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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-10 of Remarks, Applicant argues that Table 2 and Table 3 of the Instant Specification provides for unexpected and superior results for the claimed coating thickness of 10 nm to 150 nm. In particular, the Applicant argues that the lower limit of 10 nm shows criticality for the rate of change of the leakage current, while the upper limit of 150 nm shows criticality with respect to contact resistance.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above assertion. As shown in paragraph [00121] and Table 2 of the Instant Specification, Example 1, Examples 3 through 10, and Comparative Example 1 demonstrate a rate of change of leakage current with respect to both the coating layer thickness and the contact angle between the surface of the coating layer and the conductive polymer. Examples 1 and 3 through 8 have a contact angle from 82° to 84°. However, Examples 9-10 and Comparative Example 1 implement a contact angle far lower than Examples that fall within the claimed thickness range. Paragraph [0053] of the Instant Specification notes that the contact angle is proportional the amount of leakage current. Since the contact angle varies between the Examples of Table 2, the Examiner is unable to determine the criticality of the lower limit of the claimed thickness range. The leakage current property is dependent on both the contact angle and the coating layer thickness.
Furthermore, the difference in thickness between Examples 11 and 12 of Table 3 of the Instant Specification is 50 nm, which is far more than the difference in thickness between previous examples. The Applicant has not provided sufficient data points to establish criticality of the claimed upper limit.
“To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” MPEP 716.02(d) II.
Additionally, as stated by the Applicant, the upper limit of the claimed range is not unexpected. On page 10 of Remarks, the Applicant states: “Here, the thicknesses of the coating layers disclosed in Yukihiro are "0.5 to 1.0 µm" ("500 to 1, 000nm"). That is, the contact resistance is 2.5 times as large as that of Example 11 (150nm), and it can be easily assumed that the contact resistance is further increased.”
“The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)” MPEP 716.02(b) I.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1-2 state: “…claim 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: “…claim 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 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 re claim 9, Yukihiro discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising an anode foil (1 – Figure 1, ¶28) with dielectric oxide film (¶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).
In re claim 10, Yukihiro 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 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 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 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 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).
In re claim 17, Yukihiro 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Taguchi (JP2011243898A1) Description of Embodiments [¶4]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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) 272-2229. 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 2848
Prosecution Insights