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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 18-23, in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/05/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 has been considered by the examiner except where lined through.
Notably, Cite No. 1 in the Foreign Patent Documents section has been lined through because the document is not locatable. It appears that WO 01/19555A was intended.
The incorrect citation also appears as a listed equivalent in Cite. No. 2 but Cite. No. 2 has not been lined through.
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 18-23 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 18 recites in part “…the aliphatic carboxylic acid compound excluding stearic acid, palmitic acid, and a polymer;…” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the aliphatic carboxylic compound can include one or a combination of these materials so long as all three together are not present. For example, would the combination of stearic and palmitic acid be permissible so long as a polymer was not included? Examiner notes that if Applicant intends that the method does not include any of the recited components, i.e. stearic acid, palmitic acid, or polymer, then the claims would need to be amended to reflect that. For example, and not representative of the sole option to overcome the rejection, the phrase “and/or” could be included.
Claims 19-23 depend from claim 18.
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.
Claims 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breznova et al. (U.S. 2009/0185330 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 22, Breznova et al. (hereinafter “Breznova”) teaches a sintered anode pellet etched with an organic acid for use in an electrolytic capacitor (Title). Specifically, Breznova teaches a method of forming an anode of an electrolytic capacitor (Paragraph 0003) wherein a powder containing a valve metal composition is compacted and pressed into a pellet (meeting claimed ‘performing compression-molding after filling a predetermined mold… to obtain a compact’), the pellet possesses a surface etched with an organic acid, and a dieletric layer overlying the etched surface of the pellet and a solid electrolyte layer overlying the dielectric layer (Paragraph 0004). Breznova also teaches that the organic acid may be selected from any suitable weak organic acid such as carboxylic acids and, particularly listed is glutaric acid (Paragraph 0022).
Breznova does not teach that the organic acid is combined with the valve metal powder before the powder is compacted into a pellet. However, Breznova appreciates that the organic acid “provides a relatively uniform surface for the creation of the dielectric which in turn leads to a dielectric layer having a substantially uniform thickness and homogeneous amorphous structure and thus improved leakage current and stability” as well as potentially providing other residual benefits such as removing metallic impurities from the surface of the anode (Paragraph 0021).
Thus, it would be obvious to try to combine the valve metal powder with the organic acid before loading into the press to compact the powder and produce the pellet so that the surfaces of the powder material are etched before compaction to achieve additional improvements in the leakage current and stability of the resultant anode. Specifically, POSITA would find it obvious to try to etch the powdered material before compaction to produce the pellet such that more of the valve metal powder surface is etched which would, in turn, produce better dielectric properties because a greater surface area of the valve metal had been etched before compaction.
Notably, glutaric acid is a claimed species in instant dependent claim 22; thus, glutaric acid must possess a melting point of the aliphatic carboxylic acid compound is more than or equal to 35C. Nevertheless, glutaric acid has a melting point of 95 to 98C.
With regard to the claimed step requiring ‘removing the aliphatic carboxylic acid compound included in the compact’, it necessarily follows that heating to the sintering temperature would remove the organic acid because the sintering temperature of the valve metal material would be beyond the boiling point of the organic acid.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Breznova teaches the method as applied to claim 18 above and glutaric acid has a melting point of 95 to 98C and a boiling point of 200 C which meets the claimed ranges of ’35-120C’ and ‘less than or equal to 400C’, respectively.
Regarding claim 21, Breznova teaches the method as applied to claim 18 above but is silent to the particularly claimed species of lauric, tridecylic, myristic, and pentadecylic acid. However, Breznova’s general teaching at Paragraph 0022 that ‘any suitable weak organic acid may be used in the present invention” would be sufficient to a person of ordinary skill to select one of the claimed species in view of the genus taught by Breznova. Lauric, tridecylic, myristic, and pentadecylic acids are well known and commercially available such that the selection of one or a combination of these species would not yield anything more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Breznova teaches the method as applied to claim 18 above but is silent to the content of the aliphatic carboxylic acid compound in the composite powder. However, it has been held that there is motivation to optimize result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05. In the instant case, the selection of the claimed range of ‘more than or equal to 0.002 parts by mass and less than or equal to 0.1 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of the raw material powder’ would be prima facie obvious to determine because the ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate that the content of the organic acid would impact the etching of the powder material. Thus, determination of the optimum amount of organic acid would be routine and not be expected to yield anything more than predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Weaver et al. (U.S. 2016/0181020) directed to an anode for use in a high voltage electrolytic capacitor but includes stearic acid lubricant (Paragraph 0067); Yoshida et al. (U.S. 2006/0062958) directed to a capacitor comprising an anode composed of a valve metal porous body and a dielectric layer but contains polymeric solvents; and Liu et al. (U.S. 2007/0221507) directed to anodizing electrolytes using a dual acid system for high voltage electrolytic capacitor anodes but includes PEG 400 (Paragraph 0031).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights