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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aritomi (US 2022/0189704).
PNG
media_image1.png
350
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Aritoi discloses in fig. 2, a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising (title):
at least one capacitor element (20) including an anode part (3) and a cathode part (7);
an exterior body (9) that has a first end surface (left) at which the anode part (3) is exposed and a second end surface (right) at which the cathode part (7) is exposed, the exterior body (9) scaling the at least one capacitor element (20);
a first external electrode (11) that covers the first end surface (left), the first external electrode (11) including a first conductive paste layer (11b) and being electrically connected to the anode part (3); and
a second external electrode (13) that covers the second end surface, the second external electrode (13) including a second conductive paste layer (13b) and being electrically connected to the cathode part (7),
wherein each of a peripheral edge of the first end surface (left) and a peripheral edge of the second end surface (right) is rounded (Fig. 2, [0048]).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aritomi (US 2022/0189704 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Aritomi discloses the claimed invention except for a thickness of the first conductive paste layer is more than or equal to 10 µm at a portion where a radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the first end surface is minimum, and a thickness of the second conductive paste layer is more than or equal to 10 µm at a portion where a radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface is minimum.
It is well known in the solid electrolytic capacitor art to form a conductive paste layer having a thickness greater than 10 µm on all points of a radius of curvature.
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 the device of Aritomi so that a thickness of the first conductive paste layer is more than or equal to 10 µm at a portion where a radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the first end surface is minimum, and a thickness of the second conductive paste layer is more than or equal to 10 µm at a portion where a radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface is minimum, since such a modification would form an electrode having desired electrical and mechanical properties (resistivity, etc.).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aritomi (US 2022/0189704 A1) in view of Navratil et al. (US 2019/0392996 A1)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Aritomi discloses the claimed invention except for the exterior body includes a filler, and a content of the filler in the exterior body is more than or equal to 70 mass% and less than or equal to 90 mass% with respect to a whole mass of the exterior body (where an elastic modulus of the exterior body at 25°C is more than or equal to 10 GPa and less than or equal to 30 GPa).
.Navratil et al. disclose a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising an exterior body (28), wherein the external body includes a filler and a content of the filler in the exterior body is more than or equal to 70 mass% and less than or equal to 90 mass% with respect to a whole mass of the exterior body [0090] (wherein an elastic modulus of the exterior body at 25°C is more than or equal to 10 GPa and less than or equal to 30 GPa).
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 the solid electrolytic capacitor of Aritomi using the exterior body of Navratil et al., wherein the exterior body includes a filler, and a content of the filler in the exterior body is more than or equal to 70 mass% and less than or equal to 90 mass% with respect to a whole mass of the exterior body (wherein an elastic modulus of the exterior body at 25°C is more than or equal to 10 GPa and less than or equal to 30 GPa), since exterior body materials are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and dielectric 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.
Navratil et al. do not expressly state that the exterior body has an elastic modulus of the exterior body at 25°C is more than or equal to 10 GPa and less than or equal to 30 GPa.
Claim 10 recites a feature that has to be certified with specialized testing equipment, not at the disposal of the Office. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 9 and 10 above, the Navratil et al. reference teaches the claimed exterior body material. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 I states: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Claims were directed to a titanium alloy containing 0.2-0.4% Mo and 0.6-0.9% Ni having corrosion resistance. A Russian article disclosed a titanium alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni but was silent as to corrosion resistance. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated because the percentages of Mo and Ni were squarely within the claimed ranges. The court went on to say that it was immaterial what properties the alloys had or who discovered the properties because the composition is the same and thus must necessarily exhibit the properties.). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971) (Claim 1 was directed to a parachute canopy having concentric circumferential panels radially separated from each other by radially extending tie lines. The panels were separated "such that the critical velocity of each successively larger panel will be less than the critical velocity of the previous panel, whereby said parachute will sequentially open and thus gradually decelerate." The court found that the claim was anticipated by Menget. Menget taught a parachute having three circumferential panels separated by tie lines. The court upheld the rejection finding that applicant had failed to show that Menget did not possess the functional characteristics of the claims.); Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934) (A patent to a pencil for cleaning fingernails was held invalid because a pencil of the same structure for writing was found in the prior art.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 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 solid electrolytic capacitor:
wherein a maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the first end surface is more than or equal to 1.0 times and less than or equal to 1.1 times a minimum radius of curvature of the rounded edge of the first end surface (claim 2);
wherein a maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface is more than or equal to 1.0 times and less than or equal to 1.1 times a minimum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface (claim 3);
wherein the maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the first end surface is more than or equal to 0.95 times and less than or equal to 1.05 times the maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface (claim 4);
wherein the minimum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the first end surface is more than or equal to 0.95 times and less than or equal to 1.05 times the minimum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface (claim 5);
each of a maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the first end surface and a maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface is more than or equal to 0.02 mm and less than or equal to 0.24 mm (claim 6); and
each of a maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the first end surface and a maximum radius of curvature of a rounded edge of the second end surface is more than or equal to 0.0025D and less than or equal to 0.033D, where D is a distance between the first end surface and the second end surface (claim 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0301787 A1 – solid electrolytic capacitor comprising an encapsulant
US 2023/0119320 A1 – solid electrolytic capacitor comprising an encapsulant
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