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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 22, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of Remarks, filed April 22, 2026, with respect to claim 9, 16, and their depending claims and its depending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of the aforementioned claims has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 state: “…a load up to about 10MPa…” Line 2 should state: “…a load up to about 10 MPa…”
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state: “…less than 10nm and not more than 80nm…” Line 2 should state: “…less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm…” and not more than …”
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 12 state: “…a load up to about 10MPa…” Line 2 should state: “…a load up to about 10 MPa…”
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state: “…less than 10nm and not more than 80nm…” Line 2 should state: “…less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm…” and not more than …”
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state: “…less than 10nm and not more than 80nm…” Line 2 should state: “…less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm…” and not more than …”
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state: “…between than 10nm and not more than 80nm…” Line 2 should state: “…between than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm…” and not more than …”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 16, and their depending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said anodal foil" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "an external leading terminal" in lines 8. It is unclear if this “external leading terminal” is the same as “a lead terminal” introduced in line 3. Furthermore, “the lead terminal” is re-introduced in line 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the lead-out terminal" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the lead-out end side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, the Applicant has stated “the external leading terminal” in line 3. It is unclear if this is referring to the “lead terminal” or the “external leading terminal” of claim 9.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the external leading terminal" in lines 7 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the anodal side foil" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the anodal external leading terminal" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 9-14, 16-18, 20-21, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukihiro et al. (JP2002083738A) in view of Yano et al. (US Publication 2012/0267161).
In re claim 9, Yukihiro discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising an anode foil (1 – Figure 1, ¶28) with dielectric oxide film formed thereon (¶28), a lead terminal (5 – Figure 1, ¶28) connected to the anode foil (1 – Figure 1), a capacitor element including the anode foil and a solid electrolyte (¶28) formed within the capacitor element and comprising a conductive polymer (¶18-20) , wherein a coating layer (11 – Figure 2, ¶30) repealing a conductive polymer forming solution between said anodal foil and an external leading terminal (5, 6 – Figure 1, ¶30) is formed (¶14-15, ¶32-37). Yukihiro does not disclose the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and more than 150 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Yukihiro does not disclose wherein the coating layer does not crack or peel when a load of up to about 10 MPa is applied to the surface of the lead terminal.
Yano discloses increasing the pierce strength and adhesion of the resin film (15 – Figure 2, ¶35) to prevent the occurrence of whiskers and peeling (¶35, ¶40). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the pierce strength and adhesion characteristics of the resin film, and thus mechanical strength in response to external loads, to achieve a device having a reduced occurrence of whiskers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 10, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 9, as explained above. Yukihiro further discloses wherein the coating layer (11 – Figure 2) is for med at least at a portion facing the anode foil (1 – Figure 2) of the lead-out terminal (¶32-33).
In re claim 11, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 9, as explained above. Yukihiro further discloses wherein the coating layer (11 – Figure 2) is formed at least at the lead-out end side of the capacitor element (Figure 1) from the connection with the anodal foil (1 – Figure 1) of the external leading terminal (5, 6 – Figure 1).
In re claim 12, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 9, as explained above. Yukihiro does not disclose the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and not more than 100 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 13, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 9, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose the contact angle between the surface of the coating layer and the conductive polymer forming solution is 80° or more. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the wettability results in improved soldering characteristics of the device (¶15, ¶45-46). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the wettability effect, and thus arrive at a desired contact angle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 14, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 9, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 16, Yukihiro discloses method for manufacturing solid-state electrolytic capacitors, the method comprising:
a winding step of forming a capacitor element by winding the cathode foil (2 – Figure 1, ¶28) and the anode foil (1 – Figure 1) while winding the lead terminal (5, 6 - Figure 1), a winding after connecting the lead terminal to the anode foil, cathode foil, and the dielectric oxide film is formed (¶28),
an electrolyte formation step that immerses a solution forming a solid electrolyte (¶35) from the opposite face of the end face of the capacitor element (Figure 1) formed around the external leading terminal (5, 6 -Figure 2) (¶35)and derived by the external leading terminal connected to the anodal side foil (1 – Figure 1), following the wounding step (¶34-36),
wherein forming a coating layer (11 – Figure 2) at least on the anodal external leading terminal (5,6 – Figure 2).
Yukihiro does not disclose the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and more than 150 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Yukihiro does not disclose wherein the coating layer does not crack or peel when a load of up to about 10 MPa is applied to the surface of the lead terminal.
Yano discloses increasing the pierce strength and adhesion of the resin film (15 – Figure 2, ¶35) to prevent the occurrence of whiskers and peeling (¶35, ¶40). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the pierce strength and adhesion characteristics of the resin film, and thus mechanical strength in response to external loads, to achieve a device having a reduced occurrence of whiskers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 17, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 10, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose the contact angle between the surface of the coating layer and the conductive polymer forming solution is 80° or more. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the wettability results in improved soldering characteristics of the device (¶15, ¶45-46). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the wettability effect, and thus arrive at a desired contact angle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 18, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 10, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 20, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 11, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose the contact angle between the surface of the coating layer and the conductive polymer forming solution is 80° or more. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the wettability results in improved soldering characteristics of the device (¶15, ¶45-46). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the wettability effect, and thus arrive at a desired contact angle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In re claim 21, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 11, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 23, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 17, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In re claim 26, Yukihiro in view of Yano discloses the solid electrolytic capacitor of claim 17, as explained above. Yukihiro does not explicitly disclose wherein the thickness of the coating layer is not less than 10 nm and not more than 80 nm. However, Yukihiro discloses reducing the thickness of the resin layer to reduce unevenness on the surface of the electrode tab, and thus, resulting in improved leakage current characteristics (¶12, ¶14). ). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the coating layer to realize a device having desired leakage current and miniaturization characteristics per user specifications, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takaaki et al. (JP2011086538A) Figure 1, Figure 2, Abstract
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 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.
/ARUN RAMASWAMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights