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 subject matter of claims 4-6 and 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In particular, the drawings fail to show the Raman spectrum peaks and intensities, and further, the plurality of capacitor elements. 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 § 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2011029580.
With respect to claim 1, JP ‘580 teaches a solid electrolytic capacitor element (see abstract) comprising: an anode foil see that contains aluminum element (see paragraph [0042]) and includes a porous part at least in a surface layer of the anode foil (see paragraph [0030], noting that the polymer penetrates deeply into the porous metal anode); a dielectric layer that covers at least a portion of a surface of the anode foil (see paragraph [0043]); and a solid electrolyte that covers at least a portion of the dielectric layer (see paragraph [0044]), wherein the solid electrolyte contains sulfur element (see paragraph [0036], noting the use of sulfonic acids as a dopant for the conductive polymer), and the solid electrolyte has a first part filled in voids in the porous part in the anode foil having the dielectric layer (see paragraph [0030], noting that the polymer penetrates deeply into the porous metal anode) and a second part that protrudes from a main surface of the anode foil having the dielectric layer (see FIG. 3, element 13, noting that the layer protrudes from the top of the anode foil/dielectric layer)
JP ‘580 fails to teach that in elemental mapping of a cross section of the porous part using an electron probe microanalyzer, a presence ratio of the sulfur element is 0.5% or more when a presence ratio of the aluminum element is taken as 100%.
However, JP ‘580 clearly notes that the polymerization rate of an EDOT polymer determines the penetration into the porous surface of the anode by the solid electrolyte (i.e., the conductive polymer, dopant, and oxidant). See paragraph [0023]. This mirrors the disclosure in the instant application (see paragraph [0029]. Accordingly, it is clear that the polymerization rate of an EDOT polymer is a result-effective variable for sufficient filling of the voids in the porous part of the anode foil. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), citing In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As such, the optimal amount of sulfur element found within the porous part can be determined by routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 ‘580 to have a presence ratio of the sulfur element being more than 0.5% when a presence ratio of the aluminum element is taken as 100%.
With respect to claim 2, JP ‘580 teaches that the first part contains a first polymer component corresponding to a conjugated polymer and a second polymer component corresponding to a polymer anion containing the sulfur element. See paragraphs [0023], [0036], and [0044], noting that the solid electrolyte is composed of a conductive polymer and uses of sulfonic acids as a dopant for the conductive polymer.
With respect to claim 3, JP ‘580 teaches that the first polymer component contains the sulfur element. See paragraphs [0023], [0036], and [0044], noting that the solid electrolyte is composed of a conductive polymer and sulfonic acids.
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘580 is considered to teach that, in a Raman spectrum of the first part, a ratio Ip1/Ip2 of an intensity Ip1 of a first peak specific to the first polymer component to an intensity Ip2 of a second peak specific to the second polymer component is 2 or more. While JP ‘580 does not explicitly teach the Raman spectrum of the first polymer component to the second polymer component, since JP ‘580 teaches each of the structures of claim 1, it is considered to implicitly teach any physical properties associated with those structures, including Raman spectrum ratios. See MPEP 2112.01(1), citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 5, JP ’580 is considered to teach that the ratio Ipl/Ip2 is 7 or less. While JP ‘580 does not explicitly teach the Raman spectrum of the first polymer component to the second polymer component, since JP ‘580 teaches each of the structures of claim 1, it is considered to implicitly teach any physical properties associated with those structures, including Raman spectrum ratios. See MPEP 2112.01(1), citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 6, JP ‘580 teaches that in the first part, the conjugated polymer contains a monomer unit corresponding to a thiophene compound (see paragraph [0023]), and the polymer anion contains a monomer unit corresponding to an aromatic sulfonic acid compound (see paragraph [0036]), in a Raman spectrum of the first part, the first peak specific to the first polymer component is observed in a range of 1200 cm-1 or more and 1600 cm-1 or less, and the second peak specific to the second polymer component is observed in a range of 800 cm-1 or more and 1100 cm-1 or less (while JP ‘580 does not explicitly teach the Raman spectrum peaks of the first polymer component to the second polymer component, since JP ‘580 teaches each of the structures of claims 1 and 6, it is considered to implicitly teach any physical properties associated with those structures, including Raman spectrum peaks. See MPEP 2112.01(1), citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 7, JP ‘580 teaches that a weight average molecular weight of the polymer anion is 100 or more and 500,000 or less. See paragraph [0023].
With respect to claim 8, JP ‘580 teaches a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising at least one solid electrolytic capacitor element according to claim 1. See FIG. 3.
With respect to claim 9, JP ‘580 fails to explicitly teach a plurality of the solid electrolytic capacitor elements stacked together. However, such a modification is merely a duplication of parts, 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(VI)(B), citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin (US 2022/0130619), Matsumoto et al. (US 2019/0027742), and Uka et al. (US 2018/0005759) each disclose capacitors having EDOT-based and polyanion PSS-doped conductive polymers.
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