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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-20 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, lines 12-16, the limitation, “wherein a minimum distance from the lower end of the case to the lower surface of the resin portion is T0, wherein a distance from the lower end of the case to an exposed portion of the first and second lead wires on the lower surface of the resin portion is T0” is confusing. Replace the first occurrence of “T0” with –T1—(per Fig. 2 of the instant application).
Claim 6, line 3, the limitation, “one end of each of the first and second lead wires” is confusing. Are these ends the same as the ends already claimed in claim 1?
Claim 7, line 3, the limitation, “one end of each of the first and second lead wires” is confusing. Are these ends the same as the ends already claimed in claim 1?
Claim 8, lines 5-6, the limitation, “a capacitor” is confusing. Is this an additional capacitor body?
Claim 8, line 6, the limitation, “a second lead wire” is confusing. Is this an additional lead wire? If so, is there a first lead wire?
Claim 8, line 6, the limitation, “a second electrode” is confusing. Is this in addition to the second electrode of the capacitor body already claimed.
Claim 8, lines 16-19, the limitation, “wherein a minimum distance from the lower end of the case to the lower surface of the resin portion is T0, wherein a distance from the lower end of the case to an exposed portion of the first and second lead wires on the lower surface of the resin portion is T0” is confusing. Replace the first occurrence of “T0” with –T1—(per Fig. 2 of the instant application).
Claim 13, line 4 the limitation, “one end of each of the first and second lead wires” is confusing. Are these ends the same as the ends already claimed in claim 8?
Claim 18, line 1, replace “capacitor module” with –film capacitor--.
Claim 19, line 1, replace “capacitor module” with –film capacitor--.
Claim 20, line 1, replace “capacitor module” with –film capacitor--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nanjo et al. (JP 2016207920).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Nanjo et al. disclose in fig. 2, a film capacitor comprising; a case (3) with open lower surface (bottom – Fig. 2);
a capacitor body (1) disposed within the case (3) and having first (2a) and second (2b) electrodes on both sides;
a resin portion (4) sealing the capacitor body (1);
a first lead wire (5a) having one end connected to a first electrode (2a) of the capacitor body (1) and having an outer portion exposed to an outside of the resin portion (4); and
a second lead wire (5b) having one end connected to a second electrode (2b) of the capacitor body (1) and having an outer portion exposed to the outside of the resin portion (4),
wherein each of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires includes a bent portion (7a, 7b) curved between a lower end of the case (3) and the resin portion (4),
wherein a lower surface of the resin portion includes a concave curved surface (not illustrated),
wherein a minimum distance from the lower end of the case to the lower surface of the resin portion is T1 (not illustrated),
wherein a distance from the lower end of the case to an exposed portion of the first and second lead wires on the lower surface of the resin portion is T0 (not illustrated), and
wherein the following condition is satisfied T1 < T0 (not illustrated).
While Nanjo et al. do not specifically state that a lower surface of the resin portion includes a concave curved surface, wherein a minimum distance from the lower end of the case to the lower surface of the resin portion is T1, wherein a distance from the lower end of the case to an exposed portion of the first and second lead wires on the lower surface of the resin portion is T0, and wherein the following condition is satisfied T1 < T0, it appears to be an inherent feature. During the resin (4) filling step [0019], the resin (4) develops a concave surface profile within the insulating case (3). This occurs from the surface tension of the liquid resin [0019], which causes it to climb up the side walls of the case. See supporting document US 6,185,086 – Tanaka et al. – Fig. 7-9 – C:1, L: 32-37 – annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
292
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
176
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
178
248
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nanjo et al. disclose the bent portions of the first (5a, 5b) and second lead wires are bent toward an inside of the case (3).
Regarding claim 3, Nanjo et al. disclose the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires are bent toward an outside of the case (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Nanjo et al. disclose the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires are bent in different directions of the case (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Nanjo et al. disclose in the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires have a triangular or hemispherical side cross section (Fig. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 6, Nanjo et al. disclose the other ends of each of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires extend from the bent portion and are disposed on a same straight line as one end of each of the first and second lead wires (Fig. 7, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Nanjo et al. disclose the other ends of each of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires extend from the bent portion and are disposed outside of one end of each of the first and second lead wires.
Regarding claim 8, Nanjo et al. disclose a capacitor module comprising:
a capacitor (10, 11, 12) including a case (3) with open lower surface (bottom);
a capacitor body (1) disposed within the case (3) and having first (2a) and second (2b) electrodes on both sides;
a resin portion (4) sealing the capacitor body (1);
a first lead wire (5a) having one end connected to the first electrode (2a) of the capacitor body and having an outer portion exposed to an outside of the resin portion (4);
the capacitor having a second lead wire (5b) having one end connected to the second electrode (2b) of the capacitor body (1) and having an outer portion exposed to the outside of the resin portion (4);
a substrate (20) disposed under the case (3) and having a first hole coupled to the other end of the first lead wire (5a) of the capacitor and a second hole at the other end of the second lead wire (5b – see Fig. 2); and
a solder portion (9a, 9b) for fixing the other ends of the first (5a) and second lead wires (5b) in the first and second holes,
wherein each of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires includes a bent portion curved between the substrate (20) and the resin portion (4),
wherein a lower surface of the resin portion includes a concave curved surface (not illustrated),
wherein a minimum distance from the lower end of the case to the lower surface of the resin portion is T1 (not illustrated),
wherein a distance from the lower end of the case to an exposed portion of the first and second lead wires on the lower surface of the resin portion is T0 (not illustrated), and
wherein the following condition is satisfied T1 < T0 (not illustrated).
While Nanjo et al. do not specifically state that a lower surface of the resin portion includes a concave curved surface, wherein a minimum distance from the lower end of the case to the lower surface of the resin portion is T1, wherein a distance from the lower end of the case to an exposed portion of the first and second lead wires on the lower surface of the resin portion is T0, and wherein the following condition is satisfied T1 < T0, it appears to be an inherent feature. During the resin (4) filling step [0019], the resin (4) develops a concave surface profile within the insulating case (3). This occurs from the surface tension of the liquid resin [0019], which causes it to climb up the side walls of the case. See supporting documents US 6,185,086 – Tanaka et al. – Fig. 7-9 – C:1, L: 32-37 – annotated Fig. 9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
292
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
176
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
178
248
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Nanjo et al. disclose an entire region of the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires are disposed between the substrate (20) and the resin portion 4) .
Regarding claim 10, Nanjo et al. disclose the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires are bent toward an inside or outside of the case (3 – Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Nanjo et al. disclose the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires are bent different directions of the case (3 – Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Nanjo et al. disclose the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires have a triangular or hemispherical side cross section (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 14, Nanjo et al. disclose the capacitor body (1) a film capacitor [0015].
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.
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) 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanjo et al. (JP 2016207920).
Regarding claims 16 and 19, Nanjo et al. disclose lower ends of the bent portions of the first (5a) and second (5b) lead wires is disposed higher than a horizontal straight line at the lower end of the case (3).
Nanjo et al. disclose the claimed invention except for upper ends of the bent portions of the first and second lead wires are in a range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm from the lower end of the case.
Nanjo et al. teach that the bent portion is formed having a desired shape and length in order to alleviate the mechanical stress applied to the wiring.
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the lead wire art to form the lead wires of Nanjo et al. so that upper ends of the bent portions of the first and second lead wires are in a range of 0.5 mm to 3 mm from the lower end of the case, since such a modification would form a capacitor where the lead wires have desired mechanical stability when stress is applied to the wiring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15, 17-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest a capacitor module:
wherein the solder portion is disposed in the first and second sub-holes (claim 13);
wherein the lower ends of the bent portions of the first and second lead wires are disposed on a same straight line as the lower end of the case (claim 15); and
wherein the depth is smaller than a diameter of each of the first and second lead wires (claim 17).
.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest a film capacitor:
wherein the lower ends of the bent portions of the first and second lead wires are disposed on a same straight line as the lower end of the case (claim 18); and
wherein the depth is smaller than a diameter of each of the first and second lead wires (claim 20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3,806,766
US 3,831,265
US 4,656,556 – Fig. 3
US 6,043,972 – Fig. 4
US 6,185,086
JP 60-190031 – Fig. 2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 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, 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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848