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 1-5, 7, 9-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hattori (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0027584).
With respect to claim 1, Hattori discloses a multilayer electronic component (see abstract) comprising: a body comprising first and second surfaces opposing each other in a first direction, third and fourth surfaces opposing each other in a second direction and connected to the first and second surfaces, and fifth and sixth surfaces opposing each other in a third direction and connected to the first to fourth surfaces (see FIGS. 1A-4C, elements 10a-10f, and paragraph [0070]), the body including: a dielectric layer (see FIG. 3B, element 12, and paragraph [0061]); first and second internal electrodes alternately disposed in the first direction with the dielectric layer interposed therebetween (see FIG. 3B, elements 13A and 13B, and paragraph [0061]), the first and second internal electrodes spaced apart from the fifth and sixth surfaces (see FIG. 4B, the internal electrodes 13A and 13B being spaced apart from surfaces 10e and 10f); a first through-electrode passing through a space in which the second internal electrodes and the fifth surface are spaced apart from each other (see FIG. 4B, electrode 15A, which is disposed between internal electrodes 13A and surface 10e; see paragraph [0079]), and disposed between first ends of two adjacent first internal electrodes in the third direction to connect the first ends of the two adjacent first internal electrodes to each other (see FIG. 4B and paragraph [0081]); and a second through-electrode passing through a space in which the first internal electrodes and the sixth surface are spaced apart from each other (see FIG. 4B, electrode 15B, which is disposed between internal electrodes 13B and surface 10f; see paragraph [0084]), and disposed between second ends of two adjacent second internal electrodes in the third direction to connect the second ends of the two adjacent second internal electrodes to each other (see FIG. 4B and paragraph [0084]); and first and second external electrodes disposed on the body and respectively connected to the first and second internal electrodes (see FIG. 3B, elements 21/22 and paragraph [0076]).
With respect to claim 2, Hattori discloses that, when a distance in the third direction between the fifth surface and at least one of the first internal electrodes is denoted by d1 and a distance in the third direction between the fifth surface and the first through-electrode is denoted by d2, d2>d1 is satisfied. See FIG. 4B, wherein the first-through electrode is disposed between the fifth surface and the internal electrode; see also, paragraph [0079].
With respect to claim 3, Hattori discloses that the first internal electrodes are disposed to be misaligned with the second internal electrodes in the third direction. See FIG. 4B, noting that the internal electrodes 13A and 13B are shifted from one other in the third direction.
With respect to claim 4, Hattori discloses that the first through-electrode extends in the second direction, and is spaced apart from the second external electrode, and the second through-electrode extends in the second direction, and is spaced apart from the first external electrode. See FIG. 3A, noting that through-electrode 15A is spaced apart from both external electrodes.
With respect to claim 5, Hattori discloses that the first through-electrode is spaced apart from the first external electrode, and the second through-electrode is spaced apart from the second external electrode. See FIGS. 3A and 3C, noting that both the first and second through-electrodes are spaced apart from each external electrode.
With respect to claim 7, Hattori discloses that a thickness of at least one of the first internal electrodes is denoted by te and a thickness of the first through-electrode is denoted by tp, tp>te is satisfied. See FIG. 8, dimensions T1a and w1 and paragraph [0133].
With respect to claim 9, Hattori discloses that, when a length of at least one of the first internal electrodes in the second direction is denoted by Le and a length of the second through-electrode in the second direction is denoted by Lp, Le>Lp is satisfied. See FIGS. 3A-3C.
With respect to claim 10, Hattori discloses that the first and second internal electrodes respectively extend from the third and fourth surfaces, and the first and second external electrodes are respectively disposed on the third and fourth surfaces. See FIG. 3B and paragraph [0089].
With respect to claim 11, Hattori teaches that each of the first and second external electrodes is disposed on the second surface, and the multilayer electronic component further includes a first connection electrode passing through a portion of the body to connect a first internal electrode, among the first internal electrodes, that is closest to the second surface, and the first external electrode, and a second connection electrode passing through a portion of the body to connect a second internal electrode, among the second internal electrodes, that is closest to the second surface, and the second external electrode. See FIG. 3B, noting that the external electrodes extend onto the second surface, and elements 13A1, which are the internal electrodes closest to the first and second surface, and further, elements 13a, which connect the internal electrodes 13A to external electrode 21.
With respect to claim 12, Hattori discloses that the first internal electrodes are spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces, and the second internal electrodes are spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces. See FIG. 3B, wherein the majority of internal electrodes 13A and 13B are spaced apart from the third and fourth surfaces.
With respect to claim 14, Hattori discloses that at least one of the first ends has a first end surface facing the fifth surface of the body, and the first through-electrode is spaced apart from the end surface. See FIG. 4A, noting that the first through-electrode does not cover the entirety of an end surface.
With respect to claim 15, Hattori discloses that a center of at least one of the first internal electrodes is offset from a center of at least one of the second internal electrodes along the third direction. See FIGS. 4B and 5.
With respect to claim 16, Hattori discloses that at least one of the second ends has a second end surface facing the sixth surface of the body, and the second through-electrode is spaced apart from the end surface. See FIG. 4C, noting that the second through-electrode does not cover the entirety of an end surface.
With respect to claim 17, Hattori discloses that the first through-electrode is disposed between a plane in the first direction and the second direction passing through at least one of the first ends and a plane in the first direction and the second direction passing through at least one of the second ends. See FIG. 4B.
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 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0027584).
With respect to claim 6, the embodiment of FIGS. 1-4C of Hattori fails to teach that the first through-electrode is connected to the first external electrode, and the second through-electrode is connected to the second external electrode.
However, the embodiment of FIG. 26 of Hattori clearly teaches that that the first through-electrode is connected to the first external electrode, and the second through-electrode is connected to the second external electrode. See paragraph [0195]. Such a modification is clearly contemplated by Hattori in order to allow for the adjustment of ESR as desired. See paragraph [0196].
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 FIGS. 1-4C of Hattori, as taught in FIG. 26 of Hattori, in order to provide for the adjustment of ESR.
With respect to claim 8, Hattori fails to explicitly teach that, when a thickness of the dielectric layer is denoted by td and a distance in the second direction between the first through-electrode and at least one of the second internal electrodes is denoted by d3, d3>td is satisfied.
However, the relationship recited in claim 8 is considered to be obvious as a mere change in size/proportion, which has been determined to be well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions and the invention would not perform differently than the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F2.d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0027584) in view of Lee et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0035739).
With respect to claim 13, Hattori fails to teach third and fourth external electrodes disposed on the first surface to be spaced apart from each other, a third connection electrode passing through a portion of the body to connect a first internal electrode, among the first internal electrodes, that is closest to the first surface and the third external electrode, and a fourth connection electrode passing through a portion of the body to connect a second internal electrode, among the second internal electrodes, that is closest to the first surface and the fourth external electrode.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches a configuration where third and fourth external electrodes disposed on the first surface to be spaced apart from each other, a third connection electrode passing through a portion of the body to connect a first internal electrode, among the first internal electrodes, that is closest to the first surface and the third external electrode, and a fourth connection electrode passing through a portion of the body to connect a second internal electrode, among the second internal electrodes, that is closest to the first surface and the fourth external electrode. See FIG. 5 and paragraph [0056], noting that this configuration improves the adhesion strength between the external electrode and the body.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date, to modify Hattori, as taught by Lee, in order to improve adhesion strength between the external electrodes and the body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakuri et al. (US 11,295,896), KR 10-2037265, and Kawakami et al. (US 2018/0277305) each teach through-electrodes connecting the internal electrode layers, but fail to teach the details recited in claim 1.
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