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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05 October 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 October 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 31 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends as the limitations of claim 31 are present in claim 20. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 20-31, 33-34, & 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2014170862A hereafter referred to as Yoshi in view of Jeng-Feng et al. (US 6,621,686).
In regards to claim 20,
Yoshi discloses a method of forming an anode for a capacitor, comprising:
forming preliminary tunnels (1 – fig. 1; [0020] & [0023]) in a tunneled portion of a current collector such that the preliminary tunnels extend from a first face of the current collector to a second face of the current collector;
widening the preliminary tunnels to form tunnels (1 – fig. 1; [0020] & [0023]);
adding one or more active layers (4 – fig. 1; [0020]) to the tunneled portion of the current collector by sintering particles to form a layer of fused particles over the tunneled portion of the current collector such that all the tunnels that extend from the first face of the current collector to the second face of the current collector have an average width greater than 0.5 µm and less than 10 µm ([0012]), wherein the tunnels have an average tunnel density of greater than 5 M/cm2 and less than 90 M/cm2;
concurrently forming a dielectric on the fused particles and in the tunnels to form an active layer of an anode ([0023]); and
fabricating the capacitor such that the anode is in electrical communication with a terminal that is accessible from outside of a case of the capacitor ([0023]). Yoshi fails to disclose wherein the tunnels have an average tunnel density of greater than 5 M/cm2 and less than 90 M/cm2.
Jeng-Feng '686 discloses that the collector tunnel density is a result effective variable, particularly for reducing equivalent series resistance without sufficiently reducing capacitance (C6:L1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Yoshi with a reasonable expectation of success such that the average tunnel density is greater than 5 M/cm² and less than 90 M/cm² to reduce the ESR without sufficiently reducing capacitance or foil strength as taught by Jeng-Feng '686 while also . Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 21,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the current collector includes an anode metal selected from the group consisting of aluminum, tantalum, magnesium, titanium, niobium, zirconium, and mixtures thereof ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 22,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the anode metal comprises aluminum ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 23,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein one or more active layers include at least two active layers between which is positioned the current collector (fig. 1 of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 24,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the active layers do not contact one another through the tunnels (fig. 1 of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 25,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein a thickness of at least one of the active layers is greater than 150 µm ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 26,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein a thickness of the current collector is less than 200 µm ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 27,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein a thickness of the anode is more than 500 µm ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 28,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the capacitor has a Delivered to Stored energy Ratio (DSR) greater than 90% (see above rejection). When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent.
In regards to claim 29,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the forming the preliminary tunnels comprises laser drilling, chemical etching, or electrochemical etching, or a combination thereof ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 30,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the widening comprises using an electrochemical process that removes more than 5% of the current collector ([0023] of Yoshi & C6:L1-4 of Jeng-Feng '686 – noting the average width and density of the combination will remove 5% of the current collector to reduce the ESR without sufficiently reducing capacitance or foil strength).
In regards to claim 31,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the forming the preliminary tunnels and the widening the preliminary tunnels to form tunnels is conducted so that all the tunnels that extend from the first face of the current collector to the second face of the current collector and are under the one or more active layers have an average width greater than 0.5 µm and less than 10 µm (see above rejection).
In regards to claim 33,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses further comprising adding a liquid electrolyte to the tunnels ([0012] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 34,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 disclose all the claimed limitations discussed above with respect to claim 34, except for wherein the particles have an average width greater than 6 µm. However, Yoshi discloses that the average width of the particles is a result effective variable, particularly for obtaining high voltage resistance ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 with particles having average width greater than 6 µm to obtain a capacitor with a high voltage resistance, as taught by Yoshi. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 36,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein an average width of the particles exceeds the average width of the tunnels after the widening the preliminary tunnels ([0007] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 37,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the tunnels have an average width of greater than 1 µm and less than 10 µm ([0012] of Yoshi). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, in re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); in re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed, Cir. 1990)
Claim(s) 20-31, 33-34, & 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi in view of Hemphill et al. (US 2017/0069430).
In regards to claim 20,
Yoshi discloses a method of forming an anode for a capacitor, comprising:
forming preliminary tunnels (1 – fig. 1; [0020] & [0023]) in a tunneled portion of a current collector such that the preliminary tunnels extend from a first face of the current collector to a second face of the current collector;
widening the preliminary tunnels to form tunnels (1 – fig. 1; [0020] & [0023]);
adding one or more active layers (4 – fig. 1; [0020]) to the tunneled portion of the current collector by sintering particles to form a layer of fused particles over the tunneled portion of the current collector such that all the tunnels that extend from the first face of the current collector to the second face of the current collector have an average width greater than 0.5 µm and less than 10 µm ([0012]), wherein the tunnels have an average tunnel density of greater than 5 M/cm2 and less than 90 M/cm2;
concurrently forming a dielectric on the fused particles and in the tunnels to form an active layer of an anode ([0023]); and
fabricating the capacitor such that the anode is in electrical communication with a terminal that is accessible from outside of a case of the capacitor ([0023]). Yoshi fails to disclose wherein the tunnels have an average tunnel density of greater than 5 M/cm2 and less than 90 M/cm2.
Hemphill ‘430 discloses wherein the tunnels have an average tunnel density of greater than 5 M/cm2 and less than 90 M/cm2 ([0006).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Yoshi with a reasonable expectation of success such that the average tunnel density is greater than 5 M/cm² and less than 90 M/cm² to obtain a capacitor with improved energy density, improved charge efficiency and DSR. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 21,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 further discloses wherein the current collector includes an anode metal selected from the group consisting of aluminum, tantalum, magnesium, titanium, niobium, zirconium, and mixtures thereof ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 22,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein the anode metal comprises aluminum ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 23,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein one or more active layers include at least two active layers between which is positioned the current collector (fig. 1 of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 24,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein the active layers do not contact one another through the tunnels (fig. 1 of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 25,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein a thickness of at least one of the active layers is greater than 150 µm ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 26,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein a thickness of the current collector is less than 200 µm ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 27,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein a thickness of the anode is more than 500 µm ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 28,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein the capacitor has a Delivered to Stored energy Ratio (DSR) greater than 90% (see above rejection). When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be inherent.
In regards to claim 29,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein the forming the preliminary tunnels comprises laser drilling, chemical etching, or electrochemical etching, or a combination thereof ([0023] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 30,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein the widening comprises using an electrochemical process that removes more than 5% of the current collector ([0023] of Yoshi & [0006] of Hemphill ‘430 – noting the average width and density of the combination will remove 5% of the current collector to reduce the ESR without sufficiently reducing capacitance or foil strength).
In regards to claim 31,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein the forming the preliminary tunnels and the widening the preliminary tunnels to form tunnels is conducted so that all the tunnels that extend from the first face of the current collector to the second face of the current collector and are under the one or more active layers have an average width greater than 0.5 µm and less than 10 µm (see above rejection).
In regards to claim 33,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses further comprising adding a liquid electrolyte to the tunnels ([0012] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 34,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 disclose all the claimed limitations discussed above with respect to claim 34, except for wherein the particles have an average width greater than 6 µm. However, Yoshi discloses that the average width of the particles is a result effective variable, particularly for obtaining high voltage resistance ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 with particles having average width greater than 6 µm to obtain a capacitor with a high voltage resistance, as taught by Yoshi. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 36,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein an average width of the particles exceeds the average width of the tunnels after the widening the preliminary tunnels ([0007] of Yoshi).
In regards to claim 37,
Yoshi as modified by Hemphill ‘430 further discloses wherein the tunnels have an average width of greater than 1 µm and less than 10 µm ([0012] of Yoshi). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, in re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); in re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed, Cir. 1990)
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 or Hemphill ‘430 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Elias et al. (US 5,660,737).
In regards to claim 32,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686/Hemphill ‘430 fails to disclose further comprising applying a mask on a tab region of the current collector that excludes the tunneled portion.
Elias '737 discloses further comprising applying a mask (C4:L29-32) on a tab region (14 - fig. 1-2; C4:L28-29) of the current collector that excludes the tunneled portion (C4:L38-46)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the extraction electrode (tab) of Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686/Hemphill ‘430 to be active layer and tunnel free as taught by Elias '737 to obtain a capacitor wherein the extraction electrode has high strength and flexibility thus reducing the possibility of cracking and allowing for good connection strength to an external terminal.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686 or Hemphill ‘430 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of JP2010027822A hereafter referred to as Osaka.
In regards to claim 35,
Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686/Hemphill ‘430 fails to disclose wherein a porosity of the active layers is greater than 5% and less than 20%.
Osaka discloses that the porosity of the sintered anode is a result effective variable, particularly for ensuring good electrolyte penetration while also maintaining good strength ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Yoshi as modified by Jeng-Feng '686/Hemphill ‘430 such that the porosity of the sintered (active) layer is 10% to less than 20% to obtain an active layer that has good electrolyte permeation and good strength, as taught by Osaka. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 4,518,471 – abstract US 4,525,249 – abstract
US 6,802,954 – abstract
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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 J 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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
