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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 2020/0006011) in view of Takagi (JP 2012043960 – Cited on IDS filed 7/26/24).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 15, Ogawa discloses an electrode foil (and method for producing the electrode foil) for an electrolytic capacitor comprising: an anode body (fig. 2 (110)) that contains a valve action metal (paragraph [0045]); a first dielectric layer (fig. 2 (121)) that covers at least a part of the anode body (fig. 2); and a second dielectric layer (fig. 2 (122)) that covers at least a part of the first dielectric layer (fig. 2), wherein the second dielectric layer has a higher dielectric constant than the first dielectric layer (paragraph [0070]), the first dielectric layer contains a first metal oxide (paragraphs [0022] and [0036]), and the second dielectric layer contains a second metal oxide with a higher dielectric constant than the first metal oxide (paragraphs [0023], [0036] and [0070]), a thickness T2 of the second dielectric layer is greater than a thickness T1 of the first dielectric layer (paragraph [0054]), and the first dielectric layer is a layer that suppresses oxygen diffusion from the second dielectric layer to the anode body (paragraph [0015] of the instant application states that “Since a first dielectric layer with a low dielectric constant that has excellent insulation is interposed between the anode body and the second dielectric layer, oxygen migration from the second dielectric layer to the anode body is suppressed”. Since the first dielectric layer of Ogawa has a lower dielectric constant than the second dielectric layer, the oxygen diffusion from the second dielectric layer to the anode body is similarly considered to be inherently suppressed).
Ogawa fails to disclose, in a first dielectric layer, a first metal contained in the first metal oxide is in atomic layers.
Takagi discloses an electrolytic capacitor (paragraph [0001]) wherein the dielectric layer is formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (paragraph [0011] – note ALD is indicated as providing an improvement over conventional electrolytic capacitors discussed in paragraphs [0002]-[0005], which use chemical conversion treatment, similar to Ogawa).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use atomic layer deposition for the dielectric layer, as taught by Takagi, in the invention of Ogawa for the purpose of providing an increased withstand voltage (paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Ogawa discloses the electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claims 1 and 15, wherein the second metal oxide contains at least one second metal selected from the group consisting of tantalum, titanium, zirconium, niobium, and hafnium (paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ogawa discloses the electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claims 3 and 16, wherein the second metal oxide contains the second metal and at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon and aluminum (paragraph [0058]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Ogawa discloses the electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claims 1 and 15, wherein the first metal is at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon and aluminum (paragraphs [0022] and [0036]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Ogawa discloses the electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claims 5 and 18, wherein the first metal contains aluminum (paragraphs [0022] and [0036]), and a ratio T1/T2 of the thickness T1 of the first dielectric layer to the thickness T2 of the second dielectric layer is 0.6 or less (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Ogawa discloses the electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claims 1 and 12, wherein the thickness T1 of the first dielectric layer is 0.3 nm or more (paragraphs [0052] and [0054], note paragraph 0054 discloses the thickness ratio of T1/T2 may be 0.01, and paragraph 0052 discloses the thickness of T2 ranges from 0.5nm to 200nm, inclusive. Therefore, for a T2 thickness of 30nm-200nm, the thickness range of T1 would be 0.3nm or more).
Regarding claim 9, Ogawa discloses an electrolytic capacitor comprising: the electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1; and a cathode portion (fig. 5 (8)) that covers at least a part of the second dielectric layer (fig. 5 (7) and paragraph [0079]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Ogawa discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 9, wherein the cathode portion contains a solid electrolyte (fig. 5 (9)) and paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claim 14, Ogawa discloses the method for producing an electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claim 12, wherein in the third step, the second dielectric layer is formed through atomic layer deposition (paragraph [0052]).
Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US 2020/0006011) in view of in view of Takagi (JP 2012043960) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Takatani et al. (US 2008/0047116).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Ogawa as modified discloses the electrode foil for an electrolytic capacitor according to claims 5 and 18, wherein a ratio T1/T2 of the thickness T1 of the first dielectric layer to the thickness T2 of the second dielectric layer is 0.45 or less (paragraph [0054]).
Ogawa as modified does not disclose wherein the first metal contains silicon.
Takatani discloses an anode body (fig. 3 (1)), a first dielectric layer (fig. 3 (21)) on the anode body and a second dielectric layer (fig. 3 (22)) on the first dielectric layer, wherein the first dielectric layer contains silicon (paragraph [0040] noting that the first dielectric layer contains “almost no silicon”, infers that some silicon is present).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate that the first dielectric layer includes silicon, as taught by Takatani, in the invention of Ogawa as modified for the purpose of providing a capacitor with higher capacitance and lower leakage current (paragraph [0008], note also the suppression of oxygen diffusion by the first dielectric layer as shown in figure 4).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy J Dole whose telephone number is (571)272-2229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571)272-4483. 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.
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights