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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 500. 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. 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 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) 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16-18 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 Deisenhofer et al. (US 2005/0254196).
PNG
media_image1.png
258
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
234
274
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Deisenhofer et al. disclose a tantalum capacitor comprising:
a tantalum body including a tantalum element (101 – [0042]) including tantalum particles [0042], and a tantalum wire (91, [0042], [0054]) passing through at least a portion of the tantalum element in a first direction (left-right);
a molded portion (71, 72) having fifth (left) and sixth (right) surfaces opposing each other in the first direction, third (front) and fourth (back) surfaces opposing each other in a second direction, and first (top) and second (bottom) surfaces opposing each other in a third direction, the molded portion (71, 72) surrounding the tantalum body;
an anode lead frame (311) connected to the tantalum wire (91);
a cathode lead frame (312) spaced apart from the anode lead frame (311), the cathode lead frame (312) connected to the tantalum body (101); and
a frame terminal (11,12) disposed on the anode lead frame (311) and the cathode lead frame (312) to be spaced apart from the second surface of the molded portion (71 – see fig. 2-3).
Deisenhofer et al. do not specifically state that the tantalum wire passes through at least a portion of the tantalum element.
It is well known in the tantalum capacitor art to form a capacitor where a tantalum wire passes through at least a portion of a tantalum element.
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 wire of Deisenhofer et al. so that it passes at least through at least a portion of the tantalum element, since such a modification would secure the anode lead to the anode terminal.
Regarding claim 2, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the frame terminal includes (11, 12) a connection portion connected to the anode lead frame (311) and the cathode lead frame (312), and
a bent portion (see Fig. 2-3) extending from the connection portion in the first direction (left-right).
Regarding claim 3, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the bent portion is bent
toward an inside of the tantalum capacitor from the connection portion (see Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 4, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the bent portion and the second surface (bottom) of the molded portion (71, 72) are spaced apart from each other (see Fig. 2-3).
.Regarding claim 5, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the connection portion extends from the anode lead frame (311) in the third direction (top-bottom), and the connection portion does not overlap the molded portion (71, 72 – see Fig. 1-3)
Regarding claim 6, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the frame terminal (11,12) has an "L" shape (see fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Deisenhofer et al. disclose each of the frame terminal (11, 12), the anode lead frame (311) , and the cathode lead frame (312) includes the same material [0044].
Regarding claim 10, Deisenhofer et al. disclose at least a portion of the frame
terminal (311, 312) protrudes from the second surface of the molded portion (see Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Deisenhofer et al. disclose a tantalum capacitor comprising:
a tantalum body (101 – [0042]) including a tantalum element [0042] including tantalum particles [0042] and a tantalum wire (91, [0042], [0054]) passing through at least a portion of the tantalum element in a first direction;
a molded portion (71, 72) having fifth (left) and sixth surfaces (right) opposing each other in the first direction (left-right), third (front) and fourth (back) surfaces opposing each other in a second direction, and first (top) and second (bottom) surfaces opposing each other in a third direction, the molded portion (71, 72) surrounding the tantalum body (101);
a anode lead frame (311) connected to the tantalum wire (91);
a cathode lead frame (312) spaced apart from the anode lead frame (311), the cathode lead frame (312) connected to the tantalum body (101); and
a frame terminal (321, 322)having at least a portion protruding from the molded portion (71, 72),
the frame terminal (321, 322) disposed on the anode lead frame (311) and the cathode lead frame (312),
wherein at least a portion of the second surface (bottom) of the molded portion (71, 72) is externally exposed.
Regarding claim 13, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the frame terminal (321, 322) includes a connection portion connected to the anode lead frame (311) and the cathode lead frame (312) , and a bent portion extending from the connection portion in the first direction (left-right).
Regarding claim 14, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the frame terminal (321) and the second surface (322) of the molded portion (71, 72) are spaced apart from each other.
Regarding claim 16, Deisenhofer et al. disclose a board [0013], [0017], [0074] comprising:
a printed circuit board [0013],[0017], [0074] having a plurality of electrode pads (not illustrated but inherent to a printed circuit board) on an upper portion of the printed circuit board [0013], [0017], [0074];
the tantalum capacitor of claim 1 installed on the printed circuit board [0013],[0017], [0074]; and a solder [0013], [0017], [0074] connecting the plurality of electrode pads and the tantalum capacitor to each other.
Regarding claim 17, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the solder [0013], [0017], [0074] is connected (electrically, indirectly, directly) to the frame terminal (11, 12) of the tantalum capacitor (101).
Regarding claim 18, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the frame terminal (11, 12) is disposed between the anode lead frame (311) and the solder [0013], [0017], [0074].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisenhofer et al. (US 2005/0254196).
Regarding claim 9, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the tantalum body (6, 6a) further includes:
a conductive polymer layer disposed on the tantalum element;
a carbon layer disposed on the conductive polymer layer; and
a silver (Ag) layer disposed on the carbon layer.
It is well known in the tantalum capacitor art to form a cathode from a conductive polymer layer disposed on a tantalum element; a carbon layer disposed on the conductive polymer layer; and a silver (Ag) layer disposed on the carbon layer.
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the tantalum capacitor art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the tantalum body to have a cathode, wherein the cathode comprises a conductive polymer layer disposed on the tantalum element; a carbon layer disposed on the conductive polymer layer; and a silver (Ag) layer disposed on the carbon layer, since
Cathode materials are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and electrical 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.
Regarding claim 11, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the claimed invention except for a conductive adhesive layer disposed between the frame terminal and the anode
lead frame and the cathode lead frame.
It is well known in the art to use a conductive adhesive layer that bonds a frame terminal and an anode lead frame and a cathode lead frame.
Lacking unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a conductive adhesive layer disposed between the frame terminal and the anode lead frame and the cathode lead frame, since bonding materials are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and electrical 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deisenhofer et al. (US 2005/0254196) in view of Jung et al. (US 2021/0043391).
Regarding claim 19, Deisenhofer et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the anode lead frame includes a first connection portion and a first bent portion, wherein the first bent portion inclines toward the tantalum body.
Jung et al. disclose an anode lead frame (330) that includes a first connection portion (334) and a first bent portion (331), wherein the first bent portion (331) inclines toward a tantalum body (310).
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 device of Deisenhofer et al. so that the anode lead frame includes a first connection portion and a first bent portion, wherein the first bent portion inclines toward the tantalum body, since such a modification would form a tantalum capacitor having reduced welding stress and defect risk.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are 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: In combination with the other claim limitations, the prior art does not teach or suggest a tantalum capacitor wherein a distance between the frame terminal and the anode lead frame is denoted by g, and a length of the molded portion in the third direction is denoted by a, g/a satisfies 0.1 or more and 0.3 or less (claims 7 and 15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0226071 A1
US 2002/0008957 A1
JP 05-182873 A
JP 2004311471 A
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