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 § 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 1-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H08111345 (the Office notes that JP ‘345 was submitted as part of an IDS filed 02 December 2024).
With respect to claim 1, JP ‘345 teaches a multilayer electronic component (see abstract), comprising: a body including a dielectric layer and an internal electrode layer and a floating electrode layer alternately arranged in a first direction with the dielectric layer interposed therebetween (see FIGS. 1-3, dielectric layers 1, internal electrodes 2a, floating electrodes 2b), and including a first surface and a second surface opposing each other in the first direction, a third surface and a fourth surface opposing each other in a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, and a fifth surface and a sixth surface opposing each other in a third direction, perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (see FIGS. 1-3); and external electrodes respectively disposed on the third surface and the fourth surface (see FIGS. 1-3, external electrodes 3), wherein the internal electrode layer includes a first electrode pattern in contact with the third surface, and a second electrode pattern in contact with the fourth surface and spaced apart from the first electrode pattern in the second direction (see FIG. 1, internal electrode 2a, capacitance electrodes 5, which are spaced apart from each other), the floating electrode layer includes a third electrode pattern including a first main portion overlapping at least a portion of the first electrode pattern in the first direction (see FIG. 3, noting that elements 2a and 2b are overlapping on the left side of the figure), a second main portion overlapping at least a portion of the second electrode pattern in the first direction (see FIG. 3, noting that elements 2a and 2b are overlapping on the right side of the figure), and a pair of connection portions connecting the first main portion and the second main portion and spaced apart from each other in the third direction with a space portion interposed therebetween (see FIG. 2, the extensions between elements 2b).
JP ‘345 fails to explicitly teach that when a maximum width of the third electrode pattern in the third direction is defined as W1, and a maximum width of the space portion in the third direction is defined as W2, W2/W1 satisfies 0.08 or more and 0.92 or less. However, the Office notes that the difference between the prior art and claim 1 is merely a change in size/proportion of the connections, which has been determined to be well-within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), paragraph [0007] of JP ‘345, and paragraph [0004] of the instant application, noting that the prior art and claim 1 include the spaced apart connections in order to improve the dielectric breakdown voltage. The Office further notes that the instant application does not explicitly establish the criticality of the recited relationship, as the specification does not establish how the BDV is affected when W2/W1 is outside the claimed range.
With respect to claim 2, JP ‘345 teaches that the third electrode pattern is spaced apart from the third surface, the fourth surface, the fifth surface and the sixth surface. See FIG. 2.
With respect to claim 3, JP ‘345 teaches that at least a portion of the space portion overlaps at least a portion of a region, in the first direction, in which the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern are spaced apart from each other in the second direction. See FIG. 4, which shows the space between electrodes 2a and the space in the middle of electrode 2b are aligned.
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘345 fails to explicitly teach that the space portion is disposed to offset in the second direction or the third direction from a region in which the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern are spaced apart from each other. However, such a modification is considered to be a mere change in size/proportion, which has been determined to be well-within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Office further notes that the instant application does not explicitly establish the criticality of the offset space portion, as the specification does not establish how the BDV is affected by the offset space portion.
With respect to claim 5, JP ‘345 teaches that the space portion includes a dielectric material having a same composition as a dielectric material included in the dielectric layer. See FIG. 3, noting that the ceramic body is formed to be a singular laminate.
With respect to claim 6, JP ‘345 fails to explicitly teach that when a separation distance in the second direction between the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern is defined as Le, and a maximum length of the space portion in the second direction is defined as Ls, Ls/Le may satisfy 0.8 or more and 1.2 or less. However, such a modification is considered to be a mere change in size/proportion, which has been determined to be well-within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Office further notes that the instant application does not explicitly establish the criticality of the offset space portion, as the specification does not establish how the BDV is affected when Ls/Le is outside the claimed range.
With respect to claim 7, JP ‘345 teaches that the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern are spaced apart from the fifth surface and the sixth surface. See FIG. 1.
With respect to claim 8, JP ‘345 teaches that the body includes a first capacitance formation portion, in which the first electrode pattern and the first main portion overlap each other in the first direction, a second capacitance formation portion, in which the second electrode pattern and the second main portion overlap each other in the first direction, and a capacitance non-formation portion, in which a region in which the first electrode pattern and the second electrode pattern are spaced apart from each other in the second direction overlaps the third electrode pattern in the first direction. See FIGS. 1-4.
With respect to claim 9, JP ‘345 teaches that the first capacitance formation portion and the second capacitance formation portion are disposed on one surface and the other surface of the capacitance non-formation portion in the second direction. See FIGS. 1-4.
With respect to claim 10, JP ‘345 fails to explicitly teach that when a third directional maximum width of the connection portion disposed on one side of the space portion in the third direction is defined as WC1, and a third directional maximum width of the connection portion disposed on the other side of the space portion in the third direction is defined as WC2, WC2/WC1 satisfies 0.8 or more and 1.2 or less. However, such a modification is considered to be a mere change in size/proportion, which has been determined to be well-within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Office further notes that the instant application does not explicitly establish the criticality of the width of the connection portion, as the specification does not establish how the BDV is affected when WC2/WC1 is outside the claimed range.
With respect to claim 13, JP ‘345 teaches that the space portion is surrounded by the pair of connection portions, the first main portion, and the second main portion and has a rectangular shape. See FIG. 2.
With respect to claim 14, JP ‘345 teaches that the third electrode pattern includes a conductive metal that is same as a conductive metal included in the first and second electrode patterns. See FIG. 5, noting that layers 2a and 2b are formed in the same process to have the similar shapes prior to singulation.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP H08111345 (the Office notes that JP ‘345 was submitted as part of an IDS filed 02 December 2024) in view of Nies et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0080851).
With respect to claim 11, JP ‘345 fails to explicitly teach that an average thickness of the dielectric layer is 15 μm or more.
Nies, on the other hand, teaches that an average thickness of the dielectric layer is 15 μm or more. See paragraph [0059]. Such an arrangement produces a desired capacitance. See paragraph [0059].
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 JP ‘345, as taught by Nies, in order to produce a desired capacitance.
With respect to claim 12, JP ‘345 fails to explicitly teach that the dielectric layer includes Ba and Ti.
Nies, on the other hand, teaches that that the dielectric layer includes Ba and Ti. See paragraph [0059]. Such an arrangement produces a desired capacitance. See paragraph [0059].
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 JP ‘345, as taught by Nies, in order to produce a desired capacitance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nelson et al. (US 2024/0249880) discloses a cascade capacitor having a floating electrode with a reduced width when compared to the active electrodes, but fails to disclose a space and connection portions of the floating electrode.
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