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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/092,503 in view of Kubo et al. (US Publication 2022/0162404).
In re claim 1, U.S. Application No. 19/092,503 discloses an electrolytic capacitor comprising a capacitor element and a liquid component,
wherein the capacitor element includes an anode foil having an elongated shape, a cathode foil having an elongated shape, a separator having an elongated shape and disposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil, and a first conductive polymer layer and a second conductive polymer layer between the anode foil and the cathode foil (Claim 1),
the anode foil, the cathode foil, and the separator are wound in a longitudinal direction of the elongated shapes to form a wound body (Claim 1),
the anode foil includes a porous portion in which at least a portion of a surface is covered with a dielectric layer (Claim 1),
the cathode foil is arranged opposite the dielectric layer (Claim 1),
the separator contains a fiber material (Claim 1),
the first conductive polymer layer contains a first conductive polymer (Claim 1),
the second conductive polymer layer contains a second conductive polymer (Claim 1), and electrical conductivity of the first conductive polymer layer is lower than electrical conductivity of the second conductive polymer layer (Claim 1).
U.S. Application No. 19/092,503 does not disclose the first conductive polymer layer covers at least a portion of a surface of the dielectric layer in the porous portion, at least a portion of a surface of the cathode foil, and at least a portion of a surface of the fiber material in the separator,
the second conductive polymer layer covers at least a portion of a surface of the first conductive polymer layer.
Kubo discloses the first conductive polymer layer covers at least a portion of a surface of the dielectric layer in the porous portion (¶69, ¶127), at least a portion of a surface of the cathode foil, and at least a portion of a surface of the fiber material in the separator (¶69),
the second conductive polymer layer covers at least a portion of a surface of the first conductive polymer layer (¶107).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the solid electrolyte construction of Kubo to achieve a device having improved ESR characteristics.
U.S Application 19/024,468
U.S. Application 19/092,503
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 11
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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) 1-2, 6-7, AND 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubo et al. (US Publication 2022/0162404).
In re claim 1, Kubo discloses an electrolytic capacitor comprising a capacitor element (10 – Figure 3, ¶178) and a liquid component (¶25),
wherein the capacitor element (10 – Figure 3) includes an anode foil (11 – Figure 4, ¶179) having an elongated shape (Figure 4), a cathode foil (12 – Figure 4, ¶179) having an elongated shape (Figure 4), a separator (13 – Figure 4, ¶179) having an elongated shape and disposed between the anode foil and the cathode foil (Figure 4), and a first conductive polymer layer and a second conductive polymer layer between the anode foil and the cathode foil (¶52-62, ¶74-80),
the anode foil, the cathode foil, and the separator are wound in a longitudinal direction of the elongated shapes to form a wound body (Figure 4, ¶73)),
the anode foil includes a porous portion in which at least a portion of a surface is covered with a dielectric layer (¶39),
the cathode foil (12 – Figure 4) is arranged opposite the dielectric layer (See Figure 4; The cathode is arranged opposite the anode which contains the dielectric layer.),
the separator (13 – Figure 4) contains a fiber material (¶40),
the first conductive polymer layer covers at least a portion of a surface of the dielectric layer in the porous portion (¶69, ¶127), at least a portion of a surface of the cathode foil, and at least a portion of a surface of the fiber material in the separator (¶69),
the second conductive polymer layer covers at least a portion of a surface of the first conductive polymer layer (¶107),
the first conductive polymer layer contains a first conductive polymer (¶98-104),
the second conductive polymer layer contains a second conductive polymer (¶105-107), and electrical conductivity of the first conductive polymer layer is lower than electrical conductivity of the second conductive polymer layer (¶78).
In re claim 2, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 2, as explained above. Kubo further discloses wherein the first conductive polymer layer and the second conductive polymer layer form a conductive path connecting the dielectric layer to the cathode foil (12 – Figure 4) via the separator (13 – Figure 4) (¶190-196, ¶69).
In re claim 6, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1, as explained above. Kubo further discloses wherein both the first conductive polymer and the second conductive polymer include a dopant (¶54, ¶78), and a doping ratio of the dopant in the first conductive polymer is lower than a doping ratio of the dopant in the second conductive polymer (¶78).
In re claim 7, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1, as explained above. Kubo further discloses wherein the first conductive polymer includes a first polymer dopant having a sulfonic acid group (¶54),
the second conductive polymer includes a second polymer dopant having a sulfonic acid group (¶78), and a weight average molecular weight Mw1 of the first polymer dopant is smaller than a weight average molecular weight Mw2 of the second polymer dopant (¶59, ¶78-79).
In re claim 10, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1, as explained above. Kubo further discloses wherein both the first conductive polymer layer and the second conductive polymer layer contain an organic solvent with a boiling point of 150°C or higher (¶58, ¶77),
and a content of the organic solvent in the first conductive polymer layer is lower than a content of the organic solvent in the second conductive polymer layer (¶61, ¶80).
In re claim 11, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1, as explained above. Kubo further discloses wherein the first conductive polymer layer further contains a water-soluble polymer compound (¶54; Note that polyvinyl sulfonic acid is a water-soluble polymer.).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US Publication 2022/0162404) in view of Nobuta et al. (US Publication 2010/0033906).
In re claim 5, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 2, as explained above. Kubo further discloses the second conductive polymer has a higher conductivity than the first conductive polymer (¶78).
Kubo does not disclose wherein a polymerization degree of the first conductive polymer is lower than a polymerization degree of the second conductive polymer.
Nobuta discloses that increasing the degree of polymerization can increase the conductivity of the polymer layer (¶78).
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 polymerization technique of Nobuta to arrive at the conductivity requirements of Kubo to provide for conductive polymers with desired conductivity and improved oxygen barrier properties (¶81: Nobuta), 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).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US Publication 2022/0162404) in view of Hamada et al. (US Patent 6,224,639).
In re claim 6, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1, as explained above. Kubo further discloses wherein both the first conductive polymer and the second conductive polymer include a dopant (¶54, ¶78). Kubo further discloses the second conductive polymer has a higher conductivity than the first conductive polymer (¶78).
Kubo does not explicitly disclose a doping ratio of the dopant in the first conductive polymer is lower than a doping ratio of the dopant in the second conductive polymer.
Hamada discloses a first conductive polymer layer having a lower conductivity than a second conductive polymer layer (col.5 ll.21-26). Hamada further discloses that increasing the dopant amount increases the polymerization rate, and thus results in conductive polymer with higher conductivity (col.5 ll.28-37).
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 dopant as suggested by Hamada to acquire a second conductive polymer having a higher conductivity than a first conductive polymer as required by Kubo, 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 8, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 7, as explained above. Kubo further discloses the first and second conductive polymers include a dopant having a sulfonic acid group (¶54, ¶78).
Kubo does not explicitly disclose wherein a degree of sulfonation of the first polymer dopant is lower than a degree of sulfonation of the second polymer dopant.
Hamada discloses a first conductive polymer layer having a lower conductivity than a second conductive polymer layer (col.5 ll.21-26). Hamada further discloses that increasing the dopant amount increases the polymerization rate, and thus results in conductive polymer with higher conductivity (col.5 ll.28-37).
The combination of Kubo and Hamada discloses a degree of sulfonation of the first polymer dopant is lower than a degree of sulfonation of the second polymer dopant.
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 dopant resulting in a higher degree of polymerization, and thus sulfonation, as suggested by Hamada to acquire a second conductive polymer having a higher conductivity than a first conductive polymer as required by Kubo, 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
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US Publication 2022/0162404) in view of Yoshida et al. (US publication 2010/0165546).
In re claim 9, Kubo discloses the electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1, as explained above. Kubo further discloses the second conductive polymer has a higher conductivity than the first conductive polymer and having a dopant that is a sulfonic group (¶54, ¶78).
Kubo does not disclose wherein both the first conductive polymer layer and the second conductive polymer layer contain an alkaline component, and a content of the alkaline component in the first conductive polymer layer is higher than a content of the alkaline component in the second conductive polymer layer.
Yoshida discloses the addition of an alkaline compound in an electrolyte layer having a sulfonic acid group is correlated to the conductivity of the electrolyte layer (¶168).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the alkaline content of the conductive polymer layers of Kubo to achieve a desired conductivity of the conductive polymer layers, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishimura et al. (US Publication 2012/0212880) Figure 2, Figure 4, [¶46]
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
Prosecution Insights