CTNF 18/950,799 CTNF 87557 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. 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) 1, 3, 11, 14, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chacko (US Publication 2012/0300370) . In re claim 1, Chacko discloses a tantalum capacitor comprising: a tantalum body (12 – Figure 1, ¶36-37, ¶59) including: a tantalum element body including tantalum particles (¶59, ¶74), a conductive polymer layer (combination of 16, 18 – Figure 1, ¶36) disposed on the tantalum element body (Figure 1), the conductive polymer layer including a first filler (¶54), and a tantalum wire (26 – Figure 1, ¶36-37), wherein the first filler is an insulating polymer filler (¶54). In re claim 3, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko further discloses wherein the first filler is a silicone-epoxy copolymer (¶54). In re claim 11, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko further discloses wherein the conductive polymer layer includes poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrene sulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS) (¶61, ¶74-75). In re claim 14, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko further discloses the tantalum body further includes: a carbon layer disposed on the conductive polymer layer; and a silver (Ag) layer disposed on the carbon layer (¶36, ¶75). In re claim 15, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko further discloses a molded portion (30 – Figure 1, ¶36) having fifth and sixth surfaces (left and right surfaces of 30 – Figure 1) opposing each other in a first direction (Figure 1), third and fourth surfaces (surfaces of 30 facing towards and away from viewer – Figure 1) opposing each other in a second direction (Figure 1), and first and second surfaces (top and bottom surfaces of 30 – Figure 1) opposing each other in a third direction (Figure 1), the molded portion surrounding the tantalum body (12 – Figure 1, ¶59); an anode lead frame (28 – Figure 1, ¶36) exposed from the second surface of the molded portion (bottom surface of 30 – Figure 1), the anode lead frame connected to the tantalum wire (26 – Figure 1); and a cathode lead frame (22 – Figure 1, ¶36) spaced apart from the anode lead frame (28 – Figure 1), the cathode lead frame exposed from the second surface of the molded portion (bottom surface of 30 – Figure 1). In re claim 17, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko further discloses wherein the conductive polymer layer (combination of 16, 18 – Figure 1) directly contacts the tantalum element body (12 – Figure 1) (¶59) . 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 5-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chacko (US Publication 2012/0300370) in view of Chacko ‘081 et al. (US Publication 2016/0211081) . In re claim 2, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose wherein the first filler has a core-shell structure. Chacko ‘081 discloses a filler (23 – Figure 1, ¶24) for a solid electrolyte layer (16 – Figure 1, ¶24) has a core-shell structure (¶24). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the core-shell filler material to achieve a device having greater flexibility and increased moisture resistance (¶10, ¶21: Chacko ‘081). In re claim 5, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 3, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose with respect to one cross-section of the conductive polymer layer, a ratio of an area of the first filler to an area of the conductive polymer layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.0976 Chacko ‘081 discloses that adjusting the amount of the core-shell filler is a balance between thermal stress, humidity protection, and total conductivity of the layer (¶42). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the amount of core-shell filler to achieve a device having desired thermal stress, humidity protection, and conductive characteristics, since 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). In re claim 6, Chacko in view of Chacko ‘081 discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 5, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose, wherein, with respect to the one cross-section of the conductive polymer layer, the ratio of the area of the first filler to the area of the conductive polymer layer is 0.00976 to 0.0488. Chacko ‘discloses that adjusting the amount of the core-shell filler is a balance between thermal stress, humidity protection, and total conductivity of the layer (¶42). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the amount of core-shell filler to achieve a device having desired thermal stress, humidity protection, and conductive characteristics, since 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). In re claim 7, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose wherein the first filler is a core-shell rubber. Chacko ‘081 discloses wherein the first filler is a core-shell rubber (¶39). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the core-shell filler material to achieve a device having greater flexibility and increased moisture resistance (¶10, ¶21: Chacko ‘081). In re claim 9, Chacko in view of Chacko ‘081 discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 7, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose with respect to one cross-section of the conductive polymer layer, a ratio of an area of the first filler to an area of the conductive polymer layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.00734. Chacko ‘081 discloses that adjusting the amount of the core-shell filler is a balance between thermal stress, humidity protection, and total conductivity of the layer (¶42). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the amount of core-shell filler to achieve a device having desired thermal stress, humidity protection, and conductive characteristics, since 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). In re claim 10, Chacko in view of Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 9, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose with respect to the one cross-section of the conductive polymer layer, the ratio of the area of the first filler to the area of the conductive polymer layer is 0.00368 to 0.00588. Chacko ‘081 discloses that adjusting the amount of the core-shell filler is a balance between thermal stress, humidity protection, and total conductivity of the layer (¶42). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the amount of core-shell filler to achieve a device having desired thermal stress, humidity protection, and conductive characteristics, since 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chacko (US Publication 2012/0300370) in view of Hong et al. (US Publication 2021/0166886) . In re claim 12, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 1, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose wherein the conductive polymer layer further includes a second filler which is a conductive particle. Hong discloses wherein the conductive polymer layer further includes a second filler which is a conductive particle (¶70). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the secondary filler as described by Hong to adjust the ESR characteristics of the device toa desired level (¶70: Hong). In re claim 13, Chacko in view of Hong discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 12, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose wherein the conductive particle includes at least one from the group consisting of graphene, carbon nanotubes, and black carbon. Hong discloses wherein the conductive particle includes at least one from the group consisting of graphene, carbon nanotubes, and black carbon (¶70). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the secondary filler as described by Hong to adjust the ESR characteristics of the device toa desired level (¶70: Hong) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chacko (US Publication 2012/0300370) . In re claim 16, Chacko discloses the tantalum capacitor of claim 3, as explained above. Chacko does not disclose wherein the conductive polymer layer includes the first filler in an amount that is greater than 0 wt% and less than or equal to 10 wt%, based on a total weight of the conductive polymer layer. However, Chacko discloses adjusting the amount of the filler material is a balance between effective blocking of moisture migration and conductivity (¶54). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the amount of core-shell filler to achieve a device having desired moisture impermeability characteristics and conductive characteristics, since 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) . Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4 is 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the first filler includes a core that includes the epoxy portion and a silicone portion covering the epoxy. Claim 8 is 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the core of the first filler includes at least one from the group consisting of butadiene rubber, acrylic rubber, and silicone rubber, and a shell of the first filler includes at least one of methyl methacrylate and styrene. Claim 18 is 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the shell includes methyl methacrylate. Claim 19 is 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 prior art does not teach nor suggest (in combination with other claim limitations) the shell includes styrene. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Noh et al. (US Publication 2002/0042002) Claim 12 Hong et al. (US Publication 2023/0215663) Claim 1 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUN RAMASWAMY whose telephone number is (571)270-1962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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. /ARUN RAMASWAMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 2 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 3 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 4 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 5 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 6 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 7 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 8 Art Unit: 2847 Application/Control Number: 18/950,799 Page 9 Art Unit: 2847
Prosecution Insights