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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 1, 3-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hama et al. (JP 2009-224568A).
PNG
media_image1.png
234
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hama et al. disclose a manufacturing method of an electrolytic capacitor including a porous anode body (3), a dielectric layer (4) formed on a surface of the anode body (3), and a solid electrolyte layer (6) covering at least a portion of the dielectric layer (4), the method comprising:
a step of forming the dielectric layer (4) by anodizing the anode body (3, [0015]); and
a step of covering the surface of the anode body (3) on which the dielectric layer (4) is formed, with an insulating polymer (5, [0011], [0015]),
wherein the step of covering with the insulating polymer (5) is a step of impregnating the anode body (3) with a solution containing a monomer that is a raw material of the insulating polymer [0015], Fig. 2,
applying a voltage between the anode body and an electrode immersed in the solution such that the anode body side is at a lower potential (Fig. 2, [0014]), and polymerizing the monomer [0015] on a surface of the dielectric layer (4) to form the insulating polymer (5).
Regarding claim 2, Hama et al. disclose the insulating polymer (5) is formed so as to cover a defective portion [0011] of the dielectric layer (4) and to cover a surface of the dielectric layer (4) other than the defective portion [0011].
Regarding claim 4, Hama et al. disclose the anode body (3) contains at least one of tantalum and niobium [0015].
Regarding claim 5, Hama et al. disclose an electrolytic capacitor (Fig. 1) including a porous anode body (3), a dielectric layer (4) formed on a surface of the anode body (3) and containing an oxide of a metal constituting the anode body [0015], and
a solid electrolyte layer (6) covering at least a portion of the dielectric layer (4),
wherein the electrolytic capacitor further includes an insulating polymer layer (5, [0011]) covering at least a portion of the dielectric layer (4), and
the insulating polymer layer (5) covers a defective portion [0011] of the dielectric layer (4) and at least a portion of a surface of the dielectric layer (4) other than the defective portion [0011].
Regarding claim 7, Hama et al. disclose the anode body (3) contains at least one of tantalum and niobium [0015].
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hama et al. (JP 2009-224568A).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Hama et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the monomer includes a vinyl compound.
An insulating film formed from a vinyl compound is well known in the insulating film art.
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the insulating film art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the insulating film of Hama et al. using a vinyl compound since, insulating films are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and dielectric properties.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0147530 A1 – Polymer formed on solid electrolytic layer
JP 2009-200224 A – Solid electrolytic capacitor comprising insulator on oxide defective regions.
JP 10-247612 A - solid electrolytic capacitor having polymer containing layer on dielectric portions
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