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 4, 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2012-069644.
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘644 discloses a capacitor (see the abstract) comprising: a capacitive element arranged in a housing (see drawing 1, elements 3 and 2), wherein in or on the housing a gas dissipation element configured for reducing a gas pressure inside the capacitor is arranged (see drawing 1, element 7, wherein a portion of silicon in the gas dissipation element or in an active portion of the gas dissipation element is 5 wt% or higher (see paragraph [0015], noting that the cap member is made of silicon).
With respect to claim 9, JP ‘644 discloses that the gas dissipation element has an active portion configured for reducing the gas pressure inside the capacitor and a passive portion that provides a mechanical connection between the housing and the active portion. See drawing 1 and paragraph [0015], noting that the interior of the gas dissipation element actively reduces gas pressure, while the surrounding portions of the element provide connection to the housing.
With respect to claim 11, JP ‘644 discloses that the active portion of the gas dissipation element has a cylindrical form. See drawings 1 and 2, noting that element 9 has a circular cross-section in combination with a thickness, which forms a cylinder.
With respect to claim 12, JP ‘644 discloses that the active portion of the gas dissipation element is configured to irreversibly rupture or irreversibly disconnect from the passive portion upon a pressure increase which cannot be compensated by the non-destructive pressure reduction capabilities of the gas dissipation element. See paragraph [0015].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Galvagni et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2012/0106029).
With respect to claim 6, Galvagni discloses a capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a capacitive element arranged in a housing (see FIG. 2, capacitive element 20 and housing 12), wherein a fraction of volume occupied by an anode with respect to a total volume inside the housing is 20% or higher (see paragraphs [0020] and [0043]).
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 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galvagni et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2012/0106029) in view of JP 2012/069644.
With respect to claim 7, Galvagni fails to teach that in or on the housing, a gas dissipation element configured for reducing a gas pressure inside the capacitor is arranged.
JP ‘644, on the other hand, teaches a gas dissipation element configured for reducing a gas pressure inside the capacitor is arranged. See paragraph [0015]. Such an arrangement results in the release of internal gas to the outside and prevents the case from being damaged by a pressure increase of the capacitor. See paragraph [0015].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Galvagni, in view of JP ‘644, in order to prevent the case from being damaged by a pressure increase of the capacitor.
With respect to claim 13, the combined teachings of Galvagni and JP ‘644 teach that the gas dissipation element or an active portion comprises silicon and the amount of silicon is 5 wt% or higher. See paragraph [0015], noting that the cap member is made of silicon.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012/069644.
With respect to claim 10, JP ‘644 fails to explicitly teach that an active volume of the gas dissipation element or the volume of an active portion of the gas dissipation element is 0.05 mm3 or higher.
However, the sizing of the gas dissipation element is considered to be a design choice based on the desired amount of gas to expel from the capacitor. Further, the Office notes that the modification in question is merely a change in size/proportion from the prior art, which has been determined to be obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), citing Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Finally, the instant specification fails to establish a criticality to the sizing of the gas dissipation element, but merely notes that the size efficiently transports gas out of the housing.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012/069644 in view of WO 2024/143420.
With respect to claim 14, JP ‘644 teaches that at least a portion of the capacitive element is soaked with or immersed in an electrolyte (see abstract), but fails to teach that the electrolyte comprises an organic acid having a pKa of 4.1 or higher.
WO ‘420, on the other hand, teaches the use of a dicarboxylic acid having a pKa of 4.52 or greater. See the abstract. Such an arrangement results in suppression in the deterioration of the conductive polymer and suppression of ESR changes. See paragraph [0036].
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 JP ‘644, as taught by WO ‘420, in order to suppress both polymer deterioration and ESR in the capacitor.
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of JP ‘644 and WO ‘420 teach that the organic acid is an at least dicarboxylic acid having a pKai of 4.1 or higher. See WO ‘420, the abstract and paragraph [0036].
With respect to claim 16, the combined teachings of JP ‘644 and WO ‘420 teach that the concentration of the organic acid is at least 0.1 wt%. See WO ‘420, at least examples 15-22.
With respect to claim 17, the combined teachings of JP ‘644 and WO ‘420 teach that a main component of the electrolyte is a polyol. See WO ‘420, paragraph [0043], noting the electrolyte includes polyhydric alcohols.
With respect to claim 18, JP ‘644 fails to teach that the capacitive element has an anode that comprises a sintered valve metal.
WO ‘420, on the other hand, teaches that the capacitive element has an anode that comprises a sintered valve metal. See the abstract and paragraph [0026]. Such an arrangement is well-known in the art for forming a solid electrolytic capacitor having a large electrostatic capacitance and high capacity. See the background and paragraph [0026].
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 JP ‘644, as taught by WO ‘420, in order to provide large electrostatic capacitance and high capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 19-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: with respect to claims 1 and 20, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that the gas dissipation element is chemisorbed onto the housing, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of claims 1 and 20, respectively. Claims 19-20 and 22 are allowed by virtue of their respective dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 8 is 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 8, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that the gas dissipation element is chemisorbed onto the housing, when taken in conjunction with the remaining limitations of base claim 4.
Conclusion
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