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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Karnik ‘580 fails to disclose a current collector as Karnik ‘580 only describes an anode lead wire rather than a conductive substrate supporting the active layer. The examiner disagrees with applicant. Firstly, the claim does not require the current collector supporting the active layer as argued by applicant and therefore said argument is moot. Secondly, anode lead wires are known to be current collectors within the electrolytic capacitor art as discussed in US 10,224,150 (C3:L23-26).
Secondly, Applicant argues the channels of Karnik ‘580 are not conduits formed (e.g. by drilling) in the active layer as said channels are formed during pressing/formation of the anode body. Applicant further argues said channels do not have openings “arranged in a periodic two-dimensional pattern”. The examiner disagrees with applicant. Conduit is defined as a natural or artificial channel through which something (such as a fluid) is conveyed and thus the channels of Karnik ‘580 meet the limitation of a conduit. Furthermore, Karnik ‘580 teaches forming multiple channels which are formed equidistant and thus have a periodic two-dimensional pattern.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-4, & 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karnik et al. (US 2013/0155580).
In regards to claim 1, Karnik ‘580 discloses
A capacitor, comprising:
an anode (20 – fig. 1; [0029]) that includes an active layer (222 – fig. 1; [0029]) on a current collector (30 – fig. 1; [0037]), the active layer having both pores ([0022-0023]) and conduits (28 – fig. 1; [0031]),
wherein the active layer includes particles having a dielectric on a core and the pores being located between the particles ([0026-0029]), and
wherein the conduits are arranged in a periodic two-dimensional pattern (fig. 1 & 3; [0031-0032]); and
an electrolyte ([0040]) in the pores and the conduits, the pores being open to the conduits such that the electrolyte can flow between the pores and the conduits ([0018] & [0026-0029]) – based on the process of forming there will be pores formed during sintering that are open to the conduits).
In regards to claim 3, Karnik ‘580 discloses
The capacitor of claim 1, wherein each of the conduits has a length that is substantially straight in cross section (fig. 1 & 3).
In regards to claim 4, Karnik ‘580 discloses
The capacitor of claim 1, wherein the pores terminate at the conduits and are open to the conduits ([0018] & [0026-0029]) – based on the process of forming there will be pores formed during sintering that are open to the conduits and terminate at the conduits).
In regards to claim 11, Karnik ‘580 discloses
The capacitor of claim 1, wherein the electrolyte is in direct physical contact with the dielectric on different particles (fig. 5; [0040], [0072], [0079]).
In regards to claim 12, Karnik ‘580 discloses
The capacitor of claim 11, wherein a portion of the electrolyte located in the conduits is in direct physical contact with the dielectric on different particles (fig. 5; [0040], [0072], [0079]).
In regards to claim 13, Karnik ‘580 discloses
The capacitor of claim 1, wherein the active layer includes sintered particles and the pores provide a tortuous pathway between the particles ([0022]).
In regards to claim 14, Karnik ‘580 discloses
The capacitor of claim 1, wherein the conduits each has a length that is substantially straight in cross section (fig. 1 & 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 5-9, 15-20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or suggest (in combination with the other claim limitations) wherein an average width of the pores is less than 10 µm (claim 2), wherein an average width of the conduits is less than 50 times an average width of the pores (claim 5), wherein the current collector has a flat surface, the conduits each include a terminal end, the active layer contacts the flat surface of the current collector such that a portion of the active layer is located between the terminal ends of the conduits and the flat surface of the current collector (claim 6-7), wherein the conduits extend from a surface of the active layer into the active layer by more than 65% of a thickness of the active layer and less than 100% of the thickness of the active layer, and wherein an average width of the conduits is 2 or more times an average width of the pores (claim 8), wherein the periodic two-dimensional pattern is selected from a group consisting of a hexagonal pattern, a square pattern, and a triangular pattern (claim 9), wherein the a portion of the particles each defines a portion of an interior of one of the conduits and each has the dielectric on the core of the particle such that the core of the particle is exposed to an interior of the conduit (claim 15-16), wherein a ratio of (1) a surface area of the active layer surface that is not occupied by an opening to one of the conduits to (2) a surface area of the active layer that is occupied by the opening to one of the conduits is greater than 20:1 and less than 500:1 (claim 17), wherein the active layer includes particles that each has a dielectric on a core such that the pores are located between the particles, the dielectric including corundum oxide (claim 18-20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10,224,150 – C3:L23-26
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M SINCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5068. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH from 8AM-4PM.
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 J 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.
/David M Sinclair/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights