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 § 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.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suemasa et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0051749).
With respect to claim 1, Suemasa discloses a capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a body that has through-holes extending from a first surface to a second surface (see FIG. 2, body 10, and through-hole 11, extending from upper surface 10a to lower surface 10b; see also, paragraph [0034]), a first internal electrode disposed on inner surfaces of the body positioned inside the through-holes, on the first surface of the body, and on the second surface of the body (see FIG. 3, element 22, noting that the first internal electrode is continuously disposed on the upper surface 10a, the inside wall of the through-hole, and the lower surface 10b; see also, paragraph [0039]), a dielectric layer disposed on the first internal electrode (see FIG. 3, element 21, noting that the dielectric layer is continuously disposed on the first internal electrode along the upper surface 10a, the inside wall of the through-hole, and the lower surface 10b; see also, paragraph [0039]), a second internal electrode disposed on the dielectric layer (see FIG. 3, element 23, noting that the second internal electrode is continuously disposed on the dielectric layer along the upper surface 10a, the inside wall of the through-hole, and the lower surface 10b; see also, paragraph [0039]), a first external electrode disposed on the first surface and electrically connected to the first internal electrode (see FIG. 2, element 2a and paragraph [0053]), and a second external electrode disposed on the second surface and electrically connected to the second internal electrode (see FIG. 2, element 3b and paragraph [0054]).
With respect to claim 2, Suemasa discloses that the first internal electrode disposed on the inner surfaces of the body, the first internal electrode disposed on the first surface of the body, and the first internal electrode disposed on the second surface of the body are connected to one another. See FIG. 3, element 22, noting that the first internal electrode is continuously disposed on the upper surface 10a, the inside wall of the through-hole, and the lower surface 10b; see also, paragraph [0039].
With respect to claim 3, Suemasa discloses that the dielectric layer is disposed on each of the inner surfaces of the body, the first surface of the body, and the second surface of the body, and the second internal electrode is disposed on each of the inner surfaces of the body, the first surface of the body, and the second surface of the body. See FIG. 3, element 21, noting that the dielectric layer is continuously disposed on the first internal electrode along the upper surface 10a, the inside wall of the through-hole, and the lower surface 10b; see also, paragraph [0039].
With respect to claim 4, Suemasa discloses that the second internal electrode disposed on the inner surfaces of the body, the second internal electrode disposed on the first surface of the body, and the second internal electrode disposed on the second surface of the body are connected to one another. See FIG. 3, element 23, noting that the second internal electrode is continuously disposed on the dielectric layer along the upper surface 10a, the inside wall of the through-hole, and the lower surface 10b; see also, paragraph [0039].
With respect to claim 5, Suemasa discloses that another second external electrode is disposed on the first surface of the body, and another first external electrode is disposed on the second surface of the body. See FIG. 2, elements 3a and 2b, and paragraphs [0053]-[0054].
With respect to claim 6, Suemasa discloses that the second internal electrode fills the inner spaces of the body formed by the through-holes. See FIG. 3, noting that second internal electrode 23 is disposed within the through-holes. The Office further notes that the claim does not require that the second internal electrode completely fill the through-hole.
With respect to claim 10, Suemasa discloses protective layers disposed on the first surface of the body and on the second surface of the body, and at least partially cover the second internal electrode, wherein the protective layers have openings that expose at least a portion of the first external electrode and at least a portion of the second external electrode. See FIG. 2, wherein the external electrodes include lead-out electrodes 2d/2e and 3d/3e formed in openings of the protective layers 40.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suemasa et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0051749) in view of CN 116848603.
With respect to claim 7, Suemasa fails to teach that the first external electrode comprises a sub electrode portion in contact with the first internal electrode, and a main electrode portion in contact with the sub electrode portion, and the cross-sectional area of the main electrode portion on a plane parallel with the first surface of the body is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the sub electrode portion on a plane parallel with the first surface of the body.
CN ‘603, on the other hand, teaches that the first external electrode comprises a sub electrode portion in contact with the first internal electrode, and a main electrode portion in contact with the sub electrode portion, and the cross-sectional area of the main electrode portion on a plane parallel with the first surface of the body is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the sub electrode portion on a plane parallel with the first surface of the body. See FIG. 2, elements 11 and 21, noting that main electrode 21 is smaller than sub electrode 11. Such an arrangement results in the suppression in the reduction of electrostatic capacitance. See paragraph [0074].
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 Suemasa, as taught by CN ‘603, in order to suppress the reduction of electrostatic capacitance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suemasa et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0051749) in view of EP 4510157.
With respect to claim 11, Suemasa fails to teach that the body comprises anodizing aluminum oxide (AAO).
EP ‘157, on the other hand, teaches that the body comprises anodizing aluminum oxide (AAO). See paragraph [0020]. Such an arrangement is well known in the art for forming capacitor bodies.
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 Suemasa, as taught by EP ‘157, in order to form a capacitor body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
With respect to claim 8, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that the dielectric layer and the second internal electrode extend from the first surface of the body to the upper surface of at least a portion of an outer portion on the sub electrode portion, when take in conjunction with the limitations of claim 1. Claim 9 is allowable by virtue of its dependency from claim 8.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
With respect to claim 12, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that the sub electrode connected to the first internal electrode before forming the dielectric layer and the second internal electrode layer, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 12. Claims 13-17 are allowed by virtue of their dependency from claim 12.
With respect to claim 18, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that the first external electrode of the first capacitor and the second external electrode of the second capacitor are connected to each other, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 18. Claims 19 and 20 are allowed by virtue of their dependency from claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2023/0197347), Ishido et al. (US 2023/0074009), Take et al. (US 2022/0384113), Shin et al. (US 2019/0096587) each disclose a capacitor formed with a throughhole, but fails to disclose that the second external electrode is formed on the dielectric layer in the same throughhole.
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