DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited within the IDS documents have been considered.
IDS document dates: December 29, 2023; March 5, 2024; May 2, 2024; July 7, 2024; February 12, 2025; June 24, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of informalities as follows:
37 CFR 1.84 (l) states, in part: “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views.”
See figures 1-3.
37 CFR 1.84 (p)(3) states, in part: “Numbers, letters, and reference characters… They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines.”
See figure 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15-17 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.
As to claim 15: the claim recites the aluminum has a temper designation “of H defined by JIS standard H0001”, in lines 3-4. The use of an industry standard as a claim limitation renders the claim indefinite, as industry standards can be revised and edited over time, such that the metes and bounds of the claim could also possibly change. Since the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained, the claim will not be treated further on its merits.
As to claim 16: the claim recites “tunnel-shape pits” formed in the surface of the anode foil. However, neither the claim nor the specification provides a precise definition for what the applicant intends a “tunnel-shape” to be. The person of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe a definition for “tunnel” that would be a hole that passes completely through a material; without passing completely through, the proper terminology would a term such as cave, hole, trench, or cavity. Another term would be pit, which the applicant uses in the claim, in conjunction with tunnel. Since the applicant has not provided a precise definition for the terminology of the shape for which they are claiming, and without any drawings figures depicting the shape, the claim is rendered indefinite due to the language used therein. For purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted as any depression or cavity created within the anode foil material.
As to claim 17: the claim recites “a withstand voltage equal to or higher than 100 V” in line 2. The use of an open-ended range as a claim limitation renders the claim indefinite, as the precise metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as a capacitor having any withstand voltage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimada et al. (US 2002/0097550 A1, hereinafter referred to as ‘Shimada’).
As to claim 13, Shimada teaches a manufacturing method of an electrolytic capacitor, comprising:
a step of enlarging a surface of an anode foil (see paragraph 0035);
a step of forming dielectric oxide film (see paragraph 0037) on the enlarged surface of the anode foil;
a step of enlarging a surface of a cathode foil (foil is enlarged by embedding carbon particles within it);
a step of forming a carbon layer on the enlarged surface of the cathode foil; and
a step of pressure-welding the cathode foil and the carbon layer (see paragraph 0038).
See also figure 1.
As to claim 16, Shimada teaches in the step of enlarging the surface of the anode foil, tunnel-shape pits are formed from the surface of the anode foil in a thickness direction of the anode foil. See figure 1.
As to claim 17, Shimada teaches the method as recited in claim 13, as detailed above. Since the method as claimed is the same as recited, then the resulting capacitor structure must also necessarily be the same; therefore, the capacitor of Shimada must also have the same claimed properties, including “a withstand voltage equal to or higher than 100 V”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 18, 19, and 20 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 prior art of record and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or suggest:
“wherein in the step of pressure-welding, the carbon layer enters into the enlarged surface of the cathode foil”, as recited within claim 14;
“sponge-like pits are formed in the surface of the cathode foil, and in the step of pressure-welding, carbon material of the carbon layer enters the sponge-like pits”, as recited within claim 18;
“forming an insulation layer on the surface of the cathode foil, between the step of enlarging the surface of the cathode foil and the step of forming the carbon layer”, as recited within claim 19;
“a step of filling an electrolyte including a solvent containing ethylene glycol in the element”, as recited within claim 20.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent cited art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott B. Geyer (telephone: 571-272-1958). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10AM - 4PM (ET). 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, Christine S. Kim (telephone: 571-272-8458). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in U.S.A. or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/SCOTT B GEYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812