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 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.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/027019. The Office notes that WO 2019/027019 was submitted as part of an IDS filed 24 June 2024.
With respect to claim 13, WO ‘019 discloses a liquid component for an electrolytic capacitor, comprising: a non-aqueous solvent (see paragraph [0065]); and an antioxidant component dissolved in the non-aqueous solvent (see paragraph [0065], noting that the electrolytic solution contains the additive, which is the antioxidant), wherein the non-aqueous solvent includes at least an alcohol solvent (see paragraph [0065]), and the antioxidant component includes a first antioxidant having no boiling point or a boiling point of 320°C or higher (see paragraph [0049]).
With respect to claim 14, WO ‘019 discloses that the first antioxidant at least includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a phenol antioxidant IA having a phenolic hydroxy group and a phosphorus antioxidant. See paragraph [0049].
With respect to claim 15, WO ‘019 discloses that the phenol antioxidant IA includes at least one selected from the group consisting of (a) a phenol antioxidant in which an aromatic ring has one or two or more phenolic hydroxy group and at least one selected from the group consisting of an alkyl group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms and an alkoxy group having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, (b) a phenol antioxidant in which an aromatic ring has one or two or more phenolic hydroxy group and a hydrogen atom is linked to at least one of carbon atoms adjacent to a carbon atom having the phenolic hydroxy group, and (c) a phenol antioxidant in which an aromatic ring has one or two or more phenolic hydroxy group and have no substituents. See paragraph [0049].
With respect to claim 16, WO ‘019 discloses that a concentration of the first antioxidant in the liquid component for an electrolytic capacitor is 0.1 mass% or more and 50 mass% or less. See paragraph [0051].
With respect to claim 17, WO ‘019 discloses that the alcohol solvent at least includes at least one first alcohol solvent selected from the group consisting of an alkylene glycol having 2 to 6 carbon atoms and glycerin. See paragraph [0065].
With respect to claim 18, WO ‘019 discloses that a mass ratio of the first antioxidant to the first alcohol solvent (= first antioxidant / first alcohol solvent) is 0.005 or more and 2 or less. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0051].
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/027019 in view of Kubo et al. (US 2020/0203082). The Office notes that WO 2019/027019 was submitted as part of an IDS filed 24 June 2024.
With respect to claim 1, WO ‘019 teaches an electrolytic capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a container with an opening (see paragraph [0084]); a capacitor element contained in the container (see paragraph [0084]); and a sealing body that seals the opening (see paragraph [0084]), wherein the capacitor element includes an anode body provided with a dielectric layer on its surface (see paragraphs [0084]-[0085]), and a conductive polymer that covers a portion of the dielectric layer (see paragraphs [0084]-[0085]), an antioxidant component is present in a space closed by the container and the sealing body, and the antioxidant component includes a first antioxidant having no boiling point or a boiling point of 320°C or higher (see paragraph [0049]).
WO ‘019 fails to teach that the sealing body includes an elastic polymer.
Kubo, on the other hand, teaches that the sealing body includes an elastic polymer and a hindered phenol compound. See the abstract. Such a modification results in the suppression of thermal degradation of the sealing body. See paragraphs [0004]-[0005].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify WO ‘019, as taught by Kubo, in order to suppress the thermal degradation of the sealing body.
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that the first antioxidant includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a hydroxy group, a nitrogen atom, an oxygen atom, a sulfur atom, and a phosphorus atom. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0049].
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that the first antioxidant at least includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a phenol antioxidant IA having a phenolic hydroxy group and a phosphorus antioxidant. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0049].
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that the first antioxidant at least includes a phenol antioxidant Ia having two or more phenolic hydroxy groups. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0049].
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that the first antioxidant at least includes a hindered phenol compound. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0049].
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that the electrolytic capacitor includes a solid electrolyte layer that includes the conductive polymer and covers a portion of the dielectric layer (see WO ‘019, paragraph [0086]), and the solid electrolyte layer includes the first antioxidant (see WO ‘019, paragraphs [0048] and [0049]).
With respect to claim 10, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that a mass ratio of the first antioxidant to the conductive polymer (= first antioxidant / conductive polymer) is 0.01 or more and 300 or less. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0051].
With respect to claim 11, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that the conductive polymer includes a conjugated polymer and a dopant, and a molar ratio of the first antioxidant to total monomer units of the conjugated polymer (= first antioxidant / total monomer units) is 0.1 or more and 200 or less. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0051].
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of WO ‘019 and Kubo teach that a mass ratio of the first antioxidant to the elastic polymer (= first antioxidant / elastic polymer) is 0.001 or more and 1 or less. See WO ‘019, paragraph [0051].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: with respect to claim 6, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that a portion of the first antioxidant is present in a state of being undissolved in the liquid component, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of base claim 1. Claims 7 and 8 are allowable based on their dependency from claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ning et al. (US 2011/0171366) discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor including an antioxidant, but fails to teach the specifics of the antioxidant. WO 2013/094462 discloses a conductive polymer wherein the antioxidant suppresses deterioration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION R FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 5:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m..
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.
/DION R. FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848