DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on June 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that “The election is made with traverse as there is no additional burden required to search and examine the claims.”
This is not found persuasive because this appears to be merely a conclusory statement, without any specific reasoning or evidence that addresses the five different species presented/described. Furthermore, simply stating that there is no search burden is not a full and proper reply to a species restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14 and 49-66 are hereby withdrawn, as they do not read on elected Species 1.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited on the IDS documents (dated May 3, 2024 and June 13, 2025) have been considered.
The sole reference cited on the IDS document (dated June 13, 2025) has been lined-through as no copy has been received.
Specification (Abstract)
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant note: the abstract is in claim form instead of narrative form, and refers to a purported merit (“…is an improved method for…”).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of an informality as follows:
37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) states, in part: “Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.”
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 3, 10, 13, 17, 18, 27, 34, 37, 40, and 41 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.
Claims 3, 10, 13, 27, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they disclose an open-ended range, such that the metes and bounds of the claim are not defined. Specifically:
claims 3 and 27 recite “wherein said m is at least 2”;
claims 10 and 34 recite “wherein said n is at least 2”;
claims 13 and 37 recite “a charge density of at least 50,000 CV/g”.
(emphasis added)
Claims 17 and 40 recite a “small molecule dopant”, but neither claim provides details as to what is meant by “small”. Due to this ambiguity of a reference to size in these claims, they are both rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being undefined. Claims 18 and 41 are also rejected as they depend from a rejected claim, and thus inherit the deficiencies of the rejected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19-26, 28-33, 35, 36, 38, 39, and 42-48 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest the disclosed invention regarding a method for preparing an electrolytic capacitor comprising:
forming a conductive polymer layer on said dielectric wherein said forming of said conductive polymer layer comprises sequential applying multiple layers of a conductive polymer on said dielectric;
applying a treatment to said conductive polymer layer wherein said treatment comprises a dopant wherein said dopant comprises: a carboxylic acid compound and an aromatic sulfonate compound, as recited within independent claims 1 and 24.
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
Prosecution Insights