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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/15/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that the Peterson reference does not teach or provide proper motivation for a barrier layer that is disposed on less than al of the outer surface of the casing.
Peterson disclose in [0028], Fig. 2C, claim 11, that a barrier layer is disposed on less than all of an outer surface of a casing.
Applicant argues that the Peterson reference does not teach or provide proper motivation for a barrier layer that has a thickness of from about 50 microns to about 5 mm.
While the examiner agrees with applicant that Peterson discloses an example of a barrier layer having a thickness of 25.4 µm (see [0044]), it is noted that [0042] discloses the barrier layer coatings may have different thicknesses.
It is well known in barrier layer art that the thickness of a barrier layer is inversely related to its transmission rates.
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(s) 1-2, 4, 7-10, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 10-2013-016548) in view of Peterson et al. (US 2013/0337292).
PNG
media_image1.png
412
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
216
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses in fig. 2, a supercapacitor assembly (200) comprising:
a housing (20) comprising an outer surface, the housing (20) sealed at a seal location (@30) wherein the housing (20) comprises a cylindrical container;
a supercapacitor (10) enclosed within the housing (20);
a casing (50, 60) formed over the housing (20) wherein the casing (50) comprises a potting layer (60) comprising a thermoset resin [0033]-[0034].
Han discloses the claimed invention except for a barrier layer formed on the potting layer and contacting the casing and adjacent at least one of the seal location or a surface to which the supercapacitor is mounted, wherein barrier layer is disposed on less than all of the outer surface of the casing and wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of from 50 microns to 5 mm.
Peterson et al. disclose in fig. 2C, [0028], Claim 11, a barrier (400) formed on a cell (100) that includes a supercapacitor [0003], wherein the barrier layer (400) is adjacent to a seal location (fig. 2C), wherein the barrier layer (400) has a thickness and is disposed on less than all of the outer surface of a casing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the supercapacitor art to modify the device of Han so that a barrier layer is formed on the potting layer (60) and contacting the casing (50) and adjacent at least one of the seal location or a surface to which the supercapacitor is mounted, since such a modification would result in a supercapacitor device featuring a protective coating designed to resist the ingress of moisture and organic liquids.
It is well known in barrier layer art that the thickness of a barrier layer is inversely related to its transmission rates.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the barrier layer art to form the barrier layer of the modified Han so that it has a thickness of from 50 microns to 5 mm, since such a modification would form a supercapacitor assembly having desired level of vapor transmission rate.
Regarding claim 2, Peterson et al. teach that the barrier layer comprises a thermoplastic polymer (Parylene - [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson et al. teach that the barrier layer (Parylene) has a melting temperature of about 150°C or more (Parylene – [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Peterson et al. disclose the barrier may be a thermoset polymer [0048]
Regarding claim 8, Han discloses the potting layer (60) comprises at least one of epoxy [0034] or polyurethane.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Han discloses the supercapacitor (10) comprises:
a current collector [0005];
an electrode [0005] electrically coupled to the current collector [0005]; and
at least one electrical lead ([0005], 40) electrically connected with the current collector [0005] and extending through the housing (20) from an interior of the housing to an exterior of the housing;
wherein the at least one electrical lead ([0005], 40) extends through the housing at the seal location (@ 30) such that the barrier layer (Peterson – 400) is formed adjacent the at least one electrical lead (40) on the outer surface of the housing.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Han discloses the housing (20) comprises a body (20) and a lid (30), and the lid (30) is sealed to the body at the seal location such that the barrier layer (Peterson - 400) is formed adjacent a seal between the body (20) and the lid (30).
Regarding claim 13, Han discloses a housing (20) comprising an outer surface, the housing (20) sealed at a seal location (@ 30) wherein the housing (20) comprises a cylindrical container;
a supercapacitor (10 – [0003]) enclosed within the housing (20);
a casing (50, 60) formed over the housing (20) wherein the casing (50, 60) comprises a potting layer (60) comprising a thermoset resin (epoxy – [0053]).
Han discloses the claimed invention except for the supercapacitor element is mounted to a substrate and a barrier layer formed on the potting layer and contacting the casing and adjacent at least one of the seal location or a surface to which the supercapacitor is mounted, wherein barrier layer is disposed on less than all of the outer surface of the casing and wherein the barrier layer has a thickness of from 50 microns to 5 mm.
Peterson et al. disclose in fig. 2C, [0028], Claim 11, a barrier (400) formed on a cell (100) that includes a supercapacitor [0003], wherein the barrier layer (400) is adjacent to a seal location (fig. 2C), wherein the barrier layer (400) has a thickness and is disposed on less than all of the outer surface of a casing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the supercapacitor art to modify the device of Han so that a barrier layer is formed on the potting layer (60) and contacting the casing (50) and adjacent at least one of the seal location or a surface to which the supercapacitor is mounted, since such a modification would result in a supercapacitor device featuring a protective coating designed to resist the ingress of moisture and organic liquids.
It is well known in barrier layer art that the thickness of a barrier layer is inversely related to its transmission rates.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the barrier layer art to form the barrier layer of the modified Han so that it has a thickness of from 50 microns to 5 mm, since such a modification would form a supercapacitor assembly having desired level of vapor transmission rate.
It is well known in the art to attach a supercapacitor element to a substate.
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 supercapacitor element of Han on a substrate of a device, since such a modification would form a device having a supercapacitor element with high temperature durability.
The recitation “A meter for measuring a flow of a product” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). The limitation “A meter for measuring a flow of a product” is an intended use of the product. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Han discloses the claimed invention.
The limitation “the meter is configured to measure a flow of at least one of electricity, gas, or water” is an intended use of the product. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 15, Han discloses the supercapacitor (10) comprises:
a current collector [0005];
an electrode [0005] electrically coupled to the current collector [0005]; and
at least one electrical lead ([0005], 40) electrically connected with the current collector [0005] and extending through the housing (20) from an interior of the housing to an exterior of the housing;
wherein the at least one electrical lead ([0005], 40) extends through the housing at the seal location (@ 30) such that the barrier layer (Peterson et al. - 400) is formed adjacent the at least one electrical lead (40) on the outer surface of the housing.
Regarding claim 16, Han discloses the housing (20) comprises a body (20) and a lid (30), and the lid (30) is sealed to the body at the seal location.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Han discloses the barrier layer (400 – Peterson et al.) comprises at least one of thermoplastic polymer or a thermoset polymer (Parylene – [0047]).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Han discloses the barrier layer (400 – Peterson – Parylene – [0047]) has a melting temperature of about 150°C or more [0047].
Regarding claim 20, Peterson et al. teach that the barrier layer comprises a thermoplastic polymer (Parylene - [0047]).
Claim(s) 3, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 10-2013-016548) and Peterson et al. (US 2013/0337292), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Akrotek (Akrotek-PK – the polyketone with universal applications).
Regarding claims 3, 19, and 21-22, the modified Han discloses the claimed invention except for barrier layer comprises at least polyketone (thermoplastic resin).
Akrotek discloses a barrier layer comprising polyketone (thermoplastic - title).
It would have been obvious to a person in the barrier material art to form the barrier layer from polyketone, since such a modification would from a supercapacitor element with a barrier layer that has excellent water resistance, and high barrier effect against oxygen.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 10-2013-016548) and Peterson et al. (US 2013/0337292) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses the claimed invention except for the supercapacitor has a capacitance ranging from about 1 F to about 1500 F measured at a temperature of 23 degrees C, frequency of 120 Hz, and without an applied voltage.
AAPA teaches that a supercapacitor having capacitance ranging from 1 F to 1500 F measured at a temperature of 23 degrees C, frequency of 120 Hz and without an applied voltage is known in the art.
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 supercapacitor structure having capacitance ranging from 1 F to 1500 F measured at a temperature of 23 degrees C, frequency of 120 Hz, and without an applied voltage, since such a modification would provide an electrical system with desired energy storage.
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses the claimed invention except for the supercapacitor has an operating voltage ranging from about 2 V to about 4 V.
AAPA teaches that a supercapacitor having an operating voltage of from 2 V to 4 V is known in the art.
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 supercapacitor structure having an operating voltage of 2 V to 4 V, since such a modification would provide an electrical system with a supercapacitor having a desired operating voltage.
Conclusion
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