CTNF 18/916,180 CTNF 76204 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 12 recites the limitation " the anode " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13, line 1, the limitation, “a plurality of sintered anodes” is confusing. Do these include the sintered anode of claim 11? 07-34-05 AIA Claim 15 recites the limitation " the cathodes ” in line 1 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 16 recites the limitation " the anode " in line 9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherwood et al. (US 2011/0152958) . PNG media_image1.png 466 404 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11, Sherwood et al. disclose a capacitor comprising: a capacitor case (502) sealed to retain electrolyte (abstract, [0056]); a sintered anode (508), wherein the sintered anode (508) includes a sintered material on both sides of a substrate (512, abstract) and wherein an edge of the sintered material (508) on both sides of the substrate has a tapered shape (see Fig. 5B) in a cross-sectional profile; a cathode (516) disposed in the capacitor case (502); a separator (520) between the sintered anode (508) and the cathode (516); a conductor (abstract – area below 514) coupled to the sintered anode (508), the conductor (area below 514) coupled to a terminal (516) sealingly extending through and disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case (502 – [0055]) a second terminal (522) disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case (502) and in electrical communication with the cathode (516), with an anode terminal (514) and the second terminal (522) electrically isolated from one another. Regarding claim 12, Sherwood et al. disclose the capacitor case (502) has a same shape (at least a rectangular – see also Fig. 6A) as a shape of the anode (508) and the cathode. Regarding claim 13, Sherwood et al. disclose a plurality of sintered anodes formed in a stack with at least one of the sintered anodes (Fig. 7B) having a smaller shape than the other of the plurality of a sintered anodes so a side view profile of the stack matches a curve in the capacitor case. Regarding claim 15, Sherwood et al. disclose the cathode includes a sintered cathode (516, [0056]). PNG media_image2.png 484 398 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 16, Sherwood et al. disclose a capacitor comprising: a sintered anode (602, 902) formed by sintering material [0057] onto a portion of a side of an aluminum substrate (604, [0044], 902) and the sintered portion (602) includes a side surface that is not aligned with the substrate surface (see Fig. 6B), stacking a separator (606’, 904) onto the sintered anode (602); stacking a cathode (608, 904) onto the separator (606’); disposing the anode (602), the separator (606’), the cathode (608) into a capacitor case (906, not illustrated – abstract); electrically coupling the anode (602, 908) to a first terminal (abstract) disposed on an exterior of the capacitor case (514 – abstract – not illustrated in Fig. 6); electrically coupling the cathode (608) to a second terminal disposed on the exterior of the capacitor case, the second terminal (522 – not illustrated in Fig. 6) electrically isolated from the first terminal (514); filling the capacitor case with an electrolyte (912, Fig. 9); and sealing the electrolyte in the capacitor case (914, Fig. 9). The language, term, or phrase ““excising the sintered portion from the substrate by cutting through the aluminum substrate around a periphery of the sintered portion, without cutting the sintered portion, wherein excising includes using a femtosecond laser to cut through the aluminum substrate”, is directed to towards the process of forming the capacitor. It is well settled that “product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually measured. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also. In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 111 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosiet aI., 218 USPQ289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. Regarding claim 18, Sherwood et al. disclose the claimed invention. The limitation, “the femtosecond laser includes settings wherein a pulse duration is between 222 - 500 femtoseconds, a frequency is between 250 - 500 kHz, a power density is between 5.74 X 10^5 W/cm² - 5.74 X 10^6 W/cm², a femtosecond laser scan rate is between 200 - 2000 mm/sec, a spot overlap is between 40% - 90%, and a number of passes is at least 25 passes” is a method of forming the capacitor. The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. In re STEPHENS, WENZL, AND BROWNE, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965) Regarding claim 19, Sherwood et al. disclose the anode material (702, 704) is on to both front and back sides of the substrate (710, Fig. 7B). The limitation “screen-printed” is a method of forming the capacitor. The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. In re STEPHENS, WENZL, AND BROWNE, 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965) Regarding claim 20, Sherwood et al. disclose the sintered anode material is deposited in multiple layers (702, 704, 706, 708) having progressively smaller profiles (Fig. 7B) . 07-27-aia AIA Claim(s) 17 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 Sherwood et al. (US 2011/0152958) . Regarding claim 17, Sherwood et al. disclose the aluminum substrate is about 25 – 35 micrometers (µm) thick [0044]. Sherwood et al. do not disclose a specific example where the aluminum substrate is about 25 – 35 micrometers (µm) thick. 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherwood et al. (US 2011/0152958) in view of O’Phelan et al. (US 6,522,525) . Regarding claim 13, Sherwood et al. disclose a plurality of sintered anodes formed in a stack with at least one of the sintered anodes (702, Fig. 7B) having a smaller shape than other of the plurality of a sintered anodes (704, 706, 708). Sherwood et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a side view profile of the stack matches a curve in the capacitor case. O’Phelan et al. disclose a capacitor formed within a casing (104), wherein the capacitor includes a plurality capacitors (102a-102e) formed in a stack with at least one of the capacitors (102a) having a smaller shape than other of the plurality of the capacitors so a side view profile of the stack matches a curve in the capacitor case (see Fig. 1-2). 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 anode stack of Sherwood et al. so that a side view profile of the stack matches a curve in the capacitor case, since such a modification would conform the anodes to rounded portions of an implantable medical device housing. The curved profiles facilitate efficient use of curved capacitor cases and curved housings for implantable medical devices . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherwood et al. (US 2011/0152958) and O’Phelan et al. (US 6,522,525) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Saida et al. (US 2007/0030622) . Regarding claim 14, Sherwood et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the tapered shape of each of the sintered material defines a V-shape defined by the sintered material on both sides of the substrate. Saida et al. disclose a capacitor comprising an anode (1), wherein the anode is chamfered to have a V-shape (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the anode art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the tapered shape of Sherwood to have a V-shape defined by the sintered material on both sides of the substrate, since such a modification would form an anode having thin edges. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular shape, a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Span-Deck Inc. V. FabCon, Inc., 215 USPQ 835 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,522,851 A – capacitor for an implantable cardiac defibrillator. US 6,801,424 B1 – capacitor having a tapered anode US 2003/0218859 A1 – anode member for a solid electrolytic capacitor 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 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 2 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 3 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 4 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 5 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 6 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 7 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 8 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 9 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 10 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 11 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/916,180 Page 12 Art Unit: 2847
Prosecution Insights