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 . 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Scale of the drawings: 37 CFR 1.84(k) states, in part “The scale to which a drawing is made must be large enough to show the mechanism without crowding when the drawing is reduced in size to two-thirds in reproduction. Indications such as "actual size" or "scale 1/2" on the drawings are not permitted since these lose their meaning with reproduction in a different format.”
Character of lines, numbers, and letters of the drawings: 37 CFR 1.84(l) states, in part “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.”
Applicant is encouraged to make use of the large amount of whitespace present in each
page of Figs. 1-4 to increase the size and clarity of each figure.
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 Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
“…anode foil on which dielectric oxide film is formed…” should read “…an anode foil on which a dielectric oxide film is formed…”
“…and electrolytic solution intervening between the anode foil…” should read “…and an electrolytic solution intervening between the anode foil…”
“…wherein: the cathode body includes cathode foil…” should read “…wherein: the cathode body includes a cathode foil…”
“…the nitro compound is contained in the electrolytic solution in a rate of 1.5 mg or less…” should read “…the nitro compound is contained in the electrolytic solution at a rate of 1.5 mg or less…”
Claim 27:
“…an addition step of adding nitro compound to the electrolytic solution…” should read “…an addition step of adding a nitro compound to the electrolytic solution…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9-11, 14, 17-20, 23, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. WO 2021/125220 A1 hereafter referred to as Yoshida (reference in the rejection is made to US 2022/0415582 A1 which is an English translation of WO 2021/125220 A1) in view of Komatsu et al. US 2007/0029529 A1 (hereafter referred to as Komatsu).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshita discloses
An electrolytic capacitor comprising: anode foil (para. [0039]) on which dielectric oxide film is formed (para. [0039]); a cathode body (para. [0039]) with a reduction site on a surface thereof (para. [0013]; a carbon layer is the reduction site); and electrolytic solution intervening between the anode foil and the cathode body (paras. [0039] and [0065]) and containing a nitro compound (paras. [0007] and [0103]; Note that the rejection uses the 15th example which contains the structure of example 14 and example 1), wherein: the cathode body includes cathode foil formed of valve metal (para. [0044]), and a carbon layer which is laminated on the cathode foil (para. [0020]) and which becomes the reduction site (see reduction site). Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the nitro compound is contained in the electrolytic solution in a rate of 1.5 mg or less per 1 cm2 of a projected area of the cathode body. However, Yoshita does teach that the amount of nitro compound should be limited as to not decrease the withstand voltage of the electrolytic capacitor too much (para. [0007]).
Komatsu discloses wherein the nitro compound is contained in the electrolytic solution in a rate of 0.007 to 1 mg per 1 cm2 of a projected area of the cathode body (paras. [0056-0057] and [0089]), overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the amount of nitro compound contained in the electrolytic solution of Yoshita to 0.007-1 mg per 1 cm2 of a projected area of the cathode body as taught by Komatsu to prevent the accumulation of hydrogen gas while avoiding precipitation (paras. [0076] and [0089] of Komatsu).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 9, wherein: the cathode foil has a cathode-side enlarged surface portion on a surface thereof (para. [0067] of Yoshito), and the carbon layer is formed on the cathode-side enlarged surface portion (paras. [0069-0070] of Yoshito).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yoshita discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 10, wherein the carbon layer enters into the cathode-side enlarged surface portion (paras. [0022-0025] and [0069-0070] of Yoshito).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yoshita discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 11 used for middle or high voltage application of 160 V or more (para. [0003] and [0107] of Yoshito; furthermore, even if an electrolytic capacitor is not designed for 160 V or more, it is still capable of being used at 160 V or more; the limitation of claim 14 recites intended use).
Although rejected with prior art, the limitation of claim 14 is intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 17, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 10 used for middle or high voltage application of 160 V or more (para. [0003] and [0107] of Yoshito; furthermore, even if an electrolytic capacitor is not designed for 160 V or more, it is still capable of being used at 160 V or more; the limitation of claim 17 recites intended use).
Although rejected with prior art, the limitation of claim 17 is intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 10, wherein the carbon layer and the cathode-side enlarged surface portion are pressure-welded (paras. [0023], [0043], [0051], [0070], and [0103] of Yoshito).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 18, wherein the carbon layer enters into the cathode-side enlarged surface portion (paras. [0022-0025] and [0069-0070] of Yoshito).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 19, wherein: the cathode-side enlarged surface portion has spongy pits (para. [0067] of Yoshito), the carbon layer contains carbon material (para. [0069] of Yoshito), and the carbon material of the carbon layer enters into the spongy pits (paras. [0022-0025] and [0069-0070] of Yoshito).
Regarding claim 23, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 18 used for middle or high voltage application of 160 V or more (para. [0003] and [0107] of Yoshito; furthermore, even if an electrolytic capacitor is not designed for 160 V or more, it is still capable of being used at 160 V or more; the limitation of claim 23 recites intended use).
Although rejected with prior art, the limitation of claim 23 is intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 26, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 9 used for middle or high voltage application of 160 V or more (para. [0003] and [0107] of Yoshito; furthermore, even if an electrolytic capacitor is not designed for 160 V or more, it is still capable of being used at 160 V or more; the limitation of claim 26 recites intended use).
Although rejected with prior art, the limitation of claim 26 is intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 27, Yoshito discloses
A manufacturing method of an electrolytic capacitor, comprising: an anode formation step of forming anode foil on which dielectric oxide film is formed (para. [0071-0072]); a cathode formation step of forming a cathode body with a reduction site on a surface thereof (para. [0067-0070]; the reduction site is formed by a carbon layer); a preparation step of preparing electrolytic solution (paras. [0074] and [0103]); and an impregnation step of intervening the electrolytic solution between the anode foil and the cathode body (paras. [0065], [0074], and [0103]), wherein: the cathode formation step includes a lamination step of laminating a carbon layer (para. [0069-0070]), which becomes the reduction site (see reduction site above), on cathode foil formed of valve metal (para. [0071]), and the preparation step includes an addition step of adding nitro compound to the electrolytic solution (para. [0103]). Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose an addition step of adding nitro compound to the electrolytic solution in a rate of 1.5 mg or less per 1 cm2 of a projected area of the cathode body.
Komatsu discloses an addition step of adding nitro compound to the electrolytic solution in a rate of 1.5 mg or less per 1 cm2 of a projected area of the cathode body (paras. [0056-0057] and [0089]), overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to limit the amount of nitro compound contained in the electrolytic solution of Yoshita to 0.007-1 mg per 1 cm2 of a projected area of the cathode body as taught by Komatsu to prevent the accumulation of hydrogen gas while avoiding precipitation (paras. [0076] and [0089] of Komatsu).
Regarding claim 28, modified Yoshito discloses
The manufacturing method of the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 27, wherein: the cathode formation step includes a step of forming a cathode-side enlarged surface portion on a surface of the cathode foil (para. [0067] of Yoshito); and in the lamination step, the carbon layer is laminated on the cathode-side enlarged surface layer of the cathode foil (para. [0067-0070] of Yoshito; since the cathode-side enlarged surface portion is formed on both sides of the cathode, the carbon layer is formed on the cathode-side enlarged portion during the lamination step), and the carbon layer and the cathode-side enlarged surface layer are pressure-welded (paras. [0023], [0043], [0051], [0070], and [0103] of Yoshito).
Claim(s) 12, 15, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshito in view of Komatsu and further in view of Ishikawa et al. US 2010/0271757 A1 (hereafter referred to as Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein the anode foil comprises: an enlarged surface portion formed on a surface thereof (para. [0071]), and the dielectric oxide film formed on a surface of the enlarged surface portion (para. [0072]). Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 200 nm or more.
Ishikawa discloses wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 10 to 500 nm (para. [0041]), overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the dielectric oxide film of modified Yoshito to have a thickness 10 to 500 nm as taught by Ishikawa to avoid reducing capacitance while maintaining voltage resistance and reducing leakage current (para. [0041] of Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 10, wherein the anode foil comprises: an enlarged surface portion formed on a surface thereof (para. [0071]), and the dielectric oxide film formed on a surface of the enlarged surface portion (para. [0072]). Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 200 nm or more.
Ishikawa discloses wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 10 to 500 nm (para. [0041]), overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the dielectric oxide film of modified Yoshito to have a thickness 10 to 500 nm as taught by Ishikawa to avoid reducing capacitance while maintaining voltage resistance and reducing leakage current (para. [0041] of Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 21, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 18, wherein the anode foil comprises: an enlarged surface portion formed on a surface thereof (para. [0071]), and the dielectric oxide film formed on a surface of the enlarged surface portion (para. [0072]). Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 200 nm or more.
Ishikawa discloses wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 10 to 500 nm (para. [0041]), overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the dielectric oxide film of modified Yoshito to have a thickness 10 to 500 nm as taught by Ishikawa to avoid reducing capacitance while maintaining voltage resistance and reducing leakage current (para. [0041] of Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 24, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 9, wherein the anode foil comprises: an enlarged surface portion formed on a surface thereof (para. [0071]), and the dielectric oxide film formed on a surface of the enlarged surface portion (para. [0072]). Yoshito fails to explicitly disclose wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 200 nm or more.
Ishikawa discloses wherein the dielectric oxide film has a thickness of 10 to 500 nm (para. [0041]), overlapping with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the dielectric oxide film of modified Yoshito to have a thickness 10 to 500 nm as taught by Ishikawa to avoid reducing capacitance while maintaining voltage resistance and reducing leakage current (para. [0041] of Ishikawa).
Claim(s) 13, 16, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshita in view of Komatsu and further in view of Wong US 8673025 B1 (hereafter referred to as Wong).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 11. Yoshita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
Komatsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
However, Wong teaches that the specific capacity of an anode foil is a result effective variable for the overall device capacitance (Col. 1 lines 44-67 and col. 2 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the anode foil of modified Yoshita to have a capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2 in order to form an electrolytic capacitor with a desired overall capacitance. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 10. Yoshita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
Komatsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
However, Wong teaches that the specific capacity of an anode foil is a result effective variable for the overall device capacitance (Col. 1 lines 44-67 and col. 2 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the anode foil of modified Yoshita to have a capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2 in order to form an electrolytic capacitor with a desired overall capacitance and size. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 22, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 18. Yoshita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
Komatsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
However, Wong teaches that the specific capacity of an anode foil is a result effective variable for the total overall capacitance (Col. 1 lines 44-67 and col. 2 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the anode foil of modified Yoshita to have a capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2 in order to form an electrolytic capacitor with a desired overall capacitance and size. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 25, modified Yoshito discloses
The electrolytic capacitor according to claim 9. Yoshita fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
Komatsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the anode foil has capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2.
However, Wong teaches that the specific capacity of an anode foil is a result effective variable for the total overall capacitance (Col. 1 lines 44-67 and col. 2 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the anode foil of modified Yoshita to have a capacitance of 3.5 μF/cm2 in order to form an electrolytic capacitor with a desired overall capacitance and size. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20070064376 A1: Para. [0121-0123]
US 20100068510 A1: Para. [0014]
US 20210193395 A1: Contains general structure similar to application
US 6285543 B1: Abstract
US 20130337154 A1: para. [0016] teaches methods that can be used to adjust the specific capacitance of an anode
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy Torres whose telephone number is (571)272-9896. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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.
/T.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights