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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, Claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 February 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation “preferably made or titanium or titanium alloy.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “electrically conductive housing,” and the claim also recites “preferably made or titanium or titanium alloy,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Examiner considers the claim only to require the broader limitation “electrically conductive housing.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan-Walleser,T et al. "3D Micro-Extrusion of Graphene-based Active Electrodes: Towards High-Rate AC Line Filtering Performance Electrochemical Capacitors". Adv. Funct. Mater. 2014, 24, 4706-4716 in view of envisionTEC press release and specification for 4th Generation 3D-BIOPLOTTER <<https://web.archive.org/web/20160000000000*/https:/3dsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MK-IND-BioFabBooklet-V3-DR-EN-UPDATED.pdf>> (25 December 2016), last viewed 24 July 2026) and ETEC.“EnvisionTEC at RAPID + TCT 2017: 3D-Bioplotter”.YouTube. <<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNnLxxJZ5bY>> (11 May 2017), last viewed 24 July 2026.
Regarding Claim 1, Nathan-Walleser et al. teach a method for manufacturing a structured cathode of an electrolytic capacitor (Abstract; Fig. 1; p. 4704, right column), comprising the following steps: a) filling an electrically conductive coating composition (thermally reduced graphene oxide, or TRGO) into a micro extruder (implied by teaching of printing process by 3D micro-extrusion; also, p. 4707, left column, last paragraph to right column, first paragraph); b) moving the micro extruder with a computer-assisted electric movement system, relative to a cathode current collector to be coated (p. 4707, left column, first paragraph; left column, last paragraph to right column, first paragraph; and right column, second paragraph), wherein the movement system allows a relative movement between the micro extruder and the cathode current collector (p.4707, left column, last paragraph); and applying the electrically conductive coating composition in a desired thickness and in a desired pattern onto the cathode current collector (Figs. 1-2; p. 4707, right column; p. 4708, left column; p. 4715, right column).
Moreover, Nathan-Walleser teaches a 3rd generation 3D BIOPLOTTER (p. 4713, left column). A specification for the 3rd generation 3D BIOPLOTTER has not been obtained. A press release and specification for the 4th generation 3D BIOPLOTTER teaches an analogous printer, including an X-Y gantry and a Z-stage (pp. 2-10 and figures), which permits three degrees of freedom (pp. 11). Additionally, the primary reference is listed in sample papers for applications of the 4th generation 3D BIOPLOTTER (p. 17), which shows the publication is analogous art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of Nathan-Walleser with a movement system which allows a relative movement between the micro-extruder and the cathode current collector with at least three degrees of freedom, because a press release and specification for the 4th generation 3D BIOPLOTTER suggests such a movement system (possibly inherent in Nathan-Walleser’s 3rd generation 3D BIOPLOTTER despite an inability to access a technical specification for it), including for the application of Nathan-Walleser et al..
The combination of Nathan-Walleser in view of 3D BIOPLOTTER specification fails to expressly teach applying “without contacting the cathode current collector with the micro extruder. However, it is conventional to print 3D coatings without touching a substrate. In addition, a YouTube video “EnvisionTEC at RAPID + TCT 2017: 3D-Bioplotter” shows a printing process by the 3D BIOPLOTTER in which the micro extruder does not contact a substrate on which it is printing (0:44-0:50) as well as further demonstrating its three degrees of freedom (0:33-0:35). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of references by applying the electrically conductive coating composition in a desired thickness and pattern onto the cathode current collector without contacting the cathode current collector with the micro extruder, because one of the benefits of the 3D BIOPLOTTER is precise placement of coatings and patterns, also in layers, without spreading a coating during application.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan-Walleser,T et al. "3D Micro-Extrusion of Graphene-based Active Electrodes: Towards High-Rate AC Line Filtering Performance Electrochemical Capacitors". Adv. Funct. Mater. 2014, 24, 4706-4716 in view of envisionTEC press release and specification for 4th Generation 3D-BIOPLOTTER <<https://web.archive.org/web/20160000000000*/https:/3dsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MK-IND-BioFabBooklet-V3-DR-EN-UPDATED.pdf>> (25 December 2016), last viewed 24 July 2026) and ETEC.“EnvisionTEC at RAPID + TCT 2017: 3D-Bioplotter”.YouTube. <<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNnLxxJZ5bY>> (11 May 2017), last viewed 24 July 2026 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of “Edge Dispensing with an ecoPEN-300 and a 4-axis FANUC SR-6iA robot”. YouTube. <<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O39DDr4EJKU>> (Nov 19, 2020), last viewed 23 July 2026.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references cited in the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches a movement system which allows a relative translational movement of the micro extruder along three axes (x,y,z) of a Cartesian coordinate system (see rejection of Claim 1 above for citations). The combination of references cited in the rejection of Claim 1 above fails to teach tilting of the micro extruder around a tilting axis. A YouTube video “Edge Dispensing with an ecoPEN-300 and a 4-axis FANUC SR-6iA robot” is analogous art in the field of coating conductive material by micro-extrusion and teaches a combination of ecoPEN-300 and FANUC SR-6iA robot for precise placement of a material on a substrate. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of Nathan-Walleser in view of 3D BIOPLOTTER specification and .“EnvisionTEC at RAPID + TCT 2017: 3D-Bioplotter” with a 4-axis system (x,y,z, plus tilt), because “Edge Dispensing with an ecoPEN-300 and a 4-axis FANUC SR-6iA robot” suggests a tilt in addition to other axes for precise application of a coating to a substrate.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathan-Walleser,T et al. "3D Micro-Extrusion of Graphene-based Active Electrodes: Towards High-Rate AC Line Filtering Performance Electrochemical Capacitors". Adv. Funct. Mater. 2014, 24, 4706-4716 in view of envisionTEC press release and specification for 4th Generation 3D-BIOPLOTTER <<https://web.archive.org/web/20160000000000*/https:/3dsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MK-IND-BioFabBooklet-V3-DR-EN-UPDATED.pdf>> (25 December 2016), last viewed 24 July 2026) and ETEC.“EnvisionTEC at RAPID + TCT 2017: 3D-Bioplotter”.YouTube. <<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNnLxxJZ5bY>> (11 May 2017), last viewed 24 July 2026 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dreissig et al. (US 2010/0238608).
Regarding Claim 5, Nathan-Walleser teaches titanium electrodes and a stainless steel cell. The combination of Nathan-Walleser in view of 3D BIOPLOTTER specification and “EnvisionTEC at RAPID + TCT 2017: 3D-Bioplotter” fails to teach a tantalum or niobium capacitor. Dreissig et al. (US’608) is analogous art in the field of electrolytic capacitors and teaches that an anode and a cathode can be comprised of any metal, including titanium, tantalum, and niobium [0033,0040]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of Nathan-Walleser in view of 3D BIOPLOTTER specification and “EnvisionTEC at RAPID + TCT 2017: 3D-Bioplotter” to produce a tantalum or niobium electrolytic capacitor, because US’608 suggests a capacitor comprising an anode and cathode, comprising any metal, including titanium, niobium and tantalum.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding Claim 3, none of the references cited for the rejection of Claim 1 teach or fairly suggest placing a current collector on a heating plate while applying the coating composition.
Regarding Claim 4, none of the references cited for the rejection of Claim 1 teach or fairly suggest a cathode current collector formed at least partly by an electrically conductive housing of the electrolytic capacitor.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Dispensing tests: preeflow eco-PEN and electrically conductive materials from ROARTIS”. YouTube.<<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6PXvZagCos>> (Apr 17, 2019), last viewed 23 July 2026. (Dispensing electrically conductive paste with 3-axis microextruder without contacting substrate)
Xiao et al. (US 2022/0009124) (eco-PEN300, Preeflow micro-extruder used to deposit ceramics and glass for producing capacitors and batteries)
Shaw (US 2013/0230751) (microextrude cathode, electrolyte/separator for supercapacitor) [0053,0055]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights