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 § 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) 1-8, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai (JP 2021034550A).
PNG
media_image1.png
488
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
250
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Imai discloses a multilayer electronic component (title), comprising:
a body (12) including a dielectric layer (14) and an internal electrode layer (20a, 20b) and a floating electrode layer (18) alternately arranged in a first direction (x) with the dielectric layer (14) interposed therebetween, and including a first surface (12a) and a second surface (12b) opposing each other in the first direction (x), a third surface (12e) and a fourth surface (12f) connected to the first surface and the second surface and opposing each other in a second direction (z), and a fifth surface (12c – including oxidized surface of 19a – [0037]) and a sixth surface (12d – including oxidized surface of 19b – [0037]) connected to the first surface to the fourth surface and opposing each other in a third direction (y); and
an external electrode (24a) disposed on the body (12), wherein
the internal electrode layer (20a, 20b) includes a first electrode pattern (20a) connected to the third surface (12e), and a second electrode pattern (20b) connected to the fourth surface (12f) and spaced apart from the first electrode pattern (20a) in the second direction (z),
the floating electrode layer (18) includes a third electrode pattern spaced apart from the third (12e), fourth (12f), fifth (12c) and sixth (12d) surfaces,
the first electrode pattern (20a) includes a first main portion and a first auxiliary portion (see annotated figure above - 19a, 19b) spaced apart from the first main portion in the third direction (y) on both sides of the first main portion (20a) in the third direction,
the second electrode pattern (20b) includes a second main portion (20b) and a second auxiliary portion (see annotated figure above -- 19a, 19b) spaced apart from the second main portion (20b) in the third direction (y) on both sides of the second main portion in the third direction (y), and
the third electrode pattern (18) includes a third main portion (18) and a third auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) spaced apart from the third main portion (18) in the third direction (y) on both sides of the third main portion (18) in the third direction.
Regarding claim 2, Imai discloses the first auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) is connected (indirectly – via 14) to the third surface (12e), and the second auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) is connected to (indirectly – via 14) the fourth surface (12f).
Regarding claim 3, Imai discloses the first auxiliary portion (see annotated figure above) and the second auxiliary portion above are spaced apart in the horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 4, Imai discloses the third auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) is spaced apart from the third surface (12e) and the fourth surface (12f).
Regarding claim 5, Imai discloses the first auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) , the second auxiliary portion (19a, 19b), and the third auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) are spaced apart from the fifth surface (12c – including oxidized surface of 19a, 19b – [0037]) and the sixth surface (12d – including oxidized surface of 19a, 19b – [0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Imai discloses the body (12) includes a first capacitance formation portion in which the first electrode pattern (18a) and the third electrode pattern (18) overlap (@18c) each other in the first direction (x), and a second capacitance formation portion in which the second electrode pattern (20b) and the third electrode pattern (18) overlap (@18d) each other in the first direction (x).
Regarding claim 7, Imai discloses the first capacitance formation portion (@18c) and the second capacitance formation portion (@18d) are spaced apart from each other in the second direction (z).
Regarding claim 8, Imai discloses a separation (d1) distance between the first main portion (20a) and the first auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) in the third direction (y) is in a range from 100 µm to 200 µm [0038],
a separation distance between the second main portion (20b) and the second auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) in the third direction (y) is in a range from 100 µm to 200 µm [0038] and
a separation distance between the third main portion (18) and the third auxiliary portion (19a, 19b) in the third direction (y) is in a range from 100 µm to 200 µm [0038].
Regarding claim 11, Imai discloses a corner of the first main portion (20a), a corner of the second main portion (20b), and a corner of the third main portion (18) have a rounded shape [0025].
Regarding claim 12, Imai discloses the dielectric layer includes Ba and Ti [0020].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Imai (JP 2021034550A).
Regarding claim 13, Imai an average thickness of the dielectric layer is 20 µm [0021].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (JP 2021034550A) in view of Hashimoto et al. (JP H07135124A).
Regarding claim 10, Imai discloses the claimed invention except for a separation distance between the first main portion and the second main portion in the second direction is defined as FG, and a separation distance between the third main portion and the third surface or the fourth surface is defined as LM,
LM > 0.35FG is satisfied.
Hashimoto et al. disclose a multilayer ceramic capacitor comprising a first main portion (3a) and a second main portion (3b), wherein a separation distance between the first main portion (3a) and the second main portion is 0.5 mm (FG - example 1) in the second direction (left-right), and a separation distance between a third main portion (5) and the third surface (left) or the fourth surface (right) is 0.45mm (LM – example 1), and
0.45 mm > 0.35 (0.5 mm) -> 0.45 mm > 0.175 mm.
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 component of Imai so that a separation distance between the first main portion and the second main portion in the second direction is defined as FG, and a separation distance between the third main portion and the third surface or the fourth surface is defined as LM, LM > 0.35FG is satisfied, since such a modification would improve withstand voltage and reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are allowed.
Claim 9 is 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: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest a multilayer electronic component:
A) wherein a ratio of a third directional width of the first and second auxiliary portions to a third directional separation between a third directional end of the first and second main portions and the fifth surface or the sixth surface is in a range from 1/8 to 1/3 (claim 9), and
B) wherein the first main portion and the first auxiliary portion being exposed through a first side surface of the body (claim 14).
JP 2021034550A does not disclose the width of the auxiliary or the width of the main portions.
MPEP 2125 –(II) - II. PROPORTIONS OF FEATURES IN A DRAWING ARE NOT EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PROPORTIONS WHEN DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO SCALE
When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977) ("We disagree with the Solicitor’s conclusion, reached by a comparison of the relative dimensions of appellant’s and Bauer’s [the reference’s] drawing figures, that Bauer ‘clearly points to the use of a chime length of roughly 1/2 to 1 inch for a whiskey barrel.’ This ignores the fact that Bauer does not disclose that his drawings are to scale. ... However, we agree with the Solicitor that Bauer’s teaching that whiskey losses are influenced by the distance the liquor needs to ‘traverse the pores of the wood’ (albeit in reference to the thickness of the barrelhead)" would have suggested the desirability of an increased chime length to one of ordinary skill in the art bent on further reducing whiskey losses." 569 F.2d at 1127, 193 USPQ at 335-36.)
JP 2021034550 A does not disclose the first main portion and the first auxiliary portion being exposed through a first side surface of the body.
‘550 teaches the auxiliary electrodes cannot be exposed to the first side surface of the body.
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.
US 3,721,871 – high voltage monolithic ceramic capacitor having floating electrodes
US 6,052,272 – laminated capacitor having floating internal electrodes
JP 2000-133545 – multilayer ceramic capacitor having
JP 2000-12377 A – multilayer component having floating electrodes
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