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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the contact between the first and second conductive polymer layer at a first interface and the contact between the second and third conductive polymer layer at a second interface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 3, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andoralov et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0294273).
With respect to claim 1, Andoralov discloses an electrolytic capacitor (see abstract) comprising: a stacked body (see FIG. 3); and a liquid component with which the stacked body is impregnated (see paragraph [0027]), wherein the stacked body includes an anode foil having a dielectric layer formed on a surface thereof (see paragraph [0030]), a cathode foil (see paragraph [0028]), a separator disposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil (see paragraph [0028]), and conductive polymer layers (see paragraph [0028]), the conductive polymer layers include a first conductive polymer layer formed on the dielectric layer (see paragraph [0028], element 212), a second conductive polymer layer formed on the cathode foil (see paragraph [0028]), element 214), and a third conductive polymer layer formed on the separator (see paragraph [0027], element 18), the first conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer are in contact with each other at a first interface (see FIG. 3, noting that element 212 is in contact with element 18), the second conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer are in contact with each other at a second interface (see FIG. 3, noting that element 214 is in contact with element 18), and when an amount of the liquid component contained in the stacked body has decreased, a first electrical resistance between the first conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer and a second electrical resistance between the second conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer increase (see paragraph [0028], noting that the liquid electrolyte fills all the voids and vacancies between the polymer layers, increasing the electrical conductive pathway (see paragraph [0025]); thus, reducing liquid component would reduce the electrical conductive pathway, increasing resistances between the polymer layers).
With respect to claim 3, Andoralov is considered to disclose that, due to a reduction in the amount of the liquid component, an equivalent series resistance of the electrolytic capacitor becomes at least 1000 times an equivalent series resistance prior to the reduction in the amount of the liquid component. Although Andoralov does not specifically teach the increase in ESR, Andoralov clearly discloses each of the structures of claim 1, and as such, is considered to implicitly disclose any physical properties associated therewith, including ESR. See MPEP 2112.01(I), citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 5, Andoralov discloses that the stacked body is a wound body, and the anode foil, the cathode foil, and the separator are wound such that the separator is disposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil. See FIG. 3, elements 12 and 14, with separator 16 in between.
With respect to claim 6, Andoralov discloses a method for manufacturing an electrolytic capacitor (see abstract) including an anode foil having a dielectric layer formed on a surface thereof (see paragraph [0030]), a cathode foil (see paragraph [0028]), and a separator (see paragraph [0028]), the method comprising, in the following order: a polymer layer formation step of forming a first conductive polymer layer on the dielectric layer (see paragraph [0012], element 212), a second conductive polymer layer on the cathode foil (see paragraph [0012], element 214), and a third conductive polymer layer on the separator (see paragraph [0027], element 18); a stacked body formation step of forming a stacked body by stacking the anode foil, the cathode foil, and the separator such that the separator is disposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil (see FIG. 3); and an impregnation step of impregnating the stacked body with a liquid component (see paragraph [0025]), wherein a first contact resistance between the first conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer and a second contact resistance between the second conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer are reduced through the impregnation step (see paragraphs [0025] and [0028]).
With respect to claim 9, Andoralov discloses that the stacked body is a wound body, and the anode foil, the cathode foil, and the separator are wound such that the separator is disposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil. See FIG. 3, elements 12 and 14, with separator 16 in between.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoralov et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0294273) in view of WO 2015/198546.
With respect to claim 2, Andoralov fails to explicitly teach that, when the amount of the liquid component contained in the stacked body has decreased, the first electrical resistance and the second electrical resistance increase due to shrinkage and/or oxidation of the first through third conductive polymer layers.
WO ‘546, on the other hand, teaches that, when the amount of the liquid component contained in the stacked body has decreased, the first electrical resistance and the second electrical resistance increase due to shrinkage and/or oxidation of the first through third conductive polymer layers. See paragraph [0041].
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 Andoralov, as taught by WO ‘546, knowing that reducing the liquid component in a hybrid capacitor will increase the electrical resistance of the first through third conductive polymer layers.
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andoralov et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0294273) in view of Tsubaki et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0148575).
With respect to claim 4, Andoralov teaches that the first conductive polymer layer, the second conductive polymer layer, and the third conductive polymer layer each contain poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (see paragraph [0037]), but fails to teach the addition of polystyrene sulfonic acid.
Tsubaki, on the other hand, teaches the addition of polystyrene sulfonic acid to a conductive polymer including poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene). See paragraph [0037]. Such an arrangement results in uniform attachment of the conductive polymer to the surface of the dielectric layer. See paragraph [0038].
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 Andoralov, as taught by Tsubaki, in order to uniformly attach the conductive polymer to the dielectric layer.
With respect to claim 7, Andoralov teaches, before the impregnation step: a liquid application step of impregnating the first through third conductive polymer layers included in the stacked body with a liquid (see paragraph [0037], noting that the coating process includes and impregnation operation for each conductive polymer); and a removal step of removing at least a portion of the liquid with which the first through third conductive polymer layers have been impregnated (see paragraph [0037], noting a curing a washing operation).
Andoralov fails to teach that the liquid includes water.
Tsubaki, on the other hand, teaches the use of water as part of a liquid solvent for a conductive polymer. See paragraphs [0039]-[0041]. Such an arrangement results in improved dispersion of the conductive polymer. See paragraph [0044].
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 Andoralov, as taught by Tsubaki, in order to improve the dispersion of the conductive polymer.
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of Andoralov and Tsubaki teach that a first contact area in which the first conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer are in contact with each other and a second contact area in which the second conductive polymer layer and the third conductive polymer layer are in contact with each other are increased through the liquid application step. See Andoralov, paragraph [0028], noting that the liquid electrolyte fills all the voids and vacancies between the polymer layers, increasing the electrical conductive pathway (see also, paragraph [0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2012/132248, US 11,152,161, and US 8,7678,377 each discloses a hybrid capacitor having polymer layers with interface an between the anode and the separator and an interface between the cathode and the separator.
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