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.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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) 1-2, 5-7, 13-17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S56112931U (‘931) in view of Dobai et al. (US 2024/0194417) and Kodera (WO 2012105124).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
116
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, ‘931 discloses an electrolytic capacitor [0001] comprising:
an electrode foil (22); and
a lead member (Fig. 1) that is connected to the electrode foil (22),
wherein the lead member (Fig. 1) includes a lead wire (4) and a plate-shaped tab portion (6) that is provided at one end portion of the lead wire (4),
the tab portion (6) has a surface with a roughness Ra (line 55 – translation), and
the electrode foil (22) and the lead member (Fig. 1) are connected in an overlapping portion in which the tab portion (6) and the electrode foil (22) overlap each other when the electrode foil (22) is placed on the surface of the tab portion (6).
‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for the roughness Ra is 4 µm or more and the electrode foil and the lead member are connected by a crimping portion.
Dobai et al. disclose an electrolytic capacitor having an anode lead member, wherein the lead member is etched so that the lead member has a roughened surface that is at least 10 times greater than an area of a smooth surface [0037],[0039], (Ra of at least 4 µm).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the lead member art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the tab portion of ‘931 so that the arithmetic average roughness Ra is 4 µm, since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor where the anode is protected from surface dissolution.
Kodera discloses an electrolytic capacitor wherein the lead member is crimped to the electrode foil (see P: 5 of English translation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the lead member art before the effective filing date of the invention to attach the lead member to the electrode foil by a crimping step, since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor where the lead member is secured to the electrode foil.
Regarding claim 2, the modified ‘931 discloses the surface of the tab portion has an arithmetic average roughness Ra of 8 µm or more.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)
Regarding claim 5, ‘931 discloses the surface of the tab portion is covered with an oxide coating film (6).
Regarding claim 6, ‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for the oxide coating film has a thickness of 280 nm or more.
Dobai et al. disclose a tab portion having an oxide coating film, wherein the oxide coating film has a thickness of 280 nm or more [0055].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the oxide coating of ‘931 so that has a thickness of 280 nm or more, since such a modification would form a tab portion where the risk of contact between the electrolyte and tab is minimized.
Regarding claim 7, ‘931 discloses the electrode foil (22) includes a metal foil (English translation – L: 124-126) that includes a porous portion in a surface (L:124-126) thereof and a dielectric layer (L: 126-127) that covers the porous portion.
Regarding claim 13, ‘931 discloses the electrolytic capacitor has a rated voltage of 160 V or more.
While the modified ‘931 does not specifically state that the electrolytic capacitor has a rated voltage of 160 V or more, it is understood to be an inherent feature. When the modified structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 14, ‘931 discloses a method for producing an electrolytic capacitor comprising:
a first step of preparing an electrode foil (line 126);
a second step of obtaining a lead member (lines 49-67) that includes a lead wire 4) and a plate-shaped tab portion (6) that is provided at one end portion of the lead wire and has a surface with a roughness; and
a third step of placing the electrode foil on a surface of the tab portion to form an overlapping portion in which the tab portion and the electrode foil overlap each other (Fig. 3).
’931 discloses the claimed invention except for the surface has a roughness Ra of 4 µm or more and the method comprises a step of perforating the tab portion in the overlapping portion at a predetermined position, and crimping the electrode foil and the tab portion to connect the electrode foil and the lead member to each other.
Dobai et al. disclose an electrolytic capacitor having an anode lead member, wherein the lead member is etched so that the lead member has a roughened surface that is at least 10 times greater than an area of a smooth surface [0037], [0039] (Ra of at least 4 µm).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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)
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the lead member art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the tab portion of ‘931 so that the arithmetic average roughness Ra is 4 µm, since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor where the anode is protected from surface dissolution.
Kodera discloses an electrolytic capacitor wherein a step of perforating a tab portion in an overlapping portion at a predetermined position, and crimping the electrode foil and the tab portion to connect the electrode foil and the lead member to each other (P: 5 translation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the lead member art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of ‘931 with a step of perforating a tab portion in an overlapping portion at a predetermined position, and crimping the electrode foil and the tab portion to connect the electrode foil and the lead member to each other, since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor where the lead member is secured to the electrode foil.
Regarding claim 15, ‘931 discloses the surface of the tab portion is subjected to roughening processing (lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 16, ‘931 discloses the surface of the tab portion is subjected to a chemical conversion treatment (line 66).
Regarding claim 17, ‘931 discloses in the first step, the electrode foil that includes a metal foil that includes a porous portion in a surface thereof (line 125) and a dielectric layer (lines 126-127) that covers the porous portion (line 125) is prepared as an anode foil, and in the second step, the lead member is obtained as an anode lead member (lines 49-67).
Regarding claim 22, ‘931 discloses a step of preparing a cathode foil to which a cathode lead member is connected (lines 130-131); and
a step of spirally winding the anode foil (22) and the cathode foil (24) with a separator (28) interposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil to form a spirally wound body (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S56112931U (‘931), Dobai et al. (US 2024/0194417), and Kodera (WO 2012105124) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimizu (JP 2014197614).
Regarding claim 2, the modified ‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for the tab portion is 200 µm or more.
Shimizu discloses a tab for an electrolytic capacitor, wherein the tab has a thickness is 200 µm or more (Best-Mode section).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the tab portion is 200 µm or more, since such a modification would form a tab terminal having good current flow.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S56112931U (‘931), Dobai et al. (US 2024/0194417), and Kodera (WO 2012105124) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al. (US 2020/0006011).
Regarding claim 8, ‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for the electrode foil has a thickness of 75 µm or more.
Ogawa et al. disclose a foil for use in an electrode [0085], wherein the foil has a thickness of 75 µm or more [0085].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the capacitor of ‘931 with the electrode foil of Ogawa et al., since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor having improved electrostatic capacity.
Regarding claim 9, ‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for the porous portion has a thickness of 25 µm or more.
Ogawa et al. disclose a foil for use in an electrode [0085], wherein the foil has a porous portion with a thickness of 40 µm [0085].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the capacitor of ‘931 with the electrode foil of Ogawa et al., since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor having improved electrostatic capacity.
Regarding claim 10, ‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for the dielectric layer has a thickness of 450 nm or more.
It is well known in the electrolytic capacitor art to form a dielectric having a thickness greater than 450 nm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of ‘931 so that the dielectric has a thickness of greater than 450 nm, since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor having a desired voltage rating.
Regarding claim 11, ‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for the porous portion includes a plurality of tunnel-shaped pits that extend in a thickness direction of the porous portion.
Ogawa et al. disclose a foil for use in an electrode [0085], wherein the foil has a porous portion [0085] having a plurality of tunnel-shaped pits that extend in a thickness direction of the porous portion (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the capacitor of ‘931 with the electrode foil of Ogawa et al., since such a modification would form an electrolytic capacitor having improved electrostatic capacity.
Regarding claim 12, Ogawa et al. disclose the pits have a most frequent pore size of 50 nm or more [0085].
Claim(s) 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S56112931U (‘931), Dobai et al. (US 2024/0194417) and Kodera (WO 2012105124) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Aoyama et al. (US 20170133159).
Regarding claim 18, the modified ‘931 discloses a step of cutting the anode foil into a predetermined size prior to the third step (not illustrated); and
wherein, in the second step, the surface of the tab portion is subjected to a second chemical conversion treatment at a second chemical conversion voltage (L: 66).
The modified ‘931 discloses the claimed invention except for a step of subjecting an end face of the anode foil cut into the predetermined size to a first chemical conversion treatment at a first chemical conversion voltage after the third step.
Aoyama et al. disclose a process of producing an electrolytic capacitor comprising a step of subjecting an end face of the anode foil cut into the predetermined size to a first chemical conversion treatment at a first chemical conversion voltage after the third step ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of the modified ‘931 comprising a step of subjecting an end face of the anode foil cut into the predetermined size to a first chemical conversion treatment at a first chemical conversion voltage after the third step, since such a modification would electrically isolate the end face of the anode foil.
The modified ‘931 does not specifically state that the second chemical conversion treatment is done at a second chemical conversion voltage.
Anodization is a known oxide conversion treatment, wherein anodization is performed at a chemical conversion voltage.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use an anodizing treatment to form the oxide of the tab, since such a modification would form a thick, dense, uniform oxide on the tab.
Regarding claim 20, the modified ‘931 discloses wherein a first oxide coating film that covers the end face of the anode foil is formed through the first chemical conversion treatment ([0080] – Aoyama et al.), and
a second oxide coating film (‘931 - 16 ,line 61) that covers the surface of the tab portion is formed through the second chemical conversion treatment (‘931 - line 61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 19 and 21 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: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest an electrolytic capacitor:
wherein the surface of the tab portion has a maximum height roughness Rz of 30 µm or more (claim 3).
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 method for producing an electrolytic capacitor:
wherein the second chemical conversion voltage is larger than the first chemical conversion voltage (claim 19); and
wherein the second oxide coating film is thickness than the first oxide coating film (claim 21).
Conclusion
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