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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the punched out edges" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17, line 13, the limitation, “repeating treating the surface with boric acid” is confusing. Is this same “treating the surface with boric acid” step or different?
Claim 17, line 15, the limitation, “reforming and forming the oxide layer” is confusing. Is this in addition to reforming and forming the oxide layer step already claimed?
Claim 17, line 18, insert –polymer electrolytic—before “capacitor”.
Claim 23, line 2, the limitation, “applying a direct current” is confusing. Is this another / different “direct current” as disclosed in claim 17?
Claim 25, line 1, the limitation, “depolarized” is confusing. Is this in addition to the depolarizing step already claimed in claim 17?
Claim 26, line 1, the limitation, “depolarized” is confusing. Is this in addition to the depolarizing step already claimed in claim 17?
Claim 27, lines 1-2, the limitation, “chemical depolarized” is confusing. Is this in addition to the chemical depolarizing step already claimed in claim 17?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 18-31 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 method for manufacturing a polymer electrolytic capacitor, the method comprising reforming the oxide layer and forming the oxide layer at punched out edges by: treating the surface with boric acid comprising oxidizing the surface of the anode foil by using a boric acid solution and applying a direct current of at least 8 mA to the anode foil to heal defects in the oxide layer until a forming voltage is reached; depolarizing the anode foil by heating the anode foil to more than 100 °C; repeating treating the surface with boric acid; chemically depolarizing the anode foil in an ammonium phosphate solution; and repeating treating the surface with boric acid; and impregnating the oxidized anode foil with a polymer electrolyte solution, wherein no other steps are conducted between reforming and forming the oxide layer and impregnating the oxidized anode foil with the polymer electrolyte solution (claim 17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 110959184 A – electrode foil for use in a capacitor comprising hydration process
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
