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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 1 recites the limitation "the internal electrode" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the external electrode" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4, and 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0193384).
PNG
media_image1.png
332
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose in fig. 2, a multilayer electronic component (title), comprising:
a body (110) including:
a stack unit (111-112, 121-122) including a dielectric layer (111) and internal electrodes (121, 122) alternately arranged in a first direction (z) with the dielectric layer (111) interposed therebetween, when a direction, perpendicular to the first direction, is referred to as a second direction (x), and a direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, is referred to as a third direction (y),
a connection electrode (310) disposed on surfaces (directly – left; indirectly – right) of the stack unit (111-112, 121-122) opposing each other in the second direction (x) and in contact with one of the internal electrode (121), and
an extension unit (210, 221) disposed on the connection electrode (310) and including an insulating layer [0059]; and
external electrodes (131, 132) disposed on the body (111-112, 121-122), wherein the extension unit (210, 221) further includes a via electrode (220) in contact with at least a portion of the connection electrode (310) and one of the external electrode (131).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the connection electrode (310) is spaced apart from one or more surfaces selected from surfaces of the body opposing each other in the first direction (z) and surfaces of the body opposing each other in the third direction (y).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the connection electrode (310) is spaced apart from surfaces of the body (111-112, 121-122) opposing each other in the first direction (z)and surfaces of the body opposing each other in the third direction.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the extension unit (220, 221) includes a plurality of the via electrode (220 - Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose when surfaces of the body opposing each other in the first direction (z) are referred to as a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom), respectively, the via electrode (220) is disposed to be closer to one of the first surface (top) and the second surface than to the other of the first surface and the second surface (bottom – Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose when surfaces of the body opposing each other in the first direction (z) are referred to as a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom), respectively, and surfaces of the body opposing each other in the second direction (x) are referred to as a third surface (left) and a fourth (right) surface, respectively, the via electrode (220) includes a first via electrode (221) in contact (directly) with the third surface (left) and a second via electrode (220) in contact (indirectly) with the fourth surface (right), and the first via electrode (221) is disposed to be closer to the first surface (top) than to the second surface (bottom), and the second via electrode (224) is disposed to be closer to the second surface (bottom) than to the first surface (top).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the via electrode (220) is spaced apart from surfaces of the body (111-112, 121-122) opposing each other in the first direction (z) and surfaces of the body opposing each other in the third direction (x).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the connection electrode (310) covers one end of the internal electrodes (121, 122) in the second direction (x).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose in the stack unit (111-112, 121-122), when a region in which the internal electrodes (121, 122) overlap each other in the first direction (z) is referred to as a capacitance formation portion,
and regions disposed on a first surface (top) and a second surface (bottom) of the capacitance formation portion in the first direction are referred to as cover portions (112, 113), and the connection electrode (310) covers portions (left-right) of the cover portions (112, 113).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the connection electrode (310) includes a plurality of body portions (applicant should note that “portions” can be any arbitrary area of the connection electrode – see annotated figure below) disposed to contact one end of the internal electrodes (121) in the second direction (z) and spaced apart from each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
363
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the connection electrode (310) further includes a connection portion (see annotated figure above) connecting the plurality of body portions (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the plurality of body portions includes three or more body portions (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose an entirety of the connection electrode (310) is spaced apart from the external electrodes (131, 132).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the connection portion (see annotate figure below) intersects at least one body portion among the plurality of body portions.
PNG
media_image4.png
442
679
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the connection portion includes a first connection portion and a second connection portion (applicant should note that “portions” can be any arbitrary area of the connection electrode – see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the first connection portion and the second connection portion intersect each other (see annotated figure above).
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(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2021/0193384).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Kim et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a ratio of an area in which the via electrode contact surfaces of the body opposing each other in the second direction, as compared to an area of the surfaces of the body opposing each other in the second direction, is 15% or more and 65% or less.
Kim et al. teach that the via electrode that contacts the area of a surface of the body (via the connection electrode) is determined by the current tolerance in a circuit in which the capacitor is used [0066].
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the capacitor of Kim et al. so that a ratio of an area in which the via electrode contact surfaces of the body opposing each other in the second direction, as compared to an area of the surfaces of the body opposing each other in the second direction, is 15% or more and 65% or less, since such a modification would form a capacitor having a desired current tolerance.
Conclusion
Applicant is encourage to contact the examiner to discuss possible amendments to overcome the current rejection of record. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 PM.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2024143087 A1 – via electrode connecting internal electrodes
US 2021/0249193 A1 – via electrodes
US 2020/0205291 A1 – via electrodes
US 2020/0111612 A1 – connector electrodes / extension units formed on both sides of the stacked unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights