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 (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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 21 June 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bliss et al. (DE2745985 and hereinafter Bliss ‘985; see attached translation).
In regards to claim 1, Bliss ‘985 discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor element (element of FIGs. 1A-1F) comprising: an anode body (1 – FIG. 1A; [0021]); a dielectric layer that is formed on the surface of the anode body (described in [0021]); and a cathode part (manganese dioxide layer and conductive silver layer 1a as described in [0023]-[0024]) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer ([0021]-[0024]), wherein the cathode part includes a solid electrolyte layer (manganese dioxide layer as described in [0023]) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer ([0021]-[0024]), and includes a metallic particle-containing layer (conductive silver layer 1a as described in [0024]) that contains metallic particles and a cured resin binder in at least a portion of the cathode part, ([0009], [0015], [0024]) the metallic particles include first metallic particles (silver-coated copper particles as described in [0009]) each containing silver and second metallic particles (pure silver particles as described in [0009]) each containing silver ([0009]), the first metallic particles each includes a core and a silver-containing coating layer that coats the core ([0009]), and each of the second metallic particles is at least one selected from the group consisting of a silver particle and a silver alloy particle ([0009]).
In regards to claim 2, Bliss ‘985 further discloses wherein the second metallic particles include at least one kind selected from the group consisting of spherical particles and flaky particles (described in [0020], noting the second metallic particles are lamellae and flat, i.e. flaky).
In regards to claim 4, Bliss ‘985 further discloses wherein an average of proportion of the silver-containing coating layer in the first metallic particles is 0.1 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less (described in [0008]).
In regards to claim 5, Bliss ‘985 further discloses wherein a proportion of the first metallic particles in all the metallic particles is 10 mass% or more and 60 mass% or less (described in [0014], noting a proportion of the first metallic particles in all the metallic particles being about 56 mass% (= 250 g first metallic particles/(250 g first metallic particles + 200 g second metallic particles)); see also [0009]).
In regards to claim 6, Bliss ‘985 further discloses wherein the core is constituted of an organic particle or an inorganic particle (see [0008], noting the core is copper which is inorganic).
In regards to claim 7, Bliss ‘985 further discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising: the solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1); and an exterior body (11 – FIG. 1F; [0029]) that seals the solid electrolytic capacitor element (FIG. 1F, [0029]).
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kochi et al. (US 20130114184 and hereinafter Kochi ‘184).
In regards to claim 1, Kochi ‘184 discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor element (1 – FIG. 1; [0013]) comprising: an anode body (2 – FIG. 2B; [0013]); a dielectric layer (3 – FIG. 2B; [0013]) that is formed on the surface of the anode body (FIG. 2B); and a cathode part (6, 7 – FIG. 2B; [0013]) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer (FIG. 2B), wherein the cathode part includes a solid electrolyte layer (6 – FIG. 2B) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer, and includes a metallic particle-containing layer (7 – FIG. 2B) that contains metallic particles and a cured resin binder in at least a portion of the cathode part ([0019]-[0020]), the metallic particles include first metallic particles (first silver particles as described in [0045]) each containing silver and second metallic particles (second silver particles as described in [0045]) each containing silver, the first metallic particles each includes a core and a silver-containing coating layer that coats the core ([0045]), and each of the second metallic particles is at least one selected from the group consisting of a silver particle and a silver alloy particle ([0045]).
In regards to claim 5, Kochi ‘184 further discloses wherein a proportion of the first metallic particles in all the metallic particles is 10 mass% or more and 60 mass% or less (described in [0031]).
In regards to claim 6, Kochi ‘184 further discloses wherein the core is constituted of an organic particle or an inorganic particle ([0019], [0045]).
In regards to claim 7, Kochi ‘184 further discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising: the solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1); and an exterior body (12 – FIG. 1; [0016]) that seals the solid electrolytic capacitor element ([0013, FIG. 1]).
In regards to claim 8, Kochi ‘184 further discloses a plurality of the solid electrolytic capacitor elements that are laminated (FIG. 1, [0015]).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bliss ‘985 in view of Esaki (US 20230170105 and hereinafter Esaki ‘105).
In regards to claim 3, Bliss ‘985 further discloses wherein the second metallic particles include the flaky particles ([0020]). Bliss ‘985 fails to expressly disclose wherein the second metallic particles include the spherical particles, a mass ratio of the spherical particles to the flaky particles (= the spherical particles/the flaky particles) is 20/80 to 80/20.
Esaki ‘105 teaches wherein the second metallic particles include the spherical particles and the flaky particles ([0057]), a mass ratio of the spherical particles to the flaky particles (= the spherical particles/the flaky particles) is 20/80 to 80/20 ([0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Esaki ‘105 with Bliss ‘985 to incorporate the second metallic particles include the spherical particles, a mass ratio of the spherical particles to the flaky particles (= the spherical particles/the flaky particles) is 20/80 to 80/20 as taught by Esaki ‘105 in the structure taught by Bliss ‘985, as one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because such a combination and/or modification allows for increasing conductivity and adhesiveness of the obtained conductive resin layer (Esaki ‘105: [0057]).
Furthermore, while the specific ranges of “a mass ratio of the spherical particles to the flaky particles (= the spherical particles/the flaky particles) is 20/80 to 80/20” is not specifically recited in the cited references a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150228412 – [0011], [0087]-[0089]
US 20140334071 – [0038]
US 20080030929 – [0038]
CN 107331521 – [0022]
JP H1192739 – [0009]-[0011]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M DUBUISSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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.
/DANIEL M DUBUISSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2848
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2848