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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ebina (JP 2019201110A) does not disclose or suggest a polymer coating is coated on a surface of the guide pin, wherein the polymer coating accounts for 50%-100% of the area of the aluminum stem in the guide pin of the negative electrode nor does it recognize the significance of this high degree of coverage for achieving superior suppression of alkali creep.
Ebina discloses at least part of a surface of an aluminum stem, located in a through hole, in a guide pin of a negative electrode is covered with a polymer coating (15), wherein the polymer coating is coated on the surface that accounts for 100% of the area of the aluminum stem in the guide pin of the negative electrode (examiner’s emphasis - see annotated figures below). Ebina therefore anticipates at least amended claim 42 of the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
219
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
271
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ebina also discloses in [0038], “Further, conventionally, there is a technique for forming the insulating layer 15 in the gap between the terminal lead hole 31 of the sealing body 30 and the through portion 12 of the tab terminal 10. This prior art does not prevent the alkalinization of the electrolytic solution itself, but the insulating electrolyte 15 formed in the gaps between the terminal lead holes 31 causes the alkaline electrolyte to come into contact with the terminal lead holes 31 and the through portions 12. It is intended to suppress. In contrast, in the present embodiment, the insulating layer 15 is formed not only on the surface of the penetrating part 12 but also on the surface of the flat part 13, thereby alkalizing the electrolyte near the penetrating part 12 and the terminal lead hole 31. This suppresses the deterioration of the sealing body 30 and the corrosion of the penetrating portion 12 and more fundamentally copes with the cause of leakage of the electrolytic solution”
Applicant argues “Further, Applicant has discovered the unexpected and superior results achieved by the claimed high percentage of coating coverage. For instance, paragraphs [0122]-[0124] of the present disclosure directly compares a supercapacitor as required by the presently pending claims (e.g., "the surface of the aluminum stem in the guide pin of the negative electrode is fully covered with a polymer coating" 1 [0119]) to a conventional device. Applicant respectfully submits the results are not trivial. As demonstrated, after 4,000 hours, 0% of Applicant's devices had failed due to alkali creep, while 20% of the conventional devices had already failed. (I [0123]). This demonstrates that achieving a high degree of coating coverage, as claimed, is the solution to the long-standing problem of alkali creep and is not merely an obvious design choice. Ebina, with its focus on leaving an uncoated portion, provides no teaching or suggestion that would have led one of ordinary skill to pursue this high-coverage solution or to expect such dramatic results.”
Applicant has failed to show any evidentiary support showing unexpected results for the polymer coating (with any polymer) that is coated on the surface that accounts for 50-99.99% of the area of the aluminum stem in the guide pin of the negative electrode. No comparisons, experimental data, and detailed explanations were supplied to prove this matter.
MPEP 716.01 (c) Objective evidence which must be factually supported by anappropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence ofunexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of theprior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) ofthe prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the applicant. See, for example,In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191,196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("It is wellsettled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence." "[A]ppellantshave not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articlessplit. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant's heat shrinkable articles withthose of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant's assertions of unexpectedresults constitute mere argument."). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Exparte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1991 ).
The only embodiment in the specification that shows unexpected and superior results is the embodiment where “the surface of the aluminum stem in the guide pin of the negative electrode is fully covered (100%) with a 16 µm thick Loctite 3106™ light-cure acrylic adhesive (see [0119]-[0120] of the instant Patent Application Publication US 2025/0132102 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 42-45, 48-57, and 59-62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebina (JP 2019201110 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
219
226
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
271
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 42, Ebina discloses in fig. 1, 3, a supercapacitor [0001], which includes: a capacitor element (20) comprising a positive electrode [0019], a negative electrode [0019], and a separator [0013] interposed between the positive electrode [0019] and the negative electrode [0019], [0026]; an electrolyte [0014], [0026] impregnating the capacitor element (20); a housing (40) for accommodating the capacitor element (20) and the electrolyte [0014]; and a sealing member (30) for sealing an opening portion of the housing (40), the sealing member (30) being provided with a through hole (Fig. 1) for respectively allowing a guide pin of the positive electrode (10a) and a guide pin of the negative electrode (10b) to be inserted in; characterized in that at least part of the surface of an aluminum stem (12, [0029]), located in the through hole (Fig. 1), in the guide pin of the negative electrode (10b) is covered with a polymer coating (15, [0023]), wherein the polymer coating (15) is coated on the surface that accounts for 100% of the area of the aluminum stem (12, Fig. 1) in the guide pin of the negative electrode (10b).
Regarding claim 43, Ebina discloses the supercapacitor does not have alkali creep within 4,000 hours at 65°C and a constant voltage of 2.7 V.
Claim 43 recites a feature that has to be certified with specialized testing equipment, not at the disposal of the Office. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 42 above, the Ebina reference teaches the claimed invention (including claimed materials). When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.).
Regarding claim 44, Ebina discloses the polymer coating (15) is coated on the surface that accounts for 100% of the area of the aluminum stem (12, Fig. 1) in the guide pin of the negative electrode (10b).
Regarding claim 45, Ebina discloses the polymer coating (15) is coated on the surface that accounts for 100% of the area of the aluminum stem (12) in the guide pin of the negative electrode (10b – Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 48, Ebina discloses polymer coating is resistant to electrolytes and/or resistant to bases with pH 7-14 and/or resistant to temperature in the range of -40°C-180°C and/or resistant to water [0021].
Regarding claim 49, Ebina discloses the polymer coating does not fall off after being immersed in an electrolyte or a basic solution with pH 7-14 for 72 hours.
Claim 43 recites a feature that has to be certified with specialized testing equipment, not at the disposal of the Office. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 42 above, the Ebina reference teaches the claimed invention (including claimed materials). When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.).
Regarding claim 50, Ebina discloses the polymer coating is formed by a polymer adhesive [0021].
Regarding claim 51, Ebina discloses the polymer adhesive is selected from resin adhesives and/or rubber adhesives [0021], [0022].
Regarding claim 52, Ebina discloses the resin adhesive is selected from thermosetting resin adhesives [0022] and/or photo-curing resin adhesives.
Regarding claim 53, Ebina discloses the resin adhesive is selected from epoxy resin adhesives [0022] and/or polyurethane adhesives.
Regarding claim 54, Ebina discloses the polymer adhesive is a resin adhesive [0021]-[0022].
The limitation, “the rubber adhesive is selected from the following group of butyl rubber adhesives, silicone rubber adhesives, and fluororubber adhesives” only limits the rubber adhesives of claim 51.
Regarding claim 56, Ebina discloses a method for forming the supercapacitor of claim 42, characterized in that the method comprises:
forming the polymer coating (15) on at least part of the surface of the aluminum
stem (12) in the guide pin of the negative electrode (10b); and
inserting the guide pin of the negative electrode into the through hole [0053], so
that the aluminum stem (12) in the guide pin of the negative electrode (10b) is located inside the through hole and fits closely with the inner wall of the through hole (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 57, Ebina discloses the polymer coating (15) is coated on the surface that accounts for 50%-100% (Fig. 1) of the area of the aluminum stem (12) in the guide pin of the negative electrode (10b).
Regarding claim 59, Ebina discloses the polymer adhesive is selected from resin adhesives and/or rubber adhesives [0021], [0022].
Regarding claim 60, Ebina discloses the resin adhesive is selected from thermosetting resin adhesives [0022] and/or photo-curing resin adhesives.
Regarding claim 61, Ebina discloses the resin adhesive is selected from epoxy resin adhesives [0022] and/or polyurethane adhesives.
Regarding claim 62, Ebina discloses the polymer adhesive is a resin adhesive [0021]-[0022].
The limitation, “the rubber adhesive is selected from the following group of butyl rubber adhesives, silicone rubber adhesives, and fluororubber adhesives” only limits the rubber adhesives of claim 51.
6. Claim(s) 46-47, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ebina (JP 2019201110A).
Regarding claim 46, Ebina discloses a thickness of the polymer coating is 5-30 µm [0023].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 47, Ebina discloses the thickness of the polymer coating is 10-20 µm.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
58.
Regarding claim 58, Ebina discloses a thickness of the polymer coating is 5-30 µm [0023].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebina (JP 2019201110A).
Regarding claim 63, Ebina discloses the claimed invention except for in the forming of the polymer coating (15) is realized by uniformly spraying through a coating guide pin.
Spraying is a well-known deposition process used in the formation of thin, uniform polymer layers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the polymer coating of Ebina using a spraying process, since such a modification would form a thin, uniform polymer layer.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2025/0132102 A1
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 PM.
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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights