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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the method steps need to be positively recited as follows:
In line 3, “provision of a porous electrode body” should read --providing a porous electrode body--;
In line 5, “introduction of a liquid composition” should read --introducing a liquid composition--;
In line 9, “at least partial removal of the dispersing agent” should read --at least partially removing the dispersing agent--;
In line 15, “at least partial removal of the impregnation solvent” should read --at least partially removing the impregnation solvent--;
In line 17, “encapsulation of the porous electrode body” should read --encapsulating the porous electrode body--.
In line 4, “this” should read -- the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11, 14 and 15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pores" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 111, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merker et al. US 2013/0279079) in view of Merker’506 (WO 2012041506), Merker’947 (US Patent 7,377,947) and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
With regard to claim 1, Merker et al. discloses a process for manufacturing a capacitor, the process comprising providing a porous electrode body made from an electrode material, wherein a dielectric at least partially covers a surface of the electrode material, introducing a liquid composition which comprises an electrically conductive polymer and a dispersing agent into at least a part of the porous electrode body, at least partially removing the dispersing agent from the porous electrode body for the formation of a solid electrolyte layer that at least partially covers a surface of the dielectric, filling at least a part of pores of the porous electrode body with an impregnation solution comprising at least one impregnation solvent, wherein the at least one impregnation solvent has a boiling point (determined at 1013 hPa) of at least 1500C (because the impregnation solvent of Merker et al. is the same or similar to Applicant’s impregnation solvent, it is obvious that it will also have the same properties), at least partially removing the impregnation solvent from the porous electrode, see abstract, paragraphs [0077]-[0082] and claim 24. Further, Merker’506 teaches a similar type of impregnation solvent used to fill pores of porous electrode body that is removed at a temperature between 200C and 2000C, which suggests a boiling temperature in that range, see page 23, lines 15-23. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used an impregnation solvent with a boiling temperature as claimed, in light of the teachings of Merker’506, as is known in the art. Further, although Merker et al./Merker’506 does not disclose the conductive layer made from the liquid composition having a conductivity of less than 100 S/cm and encapsulating the porous electrode body however, Merker’947 teaches such a conductive layer in manufacturing such capacitors having a conductivity ranging from greater than 10 S/cm to greater than 100 S/cm, see column 20, lines 44-48. As it has been held, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Also, encapsulation a porous electrode body is conventional in the art as attested by Applicant at page 36, line 23 to page 37, line 6 of the specification to be known as AAPA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have encapsulated the porous electrode of Merker et al./Merker’506/Merker’947, in light of the teaching of AAPA, as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, see abstract of Merker et al.
Regarding claim 3, see paragraph [0036] of Merker et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, see page 23 lines 15-23 of Merker’506.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant should note that because the impregnation solvent of Merker et al. is the same or similar to Applicant’s impregnation solvent, it is obvious that it will also have the same properties.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, see paragraph [0079] of Merker et al.
Regarding claim 9, see page 23, lines 9-13 of Merker’506.
Regarding claim 10, see page 23, lines 15-23 of Merker’506.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant should note that because the impregnation solvent of Merker et al. is the same or similar to Applicant’s impregnation solvent, it is obvious that it will also have the same properties.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Applicant should note that capacitors obtained by the process of Merker et al./Merker’506/AAPA used as part of electronic circuits.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merker et al. in view of AAPA.
Merker et al. discloses a capacitor comprising a porous electrode body made of an electrode material wherein a dielectric at least partially covers a surface of the electrode material, a sloid electrolyte layer comprising an electrically conductive polymer material, wherein the solid electrolyte layer at least partially covers a surface of the dielectric, see paragraph [0120}. Although Merker et al. does not disclose an encapsulation that encloses the porous electrode body however, such encapsulation is conventional in the art as attested by Applicant at page 36, line 23 to page 37, line 6 of the specification to be known as AAPA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have encapsulated the porous electrode of Merker et al., in light of the teaching of AAPA, as is known in the art. Applicant should note that because the capacitor of Merker et al./AAPA renders obvious the claimed capacitor, it is expected that it will also fulfill the claimed properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights