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 § 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 19-23, 25-29, 33, and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobai (US 11,049,662) in view of Dominey et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0242734) and Fernstrom et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0391120).
With respect to claim 19, Dobai teaches a hybrid polymer capacitor (see abstract) comprising: an anode layer (see FIG. 1, element 2 and col. 4, lines 20-23); a cathode layer (see FIG. 1, element 3 and col. 4, lines 20-23); a plurality of layers stacked between the anode layer and the cathode layer (see FIG. 1, elements 4, 6, 7, and 8, and col. 4, lines 27-55), the plurality of layers including: a not hydrated metal oxide layer having a thickness of at least 100 nm in a stacking direction (see col. 4, lines 30-31 and col. 7, lines 42-50), and a metal oxide layer arranged on a surface of the not hydrated metal oxide layer (see FIG. 1, element 7 and col. 4, lines 33-44); and a liquid electrolyte including ethylene glycol and gamma-butylactrone, wherein the hydrated metal oxide layer and the not hydrated metal oxide layer are impregnated with the liquid electrolyte.
Dobai fails to teach the use of a hydrated metal oxide layer and that the liquid electrolyte has a conductivity of at least 200 µS/cm at 30 °C and a water content of at least 0.5 %a water content of at least 0.5%.
Dominey, on the other hand, teaches that a second oxide metal layer is hydrated and disposed on a non hydrated oxide layer. See paragraph [0020]. Such an arrangement results in the ability to repair any damage occurring during the fabrication process. See paragraph [0021].
Further, Fernstrom teaches that a liquid electrolyte may be formed of ethylene glycol, gamma-butylactone and water, such that the liquid electrolyte has a conductivity of at least 200 µS/cm at 30 °C and a water content of at least 0.5 %a water content of at least 0.5%. See paragraph [0024]. Such an arrangement produces a particular desired conductivity for the capacitor. See paragraph [0024].
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 Dobai, as taught by Dominey and Fernstrom, in order to repair any damage to the oxide layers during the fabrication process, and further, provide a preferred conductivity for the capacitor.
With respect to claim 20, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the not hydrated metal oxide layer is applied directly on a surface of the anode layer. See Dobai, col. 4, lines 27-32.
With respect to claim 21, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the hydrated metal oxide layer has a thickness of at least 10 nm in the stacking direction. See Dobai, col. 4, lines 41-44.
With respect to claim 22, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach the hydrated metal oxide layer and/or the not hydrated metal oxide layer is an aluminum oxide layer. See Dobai, col. 4, lines 20-23 and 27-36.
With respect to claim 23 the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach the hydrated metal oxide layer and/or the not hydrated metal oxide layer is doped by phosphate anions. See Fernstrom, paragraph [0024].
With respect to claim 25, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach a nominal voltage of the capacitor is larger than (i) 150 V or (ii) 250 V. See Dobai, col. 5, lines 62-65.
With respect to claim 26, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the plurality of layers further includes a polymer layer comprising a conductive polymer, wherein the polymer layer is arranged between (i) the not hydrated metal oxide layer and the cathode layer and/or (ii) the hydrated metal oxide layer and the cathode layer. See Dobai, FIG. 1, element 8, and col. 4, lines 50-59.
With respect to claim 27, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the conductive polymer comprises a PEDOT:PSS polymer material. See Dobai, col. 4, lines 50-59.
With respect to claim 28, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the plurality of layers further include a separator layer, the separator layer arranged between the polymer layer and the cathode layer, the separator layer being configured with a separator withstand factor of at least 5%. See Dobai, FIG. 1, element 4 and col. 4, lines 45-49. While the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom fail to explicitly teach the withstand factor recited herein, withstand factor is considered to be a physical property of the separator. As such it is considered to be implicitly taught by the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom, as the combination of references explicitly teaches each of the recited physical structures of the claims. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 29, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom are considered to teach that the separator withstand factor is at least 15%. While the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom fail to explicitly teach the withstand factor recited herein, withstand factor is considered to be a physical property of the separator. As such it is considered to be implicitly taught by the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom, as the combination of references explicitly teaches each of the recited physical structures of the claims. See MPEP 2112.01.
With respect to claim 33, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the plurality of layers further include an intermediate electrolyte layer, the intermediate electrolyte layer being arranged between the polymer layer and the separator layer. See Dobai, col. 5, lines 5-18.
With respect to claim 35, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the plurality of layers between the anode layer and the cathode layer are stacked in an order as mentioned. See Dobai, FIG. 1.
With respect to claim 36, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the hybrid polymer capacitor is a flat stack type capacitor or a wounded type capacitor. See Dobai, col. 4, lines 20-23.
With respect to claim 37, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom teach that the water content of the liquid electrolyte is between 0.5 % and 7 %. See Fernstrom, paragraph [0024].
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobai (US 11,049,662) in view of Dominey et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0242734) and Fernstrom et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0391120), and further, in view of WO 2004/079793.
With respect to claim 24, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom fail to explicitly teach that the not hydrated metal oxide layer comprises a stack of an amorphous metal oxide layer and a crystalline metal oxide layer.
WO ‘793, on the other hand, teaches that the not hydrated metal oxide layer comprises a stack of an amorphous metal oxide layer and a crystalline metal oxide layer. See paragraph [0087]. Such an arrangement results allows for minimal electrical conduction. See paragraph [0089].
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 Dobai, Dominey and Fernstrom, as taught by WO ‘793, in order to isolate the electrode by minimizing the electrical conduction.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobai (US 11,049,662) in view of Dominey et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0242734) and Fernstrom et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0391120), and further, in view of WO 2017/056730.
With respect to claim 30, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom fail to explicitly teach that the separator layer has a minimum thickness of 50 µm.
WO ‘730, on the other hand, teaches that the separator layer has a minimum thickness of 50 µm. See Example 1. Such an arrangement produces a capacitor having a rated voltage up to 450V. See Example 1.
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 Dobai, Dominey and Fernstrom, as taught by WO ‘730, to produce a capacitor having a rated voltage up to 450V.
With respect to claim 31, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom fail to explicitly teach a density of the separator layer is at least 0.30 g/cm3.
WO ‘730, on the other hand, teaches that the separator layer has a density of the separator layer is at least 0.30 g/cm3. See Example 1. Such an arrangement produces a capacitor having a rated voltage up to 450V. See Example 1.
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 Dobai, Dominey and Fernstrom, as taught by WO ‘730, to produce a capacitor having a rated voltage up to 450V.
With respect to claim 32, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom fail to explicitly teach an average mass per area ratio of the separator layer is higher than 8.0 g/m2.
WO ‘730, on the other hand, teaches that the separator layer has a density of the separator layer is at least 0.30 g/cm3, and as such, has an average mass per area ratio of the separator layer is higher than 8.0 g/m2. See Example 1. Such an arrangement produces a capacitor having a rated voltage up to 450V. See Example 1.
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 Dobai, Dominey and Fernstrom, as taught by WO ‘730, to produce a capacitor having a rated voltage up to 450V.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobai (US 11,049,662) in view of Dominey et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0242734) and Fernstrom et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0391120), and further, in view of WO 2022/172720.
With respect to claim 34, the combined teachings of Dobai, Dominey, and Fernstrom fail to teach a carbon layer, a titanium layer, a titanium oxide layer, and/or a silicon dioxide layer are arranged between the cathode layer and the separator layer.
WO ‘720, on the other hand, teaches a carbon layer, a titanium layer, a titanium oxide layer, and/or a silicon dioxide layer are arranged between the cathode layer and the separator layer. See the abstract, noting a carbon layer between the separator and the cathode layer. Such an arrangement results in an increase in the capacitance of the cathode foil. See paragraph [0021].
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 Dobai, Dominey and Fernstrom, as taught by WO ‘720, to increase the capacitance of the cathode foil.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bowen et al. (US 2018/0280689) discloses an aluminum foil having an oxide layer including a hydrate layer, but fails to disclose the remaining limitations of claim 19.
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