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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent 12,211,651. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent discloses the limitations of the Instant Application.
In re claim 1, U.S. Patent 12,211,651 discloses a multilayer structure having a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape and including dielectric layers and internal electrode layers that are alternately stacked, the dielectric layers being mainly composed of ceramic, the internal electrode layers being formed so as to be alternately exposed to two edge faces opposite to each other of the multilayer structure (Claim 1); and
cover layers respectively disposed on a top face and a bottom face of the multilayer structure in a first direction in which the dielectric layers and the internal electrode layers are alternately stacked, the cover layers being mainly composed of ceramic (Claim 1),
wherein at least one of a Sn concentration with respect to a main component ceramic in the cover layer is higher than a Sn concentration with respect to a main component ceramic in a capacity section, a side margin section being a section that covers edges, extending toward a corresponding side face of two side faces other than the two edge faces of the multilayer structure, of the internal electrode layers, the capacity section being a section where a set of the internal electrode layers exposed to one of the two edge faces is opposite to another set of the internal electrode layers exposed to the other of the two edge faces (Claim 1),
wherein the main component ceramic of each cover layer has a perovskite structure (Claim 1), and
wherein an atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in each cover layer is 0.005 or greater (Claim 1).
Application 18/980,501
U.S. Patent 12,211,651
Claim 4
Claim 2
Claim 5
Claim 3
Claim 6
Claim 4
Claim 7
Claim 5
Claim 8
Claim 6
Claim 9
Claim 7
2. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,651 in view of Lee et al. (US Publication 2021/0074479).
In re claim 2, U.S Patent No. 12,211,651 discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. U.S. Patent No. 12,211,651 does not disclose a vicinity of an outer periphery of the capacity section is higher than the Sn concentration in a center section of the capacity section.
Lee discloses in a vicinity of an outer periphery of the capacity section (portion of 112, 113 close to 121, 122 – Figure 4EC, ¶37) is higher than the Sn concentration in a center section of the capacity section (region 121 and 122 overlap – Figure 4EC) (¶11, ¶72).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sn concentration as described by Lee to increase the mechanical strength of the electronic component.
3. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,651 in view of Hashimoto (US Publication 2020/0411248).
In re claim 3, U.S Patent No. 12,211,651 discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. U.S. Patent No. 12,211,651 does not disclose wherein Sn forms a solid solution with the main component ceramic in the capacity section.
Hashimoto discloses wherein Sn forms a solid solution with the main component ceramic in the capacity section (¶57-58, Figure 8, Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sn oxide that forms a solid solution as described by Hashimoto to provide for enhanced flexural strength (¶58: Hashimoto).
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, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US Publication 2021/0074479).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Lee with Examiner’s Comments (Figure 4EC)
In re claim 1, Lee discloses a ceramic electronic component comprising:
a multilayer structure (110 – Figure 2, ¶26) having a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape (Figure 2) and including dielectric layers (111 – Figure 4, ¶38) and internal electrode layers (121, 122 – Figure 4, ¶26) that are alternately stacked, the dielectric layers being mainly composed of ceramic, the internal electrode layers being formed so as to be alternately exposed to two edge faces opposite to each other of the multilayer structure (Figure 3); and
cover layers (CL – Figure 4EC, ¶52) respectively disposed on a top face and a bottom face of the multilayer structure in a first direction in which the dielectric layers and the internal electrode layers are alternately stacked, the cover layers being mainly composed of ceramic (Figure 2, Figure 3, Abstract),
wherein at least one of a Sn concentration with respect to a main component ceramic in the cover layer (CL – Figure 4EC) is higher than a Sn concentration with respect to a main component ceramic in a capacity section (region 121 and 122 overlap – Figure 4)(¶11, ¶72), a side margin section (MS – Figure 4EC, ¶37) being a section that covers edges (Figure 4EC), extending toward a corresponding side face of two side faces other than the two edge faces of the multilayer structure, of the internal electrode layers (Figure 2, Figure 4EC), the capacity section being a section where a set of the internal electrode layers (121 – Figure 3) exposed to one of the two edge faces is opposite to another set of the internal electrode layers (122 – Figure 3) exposed to the other of the two edge faces (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4),
wherein the main component ceramic of each cover layer (CL – Figure 4EC) has a perovskite structure (¶54-55), and
wherein an atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in each cover layer is 0.005 or greater (¶86).
In re claim 2, Lee discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Lee further discloses in a vicinity of an outer periphery of the capacity section (portion of 112, 113 close to 121, 122 – Figure 4EC, ¶37) is higher than the Sn concentration in a center section of the capacity section (region 121 and 122 overlap – Figure 4EC) (¶11, ¶72).
In re claim 4, Lee in view of Hashimoto discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Lee further discloses wherein the main component ceramic of the capacity section (region 121 and 122 overlap – Figure 3) and the component ceramic of the side margin have perovskite structures (¶55, ¶84, ¶86),
wherein at least one of an atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in each cover layer (CL – Figure 4EC) or an atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in the side margin is higher than an atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in the capacity section by 0.001 or greater (¶86-87).
In re claim 6, Lee discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Lee further discloses wherein the main component ceramic of the side margin section (MS – Figure 4EC) has a perovskite structure (¶84, ¶86), wherein an atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in the side margin section is 0.01 or greater (¶86-87).
In re claim 7, Lee discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Lee further discloses wherein a main component ceramic of the capacity section has a perovskite structure, wherein an atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in the capacity section is 0.005 or less (¶96).
In re claim 9, Lee discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Lee further discloses wherein the main component ceramic of the dielectric layer is barium titanate, wherein a main component metal of the internal electrode layer is nickel (¶55, ¶126).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Publication 2021/0074479) in view of Hashimoto (US Publication 2020/0411248).
In re claim 3, Lee discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Lee does not disclose wherein Sn forms a solid solution with the main component ceramic in the capacity section.
Hashimoto discloses wherein Sn forms a solid solution with the main component ceramic in the capacity section (¶57-58, Figure 8, Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sn oxide that forms a solid solution as described by Hashimoto to provide for enhanced flexural strength (¶58: Hashimoto).
In re claim 8, Lee discloses the ceramic electronic component according to claim 1, as explained above. Lee does not disclose a Sn concentration with respect to a main component ceramic in an end margin section is higher than the Sn concentration with respect to the main component ceramic in the capacity section, the end margin section being a section where the internal electrode layers exposed to one of the edge faces are opposite to each other with no internal electrode layers exposed to the other of the edge faces interposed therebetween in the multilayer structure.
Hashimoto disclose a Sn concentration with respect to a main component ceramic in an end margin section is higher than the Sn concentration with respect to the main component ceramic in the capacity section, the end margin section being a section where the internal electrode layers exposed to one of the edge faces are opposite to each other with no internal electrode layers exposed to the other of the edge faces interposed therebetween in the multilayer structure (¶55-56, Figure 10) (¶15-16, ¶22, ¶55-56, ¶62).
It would have been obvious toa person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to increase the Sn concentration of the end margin section with respect to the capacity region to achieve a device having improved flexural strength (¶58 – Hashimoto).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) at least one of the atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in each cover layer or the atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in the side margin section is higher than the atomic concentration ratio of Sn to B site elements in the capacity section by 0.001 or greater and 0.1 or less.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al. (US Publication 2024/0177928) [¶75-76]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN RAMASWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-1962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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 on (571) 272-5359. 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.
/ARUN RAMASWAMY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights