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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ono et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0294097).
With respect to claim 1, Ono discloses a ceramic electronic device (see abstract) comprising: a multilayer chip including a multilayer portion in which each of a plurality of dielectric layers and each of a plurality of internal layers are alternately stacked (see FIG. 2, elements 12/13 and 21 and paragraph [0045]); wherein each of the plurality of internal layers is alternately extracted to two end faces of the multilayer chip opposite to each other (see FIG. 2 and paragraph [0045]), wherein the multilayer chip includes side margins outside of a capacity section in a third direction which is orthogonal to a first direction in which the plurality of internal layers face each other and a second direction in which the two end faces are opposite to each other (see FIG. 3, elements 17 and paragraph [0043]), the capacity section being a section in which the plurality of internal layers face each other (see FIG. 3, element 19 and paragraph [0044]), wherein the plurality of internal layers include a first internal layer and a second internal layer which are included in the capacity section and include a metal component (see paragraph [0046]), wherein the first internal layer includes a protruding section which protrudes toward outside from the capacity section in the third direction, wherein the protruding section includes an oxidized portion of the metal component (see FIG. 5, elements 12a/13a in area 16a), and wherein a relationship do1 > do2 is satisfied when a length of the oxidized portion of the protruding section is do1 and a length of an oxidized portion at an end of the second internal layer on a side of one of the side margins is do2 in a cross section along the second direction and the third direction (see FIG. 5, noting that Da is larger than Db).
With respect to claim 2, Ono discloses that a relationship of dT x 0.5 < dw is satisfied, when a length of the protruding section is dw, and an interval between protruding sections of two of first internal layers adjacent to each other in the first direction is dT in the cross section. See paragraph [0068], noting that Da is 2T or greater.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0294097) in view of Lee et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0362492).
With respect to claim 5, Ono fails to teach that the plurality of internal layers are alternately shifted in the third direction.
Lee, on the other hand, teaches that the plurality of internal layers are alternately shifted in the third direction. See FIG. 3, elements 121/122, noting shifts in the third direction of “A”. Such an arrangement results in a reduced density difference between the active region and the side margin portions. See paragraph [0063].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ono, as taught by Lee, in order to reduce the density difference between the active region and the side margin portions of the ceramic body.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0294097) in view of Kogure et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0108482).
With respect to claim 7, Ono fails to explicitly teach that a thickness to an outside surface of one of the side margins from an end of the capacity section is 150 µm or less.
Kogure, on the other hand, teaches a thickness to an outside surface of one of the side margins from an end of the capacity section is 150 µm or less. See paragraphs [0077]-[0079], noting a thickness of the side margin is between 5 and 10 µm. Such a modification provides excellent moisture resistance while providing the detection of separation between the side margin and capacitive regions. See paragraphs [0078]-[0079].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ono, as taught by Kogure, in order to provide excellent moisture resistance while providing the detection of separation between the active region and the side margin portions of the ceramic body.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0294097) in view of Iwama et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2016/0163454).
With respect to claim 6, Ono fails to teach that the plurality of internal layers includes two or more first internal layers, wherein the first internal layers includes the protruding section located outside of the second internal layer toward both of the side margins, and wherein two outermost layers of the plurality of internal layers in the first direction are the first internal layers.
Iwama, on the other hand, teaches that a plurality of internal electrodes includes two or more first internal layers, wherein two outermost layers of the plurality of internal layer in the first direction are the first internal layers. See FIG. 2, at least internal electrodes 7, and paragraph [0065]. Such an arrangement helps prevent cracking due to a difference in thermal shrinkage. See paragraph [0065].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Ono, as taught by Iwama, in order to prevent cracking due to a difference in thermal shrinkage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: with respect to claim 10, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, a vacuum pulse firing operation between and first and second firing operation, when taken in conjunction with the remaining operations to form a ceramic electronic device.
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9 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 claims 3 and 4, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that dimension do1 is smaller than the length of the overall protruding section, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1. With respect to claims 8 and 9, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, a main component of the first section is a non-oxidized metal or alloy, and wherein the oxidized portion is located in at least a portion of the second section, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claims 8 and 9, respectively, and further, in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hattori et al. (US 2019/0355521), Mizuno et al. (US 2018/0061575), and Kim (US 2014/0301014) each disclose internal electrodes having oxide regions at the edges thereof, but fail to disclose the overall limitations of 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