]), respectively, wherein the body includes a capacitance formation portion in which the first and second internal electrodes overlap in the first direction (see FIG. 3, area “A” and paragraph [0067]) and cover portions disposed on an upper surface and a lower surface of the capacitance formation portion in the first direction (see FIG. 3, cover layers 112/113; paragraph [0067]), respectively, and the cover portions include Ba, Ti, and graphene (see paragraph [0090]).
Choi fails to teach that the carbon additive is a carbon fiber.
Yeon, on the other hand, teaches that a carbon additive having no conductivity (see paragraph [0052]) for providing strength may be carbon nanotubes (i.e., carbon fibers) in place of graphene. See paragraph [0053].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Choi, as taught by Yeon, to at least try using carbon nanotubes to provide strength to the cover portions, as Yeon clearly notes that graphene and carbon nanotubes are interchangeable (i.e., known simple substitutions) for producing excellent mechanical properties and the absorption of external impact (see paragraph [0053]). See MPEP 2143, citing KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the carbon fiber includes one or more of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). See Yeon, paragraph [0053].
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the carbon fiber includes a carbon nanotube unit. See Yeon, paragraph [0053].
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the carbon fiber is a combination of a plurality of carbon nanotube units. See Yeon, paragraph [0053].
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the cover portions include a plurality of carbon fibers, and the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the first direction and the third direction. See Choi, paragraph [0089], indicating that the carbon additive is distributed throughout the cover portion, in combination with Yeon, paragraph [0053] and FIG. 3.
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the cover portions include a plurality of carbon fibers, and each of the plurality of carbon fibers is configured as a single unit. See FIG. 6, noting a plurality of carbon additive units, and that each carbon additive unit is a single unit.
With respect to claim 13, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the body includes margin portions disposed on one surface and a side surface of the capacity formation portion in the third direction, respectively, and the margin portions include Ba, Ti, and carbon fiber. See Choi, paragraphs [0013] and [0073], noting that the carbon additive is also present in the side margin.
With respect to claim 14, Choi teaches a multilayer electronic component (see abstract) comprising: a body including first and second internal electrodes alternately disposed in a first direction with a dielectric layer interposed therebetween (see FIG. 2, body 110, dielectric layers 111, and internal electrodes 121 and 122; paragraph [0054]) and including first and second surfaces facing each other in the first direction, third and fourth surfaces connected to the first and second surfaces and facing each other in a second direction, and fifth and sixth surfaces connected to the first to fourth surfaces and facing each other in a third direction (see paragraph [0057]); and external electrodes disposed on the third and fourth surfaces (see FIG. 2, external elements 131/132; paragraph [0054]), respectively, wherein the body includes a capacitance formation portion in which the first and second internal electrodes overlap in the first direction (see FIG. 3, area “A” and paragraph [0067]), and margin portions disposed on one surface and a side surface of the capacity formation portion in the third direction (see FIG. 3, side margins 114/115; paragraph [0067]), respectively, and the margin portion includes Ba, Ti, and graphene (see paragraphs [0013] and [0073]).
Choi fails to teach that the carbon additive is a carbon fiber.
Yeon, on the other hand, teaches that a carbon additive having no conductivity (see paragraph [0052]) for providing strength may be carbon nanotubes (i.e., carbon fibers) in place of graphene. See paragraph [0053].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Choi, as taught by Yeon, to at least try using carbon nanotubes to provide strength to the cover portions, as Yeon clearly notes that graphene and carbon nanotubes are interchangeable (i.e., known simple substitutions) for producing excellent mechanical properties and the absorption of external impact (see paragraph [0053]). See MPEP 2143, citing KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the carbon fiber includes one or more of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). See Yeon, paragraph [0053].
With respect to claim 18, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the carbon fiber includes a carbon nanotube. See Yeon, paragraph [0053].
With respect to claim 19, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon teach that the cover portions include a plurality of carbon fibers, and the plurality of carbon fibers are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in the first direction and the third direction. See Choi, paragraph [0089], indicating that the carbon additive is distributed throughout the cover portion, in combination with Yeon, paragraph [0053] and FIG. 3.
Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0411238) in view of Yeon et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0207204), and further, in view of Lu et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2012/0038249).
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon fail to teach that the carbon fiber is an SWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 0.4 nm or more and 4 nm or less.
Lu, on the other hand, teaches that the carbon fiber is an SWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 0.4 nm or more and 4 nm or less. See paragraph [0089]. Such an arrangement provides unique strength. See paragraph [0089].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon, as taught by Lu, in order to provide unique strength to the cover layers.
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon fail to teach that the carbon fiber is a MWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 100 nm or more and 1 μm or less.
Lu, on the other hand, teaches that the carbon fiber is a MWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 100 nm or more and 1 μm or less. See paragraph [0089]. Such an arrangement provides unique strength. See paragraph [0089].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon, as taught by Lu, in order to provide unique strength to the cover layers.
With respect to claim 16, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon fail to teach that the carbon fiber is an SWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 0.4 nm or more and 4 nm or less.
Lu, on the other hand, teaches that the carbon fiber is an SWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 0.4 nm or more and 4 nm or less. See paragraph [0089]. Such an arrangement provides unique strength. See paragraph [0089].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon, as taught by Lu, in order to provide unique strength to the cover layers.
With respect to claim 17, the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon fail to teach that the carbon fiber is a MWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 100 nm or more and 1 μm or less.
Lu, on the other hand, teaches that the carbon fiber is a MWCNT, and an average diameter of the carbon fiber is 100 nm or more and 1 μm or less. See paragraph [0089]. Such an arrangement provides unique strength. See paragraph [0089].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combined teachings of Choi and Yeon, as taught by Lu, in order to provide unique strength to the cover layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 and 20 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 9-12 and 20, the prior art fails to teach the details recite in each of the claims, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DION R FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m..
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.
/DION R. FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights