DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-22 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, set forth below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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 1-9 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0214199) in view of Kato et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0057889).
With respect to claim 1, Ueda teaches an electrolytic capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a capacitor element including an anode part and a cathode part (see paragraph [0027]); an anode lead frame electrically connected to the anode part (see FIG. 1, element 7, and paragraph [0028]); a cathode lead frame electrically connected to the cathode part (see FIG. 1, element 9, and paragraph [0028]); and an outer package covering the capacitor element (see FIG. 1, element 11, and paragraph [0036]), wherein: the anode lead frame includes an anode buried part buried in the outer package (see FIG. 2, noting that portion 7b is exposed from the outer package), the cathode lead frame includes a cathode buried part buried in the outer package (see FIG. 3, noting that portion 9b is exposed from the outer package), the anode buried part includes a first part overlapping the anode part and a second part not overlapping the anode part (see FIG. 2, noting that element 7a overlaps the anode part, while element 7c does not overlap the anode part), a surface of the second part includes a plurality of recesses (see FIG. 2, element 7c having grooves 7G).
Ueda fails to teach a protrusion is provided at an outer edge of each of the plurality of recesses.
Kato, on the other hand, teaches teach a protrusion is provided at an outer edge of each of the plurality of recesses. See FIG. 1(b), elements 30a and paragraph [0018]. Such an arrangement results in a reduction of heat conduction and the leakage current is improved. See paragraph [0020].
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 Ueda, as taught by Kato, in order to reduce heat conduction and improve leakage current.
With respect to claim 2, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that the protrusion is formed in an annular shape along the outer edge of the each of the plurality of recesses. See Kato, FIG. 1(b).
With respect to claim 3, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, in a first recess and a second recess adjacent to each other along the surface of the second part among the plurality of recesses, the protrusion positioned at the outer edge of the first recess and the protrusion positioned at the outer edge of the second recess are separated from each other. See Kato, FIG. 1(b).
With respect to claim 4, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato fail to teach that a depth of each of the plurality of recesses ranges from 10 µm to 55 µm, inclusive. However, Ueda notes that a depth of the groove is 1% to 80% of thickness T of the frame to keep the strength of the frame. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the depth of the grooves is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 5, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that a height of the protrusion ranges from 0.1 µm to 50 µm, inclusive. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the height of the protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 6, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that a ratio of a depth of each of the plurality of recesses to a height of the protrusion ranges from 0.2 to 550, inclusive. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the depth of the grooves and height of the protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 7, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the second part, a ratio of a total area of the plurality of recesses to an area of the first surface of the second part ranges from 5% to 25%, inclusive, per unit area. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the area of the grooves is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the second part, a ratio of a total area of a plurality of protrusions including the protrusion to an area of the first surface of the second part ranges from 5% to 30%, inclusive, per unit area. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the total area of the protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 9, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the second part, a ratio of a total area of the plurality of recesses to a total area of a plurality of protrusions including the protrusion ranges from 0.16 to 5, inclusive, per unit area. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the total area of the grooves and protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 11, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that the surface of the second part is in contact with the outer package. See Ueda, FIG. 1.
With respect to claim 12, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that a surface of the cathode buried part includes the plurality of recesses. See Ueda, FIG. 3.
With respect to claim 13, Ueda teaches an electrolytic capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a capacitor element including an anode part and a cathode part (see paragraph [0027]); an anode lead frame electrically connected to the anode part (see FIG. 1, element 7, and paragraph [0028]); a cathode lead frame electrically connected to the cathode part (see FIG. 1, element 9, and paragraph [0028]); and an outer package covering the capacitor element (see FIG. 1, element 11, and paragraph [0036]), wherein: the anode lead frame includes an anode buried part buried in the outer package (see FIG. 2, noting that portion 7b is exposed from the outer package), the cathode lead frame includes a cathode buried part buried in the outer package (see FIG. 3, noting that portion 9b is exposed from the outer package), a surface of the cathode buried part includes a plurality of recesses (see FIG. 3, element 9c having grooves 9G).
Ueda fails to teach a protrusion is provided at an outer edge of each of the plurality of recesses.
Kato, on the other hand, teaches teach a protrusion is provided at an outer edge of each of the plurality of recesses. See FIG. 1(b), elements 30a and paragraph [0018]. Such an arrangement results in a reduction of heat conduction and the leakage current is improved. See paragraph [0020].
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 Ueda, as taught by Kato, in order to reduce heat conduction and improve leakage current.
With respect to claim 14, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato fail to teach: the cathode buried part is connected to the cathode part via an electrically conductive adhesive layer (see Ueda, FIGS. 1 and 3, adhesive 8, and paragraph [0028]), and a region of the surface of the cathode buried part other than a region that is in contact with the electrically conductive adhesive layer is in contact with the outer package (see Ueda, FIG. 1).
With respect to claim 15, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that the protrusion is formed in an annular shape along the outer edge of the each of the plurality of recesses. See Kato, FIG. 1(b).
With respect to claim 16, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, in a first recess and a second recess adjacent to each other along the surface of the cathode buried part among the plurality of recesses, the protrusion positioned at the outer edge of the first recess and the protrusion positioned at the outer edge of the second recess are separated from each other. See Ueda, FIG. 3, and Kato, FIG. 1(b).
With respect to claim 17, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato fail to teach that a depth of each of the plurality of recesses ranges from 10 µm to 55 µm, inclusive. However, Ueda notes that a depth of the groove is 1% to 80% of thickness T of the frame to keep the strength of the frame. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the depth of the grooves is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 18, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that a height of the protrusion ranges from 0.1 µm to 50 µm, inclusive. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the height of the protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 19, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that a ratio of a depth of each of the plurality of recesses to a height of the protrusion ranges from 0.2 to 550, inclusive. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the depth of the grooves and height of the protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 20, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the second part, a ratio of a total area of the plurality of recesses to an area of the first surface of the second part ranges from 5% to 25%, inclusive, per unit area. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the area of the grooves is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 21, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the second part, a ratio of a total area of a plurality of protrusions including the protrusion to an area of the first surface of the second part ranges from 5% to 30%, inclusive, per unit area. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the total area of the protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
With respect to claim 22, the combined teachings of Ueda and Kato teach that, as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the first surface of the second part, a ratio of a total area of the plurality of recesses to a total area of a plurality of protrusions including the protrusion ranges from 0.16 to 5, inclusive, per unit area. However, Kato notes that the recesses and protrusions produces improved contact resistance and leakage current. See paragraphs [0019] and [0020]. Kato further notes that the shape, number, and arrangement of the grooves and protrusions are not limited, and will produce similar results. Accordingly, the total area of the grooves and protrusions is considered to be a result-oriented variable, the optimization of which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) and (B), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ 2D 1838, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
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 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 2847
Prosecution Insights