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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Korean Patent Office on 05 July 2024. It is noted, however, that certified copy of the KR 10-2014-0089080 application was unable to be electronically retrieved.
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, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0182557).
With respect to claim 1, Park discloses a multi-layered capacitor (see paragraph [0002]) comprising: a capacitor body (see FIG. 7, element 110 and paragraph [0063]) including a dielectric layer (see FIG. 7, element 111 and paragraph [0069]) and an internal electrode (see FIG. 7, elements 121/122 and paragraph [0069]); and an external electrode disposed outside the capacitor body and on the capacitor body (see FIG. 7, elements 131/132 and paragraph [0077]), wherein the dielectric layer includes a plurality of dielectric grains (see FIG. 2), and the plurality of dielectric grains include a cube-shaped core (see FIG. 2, element 1 and paragraph [0031]) that includes a component including barium (Ba) and titanium (Ti) oxide (see paragraph [0026]).
With respect to claim 3, Park discloses that the plurality of dielectric grains have an average size of 160 nm or less. See paragraph [0035].
With respect to claim 5, Park discloses that the core has an average size of 120 nm or less. See paragraph [0035].
With respect to claim 7, Park discloses that an average fraction of the core within the plurality of dielectric grains is 60 % or more. See paragraphs [0035], [0036], and [0048]; see also, claim 4.
With respect to claim 10, Park discloses that the plurality of dielectric grains further comprise a shell disposed on the core (see FIG. 2, element 2, and paragraph [0033]), and the shell includes Dy, Mg, Mn, Tb, Sm, Si, Ba, Al, V, Nb, Sn, or a combination thereof (see paragraph [0028], citing BaTiO3).
With respect to claim 12, Park discloses a multi-layered capacitor (see paragraph [0002]), comprising: a capacitor body (see FIG. 7, element 110 and paragraph [0063]) including a dielectric layer (see FIG. 7, element 111 and paragraph [0069]) and an internal electrode (see FIG. 7, elements 121/122 and paragraph [0069]); and an external electrode disposed outside the capacitor body and on the capacitor body (see FIG. 7, elements 131/132 and paragraph [0077]), wherein the dielectric layer includes a plurality of dielectric grains (see FIG. 2), and the plurality of dielectric grains include a cube-shaped core (see FIG. 2, element 1 and paragraph [0031]) that includes a component including barium (Ba) (see paragraph [0026]).
With respect to claim 13, Park discloses that the component further includes titanium and oxygen. See paragraph [0026].
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.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0182557) in view of Muraki et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0053843).
With respect to claim 4, Park fails to explicitly teach that a standard deviation of a size of the plurality of dielectric grains is 40 nm or less.
Muraki, on the other hand, teaches that a standard deviation of a size of the plurality of dielectric grains is 40 nm or less. See paragraph [0058]. Such an arrangement produces an improved reliability for sintered dielectric. See paragraph [0058].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, to modify Park, as taught by Muraki, in order to produce an improved sintered dielectric.
With respect to claim 6, Park fails to explicitly teach that a standard deviation of a size of the core is 30 nm or less.
Muraki, on the other hand, teaches that a standard deviation of a size of the core is 30 nm or less. See paragraph [0058]. Such an arrangement produces an improved reliability for sintered dielectric. See paragraph [0058].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, to modify Park, as taught by Muraki, in order to produce an improved sintered dielectric.
Claims 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0182557) in view of Zhan et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0201137).
With respect to claim 8, Park fails to teach that the multi-layered capacitor satisfies Equation 1 below: [Equation 1] Ds/Davg ≥ 0.7 (%/nm) wherein in Equation 1, Ds is a sintering relative density of the dielectric layer, and Davg is an average size of the plurality of dielectric grains.
Zhan, on the other hand, teaches that the multi-layered capacitor satisfies Equation 1 below: [Equation 1] Ds/Davg ≥ 0.7 (%/nm) wherein in Equation 1, Ds is a sintering relative density of the dielectric layer, and Davg is an average size of the plurality of dielectric grains. See Table 1, Example 2. Such an arrangement results in an improved dielectric constant. See paragraph [0032].
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 Park, as taught by Zhan, in order to improve the dielectric constant.
With respect to claim 9, Park fails to teach an average size of the plurality of dielectric grains is 200 nm or less when a sintering relative density of the dielectric layer is 98 %.
Zhan, on the other hand, teaches an average size of the plurality of dielectric grains is 200 nm or less when a sintering relative density of the dielectric layer is 98 %. See Table 1, Example 2. Such an arrangement results in an improved dielectric constant. See paragraph [0032].
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 Park, as taught by Zhan, in order to improve the dielectric constant.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0182557) in view of Muraki et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0053843) and Zhan et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0201137).
With respect to claim 15, Park teaches that the plurality of dielectric grains have an average size of 160 nm or less (see paragraph [0035]), the core has an average size of 120 nm or less (see paragraph [0035]), and an average fraction of the core within the plurality of dielectric grains is 60 % or more (see paragraphs [0035], [0036], and [0048]; see also, claim 4).
Park fails to teach that a standard deviation of a size of the plurality of dielectric grains is 40 nm or less, a standard deviation of a size of the core is 30 nm or less, and a sintering relative density of the dielectric layer is 95 % or more and not more than 100%.
Muraki, on the other hand, teaches that a standard deviation of a size of the plurality of dielectric grains is 40 nm or less. See paragraph [0058]. Such an arrangement produces an improved reliability for sintered dielectric. See paragraph [0058].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, to modify Park, as taught by Muraki, in order to produce an improved sintered dielectric.
Further, Zhan teaches a sintering relative density of the dielectric layer is 95 % or more and not more than 100%. See Table 1, Example 2. Such an arrangement results in an improved dielectric constant. See paragraph [0032].
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 Park, as taught by Zhan, in order to improve the dielectric constant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: with respect to claim 16, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, forming cube-shaped particles including barium and titanium, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claim 16. Claims 17-21 are allowed by virtue of their dependency from claim 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 2, 11, and 14 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 2, the prior art fails to teach the crystal plane of the surface of the core. With respect to claims 11 and 14, the prior art fails to teach the chemical formula recited therein, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2019/0304685) and Mizuno et al. (US 2001/0021095) each disclose dielectric ceramics with a core-shell structure, but each fails to explicitly disclose that the cores have a cube shape.
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