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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Masonori and Arakawa. Specifically, applicant argues Masonori suggest that the barrier-type anodic oxide film is the same as the dielectric oxide film formed on the surface of the aluminum electrode foil and further suggest said film is formed by anodic oxidation which can be performed repeatedly and continuously. Applicant argues one would have no reasonability of success using a gas-phase method in continuously carrying out barrier-type oxide formation, electrolytic etching, and dielectric oxide formation.
The examiner disagrees with applicant. While Masonori discloses the process can be formed in a continuous step as argued by applicant, Masonori further discloses said barrier oxide can be formed in a separate step. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of forming a barrier-type oxide film using a gas phase method which is a well-known method of forming coating layers include oxides.
Applicant further argues the gas phase method of Arakawa is designated to form a dielectric layer that differs from the anodic oxidation film obtained by an anodic oxidation treatment and thus is not an alternative to an anodic oxidation treatment. Applicant further argues using the gas phase method of Arakawa would cause an impermissible change to the principal operation of Masonori.
The examiner disagrees with applicant. As noted in the non-final Office action, one of ordinary skill in the art would use a gas phase method as taught by Arakawa to form the oxide layer of Masonori to allow for a dense homogenous film to be formed. Furthermore, the oxide film disclosed by of Arakawa is alumina formed on an aluminum foil and thus differs in the method of how the alumina is formed compared to alumina formed via anodic oxidation. The oxide formed by a gas phase will function the same as an oxide formed by anodic oxidation, and thus the principal operation of the film will not be changed. Claims 9-10 stand rejected.
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overJP11016787A hereafter referred to as Masonori in view of Arakawa et al. (US 20180158611).
In regards to claim 9,
Masonori discloses a method for manufacturing an electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor, the method comprising:
a first step of preparing a metal foil ([0018]); and
a second step of roughening the metal foil to form a porous portion ([0018], wherein:
the second step includes:
an etching step of etching the metal foil ([0018]); and
an intermediate treatment step performed midway through the etching step ([0018] – oxide forming step), and
in the intermediate treatment step, a protective film (oxide film – [0018]) is formed on a part of a surface of the metal foil. Masonori fails to disclose the protective film formed by a gas phase method.
Arakawa ‘611 discloses forming an oxide film on a porous foil via ALD which is an alternative to anodic oxidation ([0075]).
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the oxide film of Masonori using ALD as taught by Arakawa ‘611 to allow for a dense homogenous film to be formed and as such a method is taught as an alternative to anodic oxidation.
In regards to claim 10,
Masonori as modified by Arakawa ‘611 further discloses a wherein in the intermediate treatment step, the protective film is formed by an atomic layer deposition method ([0075] of Arakawa ‘611).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest (in combination with the other claim limitations) an electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor, the electrode foil wherein when the porous portion is equally divided into ten regions that are first to tenth regions arranged in order from an outer surface of the porous portion to a boundary between the core portion and the porous portion in a thickness direction of the porous portion, and A1 to A10 respectively represent pit circumferential lengths of the first to tenth regions, {(Amax/Amin -1) x 100}/(Nmax -Nmin) < 6, 85 < Amax, and 2 < Nmax are satisfied, where Amax represents a maximum value of the pit circumferential lengths among A1 to A10, Nmax represents an order of a region indicating Amax among the ten regions, Amin represents a minimum value of the pit circumferential lengths among regions located at a side close to the outer surface of the porous portion with respect to the (Nmax)th region, and Nmin represents an order of a region indicating Amin among the ten regions (claims 1-8).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 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 2848
Prosecution Insights