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.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 11-13 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 11, lines 5-6, the limitation, “including a conductive polymer which contacts to at least a conductive polymer” is confusing. Is the second conductive polymer in addition to the conducive polymer already claimed? Should the conductive polymer contact at least the conductive layer?
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, 7, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naraya (US 6,515,847).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
320
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Naraya discloses in fig. 1 and 2, a solid electrolytic capacitor (Fig. 1), comprising:
an anode body (3) formed of valve action metal (3 – C: 7, L: 53) and having dielectric film (10);
a cathode body (2, 9) including cathode foil (2) formed of valve action metal (C: 5, L: 63-67) and a conductive layer (9) formed on the cathode foil (2); and
an electrolyte layer (7, PEDT – C: 7, L: 60-67) intervening between the anode body and the cathode body and including a conductive polymer (7, PEDT – C: 7, L: 60-67) which contacts to at least the conductive layer (9),
wherein the cathode foil has foil capacity of 20 µF/cm² or more (inherent to the claimed cathode foil – the capacitance of the cathode foil is infinite, C: 3, L: 37-40).
Regarding claim 2, Naraya discloses the cathode foil (2) has an etching layer formed by etching pits (8) and dielectric film (not illustrated) formed on a surface of the cathode foil (2).
Naraya teaches in C: 5, L: 5-8 – “The cathode foil to be used may be produced by subjecting an etched aluminum foil to a chemical treatment with an aqueous 0.005 % to 3 % solution of ammonium dihydrogen phosphate at 10 V or less.” This treatment inherently produces an oxide layer on the etched cathode foil. In addition, aluminum spontaneously forms a thin native oxide immediately upon exposure to air.
Regarding claim 7, Naraya discloses the cathode foil has the foil capacity of 250 µF/cm² (inherent to the claimed cathode foil – the capacitance of the cathode foil is infinite, C: 3, L: 37-40).
Regarding claim 11, Naraya discloses a manufacturing method of a solid electrolytic capacitor, comprising:
a cathode body (2) formation process of forming a cathode body by forming a conductive layer (9) on cathode foil (2) formed of valve action metal and with foil capacity of 20 µF/cm² (inherent to the claimed cathode foil – the capacitance of the cathode foil is infinite, C: 3, L: 37-40); and
an electrolyte layer formation (7) process of forming an electrolyte layer intervening between an anode body having dielectric film and the cathode body, and including a conductive polymer (7, PEDT – C: 7, L: 60-67) which contacts to at least a conductive polymer.
Regarding claim 12, Naraya discloses the cathode foil (2) has an etching layer (8) formed by etching pits and dielectric film (not illustrated – see rejection of claim 2 above) formed on a surface of the cathode foil.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fukui et al. (JP 2005-109272 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Naraya (US 6,515,847).
Regarding claim 1, Fukui et al. disclose a solid electrolytic capacitor (title), comprising:
an anode body [0011] formed of valve action metal [0011] and having dielectric film [0011];
a cathode body [0016] including cathode foil [0016] formed of valve action metal [0011] and a conductive layer [0016] formed on the cathode foil [0016]; and
an electrolyte layer [0014] intervening between the anode body [0011] and the cathode body [0016] and including a conductive polymer [0011] which contacts to at least the conductive layer [0014],
wherein the cathode foil has foil capacity of 20 µF/cm² or more (inherent to the cathode foil – see process of forming – [0017], [0023] – 50 µm thick etched film of 2V /chemically converted).
Naraya discloses a cathode foil that has a foil capacity of 20 µF/cm² or more (the capacitance of the cathode foil is infinite, C: 3, L: 37-40).
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 cathode foil of Fukui et al. so that the capacitance of the cathode foil is 20 µF/cm² or more, since such a modification would form a solid electrolytic capacitor having maximum capacitance.
Regarding claim 2, Fukui et al. disclose the cathode foil [0016] has an etching layer [0016] formed by etching pits (from etching) and dielectric film ([0016], “an etching foil which a chemical conversion film is formed on the surface” or natural oxide) formed on a surface of the cathode foil [0016].
Regarding claim 3, Fukui et al. disclose all or a part of the etching pits [0016] have a region where the conductive layer [0016] does not contact at a deep portion thereof.
While Fukui et al. do not expressly state that all or a part of the etching pits have a region where the conductive layer does not contact at a deep portion thereof, it is understood to be an inherent feature. Fukui et al. disclose the claimed process of forming the conductive layer (vapor-deposited on the etched foil layer [0017]). When the structure / process recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 4, Fukui et al. disclose the conductive layer is a vapor-deposited layer at least contacting the cathode foil [0017].
Regarding claim 5, Fukui et al. disclose the conductive layer contains titanium carbide [0016], [0023].
Regarding claim 7, Fukui et al. (Naraya) disclose the cathode foil [0016] has the foil capacity of 250 µF/cm².
Regarding claim 11, Fukui et al. disclose a manufacturing method of a solid electrolytic capacitor (title), comprising:
a cathode body [0016] formation process of forming a cathode body by forming a conductive layer [0016] on cathode foil [0016] formed of valve action metal [0011] and with foil capacity of 20 µF/cm² (inherent to the cathode foil – see process of forming – [0017], [0023] – 50 µm thick etched film of 2V /chemically converted); and
an electrolyte layer formation [0014] process of forming an electrolyte layer intervening between an anode body [0011] having dielectric film [0011] and the cathode body [0016], and including a conductive polymer [0014] which contacts to at least a conductive layer [0016].
Naraya discloses a cathode foil that has a foil capacity of 20 µF/cm² or more (the capacitance of the cathode foil is infinite, C: 3, L: 37-40).
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 cathode foil of Fukui et al. so that the capacitance of the cathode foil is 20 µF/cm² or more, since such a modification would form a solid electrolytic capacitor having maximum capacitance.
Regarding claim 12, Fukui et al. disclose the cathode foil [0016] has an etching layer [0016] formed by etching pits (inherent to the etching process) and dielectric film (chemical conversion film – [0016]) formed on a surface of the cathode foil.
Regarding claims 13-14, 16, and 18, Fukui et al. disclose the conductive layer contains titanium carbide [0016], [0023].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6, 8-10, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui et al. (JP 2005-109272 A) (Naraya (US 6,515,847)) in view of Ishimaru et al. (US 2021/0313119 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 15, 17, and 19, Fukui et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the electrolyte layer is formed so that solution of the conductive polymer or the conductive polymer in dispersion is attached thereto.
Ishimaru et al. disclose a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising an anode foil (24), cathode foil (22) and an electrolyte (13) that is formed so that solution of the conductive polymer or the conductive polymer in dispersion is attached thereto [0118]-[0125].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the electrolyte art to form the solid polymer of Fukui et al. so that the electrolyte layer is formed so that solution of the conductive polymer or the conductive polymer in dispersion is attached thereto, since such a modification would form a high heat resistant solid electrolytic capacitor having high capacitance and low ESR.
Regarding claim 8, Fukui et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the electrolyte layer includes an electrolytic solution.
Ishimaru et al. disclose a solid electrolytic capacitor comprising an electrolytic solution [0064]-[0078], [0127], [0143].
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 Fukui et al. using an electrolytic solution, since such a modification would from an electrolytic capacitor having excellent repairing function.
Regarding claim 9, Ishimaru et al. disclose the electrolytic solution contains ethylene glycol of 25 % or more relative to a total solvent of the electrolytic solution [0143].
Regarding claim 10, Ishimaru et al. disclose the electrolytic solution is formed by both gamma-butyrolactone and sulfolane [0143].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2009/0021894 A1 – teaches using a conductive polymer dispersion process produces a heat resistant solid electrolytic capacitor having high capacitance and low ESR.
US 2006/0023396 A1 – teaches typical cathodes that have 98 % aluminum purity or higher generally have capacitance per unit area of 250 µF/cm2
US 2006/0107506 A1 -- teaches typical cathodes that have 98 % aluminum purity or higher generally have capacitance per unit area of 250 µF/cm2
US 7,715,174 B1 – teaches TiNx coated aluminum cathode having a capacitance of 600 to 800 µF/cm2
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
