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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui et al. US 2020/0168404 A1 in view of Takahashi et al. JP H11217487 A.
Table 1: Table 1 of Takahashi ‘487 converted to mass %.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Fukui ‘404 discloses
A solid electrolytic capacitor, comprising: a capacitor element (2 – fig. 1; para. [0040]) including an anode section (6 – fig. 1; para. [0041]) and a cathode section (8 – fig. 1; para. [0041]); an anode lead frame (4 – fig. 1; para. [0040]) connected to the anode section; a cathode lead frame (5– fig. 1; para. [0040]) connected to the cathode section; and a sealing material (3 – fig. 1; para. [0040]) with insulating properties (para. [0040], epoxy is insulating) covering the capacitor element and partially covering each of the anode lead frame and the cathode lead frame (See fig. 1), wherein the capacitor element includes a solid electrolyte (9 – fig. 1; para. [0041]). Fukai ‘404 fails to discloses wherein when 5 g of the sealing material is immersed in 50 cc of water or an aqueous methanol solution having a pH value of 7.0 in a pressure-resistant container, and heated at 121 °C for 24 hours, a pH value of the water or the aqueous methanol solution after the heating is 6.0 or more and 8.1 or less.
Takahashi ‘487 discloses a sealing material with insulating properties for use with electronic components, including capacitors (Para. [0001] and [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sealing material of Takahashi ‘487 as the sealing material of Fukui ‘404 to manufacture a solid electrolytic capacitor having excellent flame retardancy, curability, and cured product properties (Para. [0023] of Takahashi ‘487).
Claim 1 further recites a feature that must be certified with specialized testing equipment, not at the disposal of the Office. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Fukui ‘404 teaches the solid electrolytic capacitor. Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 1 of the present office action, metal hydroxides and metal oxides are contained in ratios that align with the applicant’s present disclosure. Therefore, when 5 g of the sealing material is immersed in 50 cc of water or an aqueous methanol solution having a pH value of 7.0 in a pressure-resistant container, and heated at 121 °C for 24 hours, a pH value of the water or the aqueous methanol solution after the heating is 6.0 or more and 8.1 or less.
When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed 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.).”
Regarding claim 2, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1. Claim 2 further recites a feature that must be certified with specialized testing equipment, not at the disposal of the Office. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, modified Fukui ‘404 teaches the solid electrolytic capacitor. Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 1 of the present office action, metal hydroxides and metal oxides are contained in ratios that align with the applicant’s present disclosure. Therefore, the pH value of the water or the aqueous methanol solution after the heating at 121 °C for 24 hours is 6.5 or more.
When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed 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.).”
Regarding claim 3, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
A solid electrolytic capacitor, comprising: a capacitor element (2 – fig. 1; para. [0040]) including an anode section (6 – fig. 1; para. [0041]) and a cathode section (8 – fig. 1; para. [0041]); an anode lead frame (4 – fig. 1; para. [0040]) connected to the anode section; a cathode lead frame (5– fig. 1; para. [0040]) connected to the cathode section; and a sealing material (3 – fig. 1; para. [0040]) with insulating properties (para. [0040], epoxy is insulating) covering the capacitor element and partially covering each of the anode lead frame and the cathode lead frame (See fig. 1), wherein the capacitor element includes a solid electrolyte (9 – fig. 1; para. [0041]). Fukai ‘404 fails to disclose wherein when the sealing material is immersed in water or an aqueous methanol solution having a pH value of 7.0 in a pressure-resistant container, and heated until components eluted from the sealing material are saturated, a pH value of the water or the aqueous methanol solution after the heating exceeds 7.
Takahashi ‘487 discloses a sealing material with insulating properties for use with electronic components, including capacitors (Para. [0001] and [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sealing material of Takahashi ‘487 as the sealing material of Fukui ‘404 to manufacture a solid electrolytic capacitor having excellent flame retardancy, curability, and cured product properties (Para. [0023] of Takahashi ‘487).
Claim 3 further recites a feature that must be certified with specialized testing equipment, not at the disposal of the Office. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 3 above, modified Fukui ‘404 teaches the solid electrolytic capacitor. Furthermore, as can be seen in Table 1 of the present office action, metal hydroxides and metal oxides are contained in ratios that align with the applicant’s present disclosure. Therefore, when the sealing material is immersed in water or an aqueous methanol solution having a pH value of 7.0 in a pressure-resistant container, and heated until components eluted from the sealing material are saturated, a pH value of the water or the aqueous methanol solution after the heating exceeds 7.
When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed 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.).”
Regarding claim 4, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 1, wherein the sealing material contains a filler, and the filler includes a metal hydroxide (Para. [0013] and Table 1 of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 4, wherein the metal hydroxide includes at least one of magnesium hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide (Paras. [0010], [0013] and Table 1 of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 6, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 4, wherein the filler further includes an inorganic powder other than metal hydroxides (Para. [0013] and Table 1 (silica) of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 7, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 6, wherein the inorganic powder other than metal hydroxides includes a metal oxide (Para. [0013] and Table 1 (silica) of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 8, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 6, wherein in the sealing material, a content ratio of the inorganic powder other than metal hydroxides is higher than a content ratio of the metal hydroxide (Table 1 of Takahashi ‘487 shows fused silica in a much higher content ratio than the metal hydroxide. Also see paras. [0010] and [0013] of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 9, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 7, wherein the metal oxide includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, and zirconium oxide (Para. [0013] and Table 1 (silica) of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 10, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 4, wherein a content ratio of the filler in the sealing material is 80 mass% or more (Paras. [0010] and [0013] of Takahashi ‘487. Table 1 of the present office action).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 3, wherein the sealing material contains a filler, and the filler includes a metal hydroxide (Para. [0013] and Table 1 of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 12, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein the metal hydroxide includes at least one of magnesium hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide (Paras. [0010], [0013] and Table 1 of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 13, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein the filler further includes an inorganic powder other than metal hydroxides (Para. [0013] and Table 1 (silica) of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 14, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 13, wherein the inorganic powder other than metal hydroxides includes a metal oxide (Para. [0013] and Table 1 (silica) of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 15, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 13, wherein in the sealing material, a content ratio of the inorganic powder other than metal hydroxides is higher than a content ratio of the metal hydroxide (Table 1 of Takahashi ‘487 shows fused silica in a much higher content ratio than the metal hydroxide. Also see paras. [0010] and [0013] of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 16, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 14, wherein the metal oxide includes at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, silicon oxide, titanium oxide, and zirconium oxide (Para. [0013] and Table 1 (silica) of Takahashi ‘487).
Regarding claim 17, modified Fukui ‘404 discloses
The solid electrolytic capacitor according to claim 11, wherein a content ratio of the filler in the sealing material is 80 mass% or more (Paras. [0010] and [0013] of Takahashi ‘487. Table 1 of the present office action).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H10214927 A: Para. [0013] and Tables 1-2
US 5005107 A: fig. 1 shows a basic solid electrolytic capacitor
JP 2004169044 A: Para. [0017]
US 20060104006 A1: Para. [0065]
JP 2011054726 A: Para. [0016]
US 20110127694 A1: Para. [0082]
JP H07307254 A: Para. [0008]
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy Torres whose telephone number is (571)272-9896. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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.
/T.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/Timothy J. Dole/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847
