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 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the combination fails to disclose the claim as currently presented, specifically applicant argues none of the references disclose or suggest a moisture soaking treatment corresponding to item c. Applicant further argues the office has not explicitly recited which variable results in gas generation.
The examiner finds applicant’s argument to be unpersuasive. Firstly, items a-f relate to the method used to measure the amount of gas generation. However, this limitation is considered to be a product by process claim since the claim language is directed to the step required to obtain a gas generation measurement. Therefore, this step has been given no patentable weight since it has been held that the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. Secondly, as noted in the previous action Kurita ‘062 discloses that the total amount of gas generated during reflow is a result effective variable, particularly for reducing swelling of the outer package which allows for improved reliability of the capacitor ([0052] & [0055]). That is to say Kurita ‘062 discloses if gas generated during reflow is high, the case will swell and reliably of the capacitor with be deteriorated. It is gas generation amount that is the result, effective variable.
The examiner has further provided new grounds of rejection based on the amendment (specifically the addition of new claim 11).
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. (US 2010/0265634) in view of Kurita et al. (US 2012/0087062).
In regards to claim 1,
Freeman ‘634 discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising:
a capacitor element (fig. 6; [0033]); and
an exterior body (6 – fig. 6; [0033]) that seals the capacitor element,
wherein the capacitor element includes an anode body (2 – fig. 6; [0033]), a dielectric layer (3 – fig. 6; [0033]) that is formed on a surface of the anode body, a cathode part (5 – fig. 6; [0033]) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer, an anode lead (7 – fig. 6; [0033]) with one end portion electrically connected to the anode body, and a cathode lead (8 – fig. 6; [0033]) with one end portion electrically connected to the cathode part,
another end portion of the anode lead and another end portion of the cathode lead are drawn out from the exterior body (seen in fig. 6),
the cathode part includes a solid electrolyte layer ([0033]) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer. Freeman ‘634 fails to explicitly disclose a total amount of gas generated in the following (e) and the following (f) is 1600 µL or less, when the solid electrolytic capacitor is subjected to: (a) heating at 155°C for 24 hours; (b) cooling to 30°C at 60% RH or less; (c) leaving to stand for 168 hours at 30°C and 60% RH; (d) cutting at a center in a length direction at 25°C and under an inert atmosphere; (e) heating the cut solid electrolytic capacitor to 150°C at a rate of 50°C/min under an inert atmosphere, heating from 150°C to 200°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min, heating from 200°C to 260°C at a rate of 40°C/min, continuously heating at 260°C for 10 seconds, and cooling from 260°C to 30°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min; and (f) repeating the (e) two more times.
Kurita ‘062 discloses that the total amount of gas generated during reflow is a result effective variable, particularly for reducing swelling of the outer package which allows for improved reliability of the capacitor ([0052] & [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Freeman ‘634 such that a total amount of gas generated in the following (e) and the following (f) is 1600 µL or less, when the solid electrolytic capacitor is subjected to: (a) heating at 155°C for 24 hours; (b) cooling to 30°C at 60% RH or less; (c) leaving to stand for 168 hours at 30°C and 60% RH; (d) cutting at a center in a length direction at 25°C and under an inert atmosphere; (e) heating the cut solid electrolytic capacitor to 150°C at a rate of 50°C/min under an inert atmosphere, heating from 150°C to 200°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min, heating from 200°C to 260°C at a rate of 40°C/min, continuously heating at 260°C for 10 seconds, and cooling from 260°C to 30°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min; and (f) repeating the (e) two more times to obtain a capacitor with improved reliability as outer packaging swelling is reduced, as taught by Kurita ‘062. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 2,
Freeman ‘634 as modified by Kurita ‘062 further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer contains a conjugated polymer and a dopant, and
the dopant includes a benzenesulfonic acid compound ([0040-0045] of Freeman ‘634).
In regards to claim 3,
Freeman ‘634 as modified by Kurita ‘062 further discloses, wherein the solid electrolyte layer contains a conjugated polymer and a dopant, and
the dopant includes a compound that has an aromatic ring, at least one sulfo group bonded to the aromatic ring, and at least two functional groups selected from the group consisting of a carboxy group bonded to the aromatic ring and a hydroxy group bonded to the aromatic ring ([0040-0045] of Freeman ‘634)
In regards to claim 4,
Freeman ‘634 as modified by Kurita ‘062 further discloses wherein the solid electrolyte layer contains a conjugated polymer and a dopant, and
the dopant includes a compound that has an aromatic ring, at least one sulfo group bonded to the aromatic ring, and at least two carboxy groups bonded to the aromatic ring, and does not have a hydroxy group ([0040-0045] of Freeman ‘634)
In regards to claim 5,
Freeman ‘634 as modified by Kurita ‘062 further discloses wherein the aromatic ring is a benzene ring ([0045] of Freeman ‘634)
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 6,229,687) in view of Kurita ‘062.
In regards to claim 1,
Wada ‘687 discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising:
a capacitor element (11 – fig. 2; C2:L41-62); and
an exterior body (17 – fig. 7; C4:L47) that seals the capacitor element,
wherein the capacitor element includes an anode body (5 – fig. 2; C2:L41-62), a dielectric layer (7 – fig. 2; C2:L41-62) that is formed on a surface of the anode body, a cathode part (8-10 – fig. 2; C2:L41-62) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer, an anode lead (12 – fig. 4-5; C2:L63) with one end portion electrically connected to the anode body, and a cathode lead (12 – fig. 4-5; C2:L63) with one end portion electrically connected to the cathode part,
another end portion of the anode lead and another end portion of the cathode lead are drawn out from the exterior body (seen in fig. 7),
the cathode part includes a solid electrolyte layer (8 – fig. 2; C2:L41-62) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer. Wada ‘687 fails to explicitly disclose a total amount of gas generated in the following (e) and the following (f) is 1600 µL or less, when the solid electrolytic capacitor is subjected to: (a) heating at 155°C for 24 hours; (b) cooling to 30°C at 60% RH or less; (c) leaving to stand for 168 hours at 30°C and 60% RH; (d) cutting at a center in a length direction at 25°C and under an inert atmosphere; (e) heating the cut solid electrolytic capacitor to 150°C at a rate of 50°C/min under an inert atmosphere, heating from 150°C to 200°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min, heating from 200°C to 260°C at a rate of 40°C/min, continuously heating at 260°C for 10 seconds, and cooling from 260°C to 30°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min; and (f) repeating the (e) two more times.
Kurita ‘062 discloses that the total amount of gas generated during reflow is a result effective variable, particularly for reducing swelling of the outer package which allows for improved reliability of the capacitor ([0052] & [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Wada ‘687 such that a total amount of gas generated in the following (e) and the following (f) is 1600 µL or less, when the solid electrolytic capacitor is subjected to: (a) heating at 155°C for 24 hours; (b) cooling to 30°C at 60% RH or less; (c) leaving to stand for 168 hours at 30°C and 60% RH; (d) cutting at a center in a length direction at 25°C and under an inert atmosphere; (e) heating the cut solid electrolytic capacitor to 150°C at a rate of 50°C/min under an inert atmosphere, heating from 150°C to 200°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min, heating from 200°C to 260°C at a rate of 40°C/min, continuously heating at 260°C for 10 seconds, and cooling from 260°C to 30°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min; and (f) repeating the (e) two more times to obtain a capacitor with improved reliability as outer packaging swelling is reduced, as taught by Kurita ‘062. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada ‘687 as modified by Kurita ‘062 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2019207905A hereafter referred to as Nakatsugawa.
In regards to claim 6,
Wada ‘687 as modified by Kurita ‘062 further discloses wherein each of the anode lead and the cathode lead is divided into an embedded part that includes the one end portion and is embedded in the exterior body and an exposed part that includes the other end portion and is exposed from the exterior body (fig. 7 of Wada ‘687),
at least one of the anode lead and the cathode lead has a rough surface with an interface developed area ratio Sdr (C4:L25-41 of Wada ‘687 – surface is roughened and thus will inherently have an Sdr), and the rough surface is present on at least a portion of the embedded part (C4:L25-41 of Wada ‘687– entire lead frame is sandblasted prior to resin packaging being formed). Wada ‘687 as modified by Kurita ‘062 fails to disclose the Sdr is 0.4 or more.
Nakatsugawa discloses a lead frame has a rough surface with an interface developed area ratio Sdr of 0.4 or more (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Wada ‘687 as modified by Kurita ‘062 such that the Sdr is 0.4 or more as taught by Nakatsugawa to ensure excellent adhesion between the lead frame and exterior resin.
In regards to claim 7,
Wada ‘687 as modified by Kurita ‘062 and Nakatsugawa further discloses wherein each of the anode lead and the cathode lead has the rough surface (C4:L25-41 of Wada ‘687), and
each of the rough surface is present on at least a portion of the embedded part (C4:L25-41 of Wada ‘687 – entire lead frame is sandblasted).
In regards to claim 8,
Wada ‘687 as modified by Kurita ‘062 and Nakatsugawa further discloses wherein the embedded part of the anode lead has a contact surface p that is in contact with the exterior body (fig. 4 of Wada ‘687),
the embedded part of the cathode lead has a contact surface n that is in contact with the exterior body (fig. 4 of Wada ‘687),
a percentage of the area of the rough surface in the area of the contact surface p is 50% or more (C4:L25-41 of Wada ‘687 – entire lead frame is sandblasted), and
a percentage of the area of the rough surface in the area of the contact surface n is 50% or more (C4:L25-41 of Wada ‘687 – entire lead frame is sandblasted).
In regards to claim 9,
Wada ‘687 as modified by Kurita ‘062 and Nakatsugawa further discloses wherein the rough surface is present on at least a portion of the embedded part and is present on at least a portion of the exposed part (C4:L25-41 of Wada ‘687 – entire lead frame is sandblasted).
Claim(s) 1 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman ‘634 in view of Muneyasu et al. (US 2019/0333703).
In regards to claim 1,
Freeman ‘634 discloses a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising:
a capacitor element (fig. 6; [0033]); and
an exterior body (6 – fig. 6; [0033]) that seals the capacitor element,
wherein the capacitor element includes an anode body (2 – fig. 6; [0033]), a dielectric layer (3 – fig. 6; [0033]) that is formed on a surface of the anode body, a cathode part (5 – fig. 6; [0033]) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer, an anode lead (7 – fig. 6; [0033]) with one end portion electrically connected to the anode body, and a cathode lead (8 – fig. 6; [0033]) with one end portion electrically connected to the cathode part,
another end portion of the anode lead and another end portion of the cathode lead are drawn out from the exterior body (seen in fig. 6),
the cathode part includes a solid electrolyte layer ([0033]) that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer. Freeman ‘634 fails to explicitly disclose a total amount of gas generated in the following (e) and the following (f) is 1600 µL or less, when the solid electrolytic capacitor is subjected to: (a) heating at 155°C for 24 hours; (b) cooling to 30°C at 60% RH or less; (c) leaving to stand for 168 hours at 30°C and 60% RH; (d) cutting at a center in a length direction at 25°C and under an inert atmosphere; (e) heating the cut solid electrolytic capacitor to 150°C at a rate of 50°C/min under an inert atmosphere, heating from 150°C to 200°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min, heating from 200°C to 260°C at a rate of 40°C/min, continuously heating at 260°C for 10 seconds, and cooling from 260°C to 30°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min; and (f) repeating the (e) two more times.
Muneyasu ‘703 discloses that the total amount of gas generated during reflow is a result effective variable, particularly for preventing degradation of a sealing property of the capacitor ([0012]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the capacitor of Freeman ‘634 such that a total amount of gas generated in the following (e) and the following (f) is 1600 µL or less, when the solid electrolytic capacitor is subjected to: (a) heating at 155°C for 24 hours; (b) cooling to 30°C at 60% RH or less; (c) leaving to stand for 168 hours at 30°C and 60% RH; (d) cutting at a center in a length direction at 25°C and under an inert atmosphere; (e) heating the cut solid electrolytic capacitor to 150°C at a rate of 50°C/min under an inert atmosphere, heating from 150°C to 200°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min, heating from 200°C to 260°C at a rate of 40°C/min, continuously heating at 260°C for 10 seconds, and cooling from 260°C to 30°C at a rate of 16.7°C/min; and (f) repeating the (e) two more times to obtain a capacitor wherein the sealing property is not degraded, as taught by Muneyasu ‘703. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 11,
Freeman ‘634 as modified by Muneyasu ‘703 further discloses wherein the exterior body comprises an epoxy resin ([0033] of Freeman ‘634 &[0037-0039] of Muneyasu ‘703).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 is/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:
The prior art does not teach or suggest (in combination with the other claim limitations) wherein Sdr is 0.6 or more, a percentage of an area of the rough surface in a surface area of the embedded part may be 80% or more, the rough surface extends continuously from the embedded part into at least a part of the exposed part (by > 0.3 mm along a lead surface (claim 10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0278039 – fig. 7
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 J 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 2847
Prosecution Insights